English-Medium Instruction in Japanese Higher Education: Policy, Challenges and Outcomes 9781783098958

Citation preview

English-Medium Instruction in Japanese Higher Education

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS Series Editors: John Edwards, St. Francis Xavier University, Canada and Dalhousie University, Canada and Leigh Oakes, Queen Mary, University of London, UK. Multilingual Matters series publishes books on bilingualism, bilingual education, immersion education, second language learning, language policy, multiculturalism. The editor is particularly interested in ‘macro’ level studies of language policies, language maintenance, language shift, language revival and language planning. Books in the series discuss the relationship between language in a broad sense and larger cultural issues, particularly identity related ones. Full details of all the books in this series and of all our other publications can be found on http://www.multilingual-matters.com, or by writing to Multilingual Matters, St Nicholas House, 31–34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK.

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS: 168

English-Medium Instruction in Japanese Higher Education Policy, Challenges and Outcomes

Edited by Annette Bradford and Howard Brown

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS Bristol • Blue Ridge Summit

DOI 10.21832/BRADFO8941 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Library of Congress Control Number 2017023804 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue entry for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN-13: 978-1-78309-894-1 (hbk) Multilingual Matters UK: St Nicholas House, 31–34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK. USA: NBN, Blue Ridge Summit, PA, USA. Website: www.multilingual-matters.com Twitter: Multi_Ling_Mat Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/multilingualmatters Blog: www.channelviewpublications.wordpress.com Copyright © 2018 Annette Bradford, Howard Brown and the authors of individual chapters. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher. The policy of Multilingual Matters/Channel View Publications is to use papers that are natural, renewable and recyclable products, made from wood grown in sustainable forests. In the manufacturing process of our books, and to further support our policy, preference is given to printers that have FSC and PEFC Chain of Custody certification. The FSC and/or PEFC logos will appear on those books where full certification has been granted to the printer concerned. Typeset by Nova Techset Private Limited, Bengaluru and Chennai, India. Printed and bound in the UK by the CPI Books Group Ltd. Printed and bound in the US by Edwards Brothers Malloy, Inc.

Contents

Contributors Abbreviations Introduction: English-Medium Instruction in Japanese Higher Education Annette Bradford and Howard Brown

ix xv xvii

Section 1: English-Medium Instruction in Context 1

ROAD-MAPPING English-Medium Instruction in Japan Annette Bradford and Howard Brown

2

Government Policy Driving English-Medium Instruction at Japanese Universities: Responding to a Competitiveness Crisis in a Globalizing World Hiroko Hashimoto

3

Recent Government Policy and its Impact on English-Medium Instruction: Why this Time may be Different Bern Mulvey

3

14

32

Section 2: The Implementation of English-Medium Instruction in Japan 4

Development of English-Medium Instruction as a Key for Internationalizing Curricula in Japan Hiroyuki Takagi

51

5

A Pebble that Creates Great Waves? Global 30 Classes and Internationalization of the Student Body Beverley Anne Yamamoto and Yukiko Ishikura

71

v

vi

English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japanese Higher Educat ion

Section 3: Challenges and Solutions for English-Medium Instruction in Japan 6

Administrative Impediments: How Bureaucratic Practices Obstruct the Implementation of English-Taught Programs in Japan Gregory Poole

7

How Accessible are English-Taught Programs? Exploring International Admissions Procedures Hiroshi Ota and Kiyomi Horiuchi

108

8

A Marketing Perspective on English-Medium Instruction at Universities in Japan Sarah Louisa Birchley

130

91

Section 4: The Student and Faculty Experience 9

Accepting Neighboring Englishes: Investigating the Attitudes and Preconceptions of English-Medium Instruction Students at an International University in Japan Christopher G. Haswell

149

10 Center Stage but Invisible: International Students in an English-Taught Program Juanita Heigham

161

11 Gender in English-Medium Instruction Programs: Differences in International Awareness? Sae Shimauchi

180

12 A Tale of Two Classes: From EFL CBI to ELF EMI Bernard Susser 13 Faculty Training for Non-Native Speakers of English at Japanese Universities: Effective English-Medium Teaching for a Culturally Diversified Student Population Miki Horie

195

207

Section 5: Curriculum Contexts 14 Factors for Success and Sustainability of an Elective English-Medium Instruction Program Bethany Mueller Iyobe and Jia Li

225

Content s

vii

15 Making the EFL to ELF Transition in English-Medium Instruction at a Global Traction University Jim McKinley

238

16 Features, Challenges and Prospects of a Science and Engineering English-Taught Program Nílson Kunioshi and Harushige Nakakoji

250

Section 6: Future Directions for English-Medium Instruction 17 The Future of English-Medium Instruction in Japan Akira Kuwamura 18 Final Thoughts: Have We Seen This Before? The Information Technology Parallel Annette Bradford and Howard Brown Index

265

283 289

Contributors

Sarah Louisa Birchley has a doctorate from the University of Bath and is an associate professor in the Faculty of Business Administration, Toyo Gakuen University, where she teaches courses in organizational behavior, professional skills and management. Sarah is also deputy director of the International Exchange Center, responsible for managing inbound and outbound programs. Her research focus is educational management, specifically the marketing of higher education, human resource management and organizational behavior in higher education. Annette Bradford is an associate professor in the School of Business Administration at Meiji University, teaching courses focused on enhancing students’ international competencies. Previously, she held a Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellowship in Japan and taught at universities in Japan, the United States and Indonesia. Her research on the internationalization of higher education, particularly English-medium instruction, student exchange and education policy can be found in publications such as the Journal of Studies in International Education and International Higher Education. Howard Brown heads the Academic Communicative English Program and is coordinator of EMI programs at the University of Niigata Prefecture. His research focuses on best practices for curriculum planning and program design in English-medium instruction, and the relationship between Englishmedium instruction and English for academic purposes. He has been involved in language education for more than 25 years with extensive experience as a teacher, teacher trainer and administrator in high schools and private language schools, and at universities in Canada, Turkey and Japan. Hiroko Hashimoto retired from Monash University in Melbourne, Australia in 2015 after doing research on international education, supporting student exchange between Monash and Japanese partner universities, and teaching Japanese there for 25 years. Her research focused on issues surrounding international students, studying abroad and university internationalization. ix

x English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japanese Higher Educat ion

Hiroko now extends her interest to a wider range of areas, and is involved in volunteer activities, including those at two museums in Kyoto, Japan. Christopher G. Haswell is an associate professor in the Faculty of Languages and Cultures at Kyushu University. He has been working and researching in Japanese universities for the past 10 years in the field of Asian sociolinguistics, investigating the internationalization of Japanese universities and the use of English in Japanese higher education. He appreciates opportunities to work with other researchers in the field. Juanita Heigham is an associate professor at Nagoya University of Foreign Studies where she is co-coordinator of the MA TESOL program, an Englishtaught program with over 70% international student enrollment. Her research interests include English-medium instruction program design, teacher development and international student satisfaction. Miki Horie is a professor of international education at Ritsumeikan University and a principal of Ritsumeikan Primary and Junior High School. Her research focuses on internationalization of higher education and intercultural learning. Miki also heads the BRIDGE Institute, an independent organization of international education facilitators. She received a PhD in Educational Policy and Administration in 2003 and the Distinguished Leadership Award for Internationals in 2009 from the University of Minnesota. Kiyomi Horiuchi is a student of the Graduate School of Higher Education Administration at J.F. Oberlin University in Tokyo. After having served as a news writer at the Japan Broadcasting Corporation (NHK), he worked as an administrative staff member at Aoyama Gakuin University (2005–2010) and Tokyo International University (2011–2016). He obtained his MBA from Tama University in 2014, and a BA in Comparative Culture from Sophia University in 1996. Yukiko Ishikura is an assistant professor on special appointment at the Global Admissions Office, Osaka University. Over the past three years, she has been involved with the Global 30 Human Sciences International Undergraduate Program from two different perspectives: as a teaching assistant and as a doctoral student researching English-medium programs. Her research interests lie in the field of internationalization of higher education, university admissions, student teaching and learning. Bethany Mueller Iyobe, currently an assistant professor in the ESL Program at Duquesne University in the United States, has over 10 years of teaching experience at Japanese universities. Her research activities have focused on the development of EMI in Japanese higher education and curriculum design

Contr ibutors

xi

for content and language integrated learning and English-medium instruction courses. Nílson Kunioshi is a professor in the Faculty of Science and Engineering of Waseda University. He teaches courses related to physical chemistry and to the writing of research articles, while conducting research on the simulation of chemical reactions and the role of language in science education. During the period from 2010 to 2014, he participated actively in the implementation of Waseda University’s science and engineering English-taught program. Akira Kuwamura is an associate professor for international education and exchange at Aichi Prefectural University where he has engaged in international program development since the opening of its international office in 2011. His areas of interest include internationalization of higher education, English-medium instruction, student mobility, second language teaching and learning, and sociolinguistics. He has been a language and international educator and administrator at various levels in Japan and the United States since the late 1980s. Jia Li is working for the Faculty of International Studies and Regional Development, University of Niigata Prefecture as an associate professor. She holds a PhD in International Development from Nagoya University (2008). Her main research interests include globalization and economic liberalization, and their impacts on Asian developing countries. Jim McKinley is a lecturer in applied linguistics at the University of Bath. He previously taught for more than 15 years at the University of Sydney and Sophia University in Tokyo. He is a co-editor of Doing Research in Applied Linguistics (2017), and has published in journals such as RELC, The Journal of Asia TEFL, Critical Inquiry in Language Teaching and Language Learning in Higher Education. Bern Mulvey was dean of faculty at Miyazaki International College for three years, at the time the youngest dean in Japan and one of just three non-Japanese to hold this rank at a Japanese university. He was also the first non-Japanese administrator in the 120-year history of Iwate National University. He has an extensive publication record, with significant contributions in diverse fields and genres. He is currently a professor at Iwate Prefectural University. Harushige Nakakoji is a part-time lecturer at Sophia University in Tokyo. He is pursuing his doctorate in the Department of English and American Studies at the University of Vienna. Previously, he taught English at Bunkyo University and Tsukuba University of Technology, and at a private high

xii

English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japanese Higher Educat ion

school in Japan. His research interests include English-medium instruction, content and language integrated learning, classroom discourse analysis, English as a lingua franca, and sociolinguistics. Hiroshi Ota is a professor in the Center for Global Education at Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo, where he is also director of the Hitotsubashi University Global Education Program (an EMI program). Prior to his current position, he worked for the Office of International Education at State University of New York (SUNY) at Buffalo, and Toyo University, Tokyo. From SUNY at Buffalo, Hiroshi received his EdM in 2001 and PhD in Social Foundations of Education in 2008. Gregory Poole is a professor of sociocultural anthropology at the Institute for the Liberal Arts, Doshisha University. His research interests are in the anthropology of education, language and Japan and his publications include the monograph, The Japanese Professor: An Ethnography of a University Faculty (2010), as well as two recent co-edited volumes, Reframing Diversity in the Anthropology of Japan (2015) and Foreign Language Education in Japan: Exploring Qualitative Approaches (2015). Sae Shimauchi is a postdoctoral research fellow at the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. She also teaches at Yokohama City University and International Christian University. Her major fields of research are internationalization of higher education, global education, gender in education and global human resource development. She published her first book, Paradigm Shift on International Student Mobility in East Asia: Comparative Analysis on Internationalization in Higher Education and English-medium Degree Programs in Japan and South Korea, in 2016. Bernard Susser is a professor emeritus of Doshisha Women’s College. He has taught premodern Japanese history in the USA and English in Japan at all levels. As an administrator, he has served as department chair and head of his university’s international exchange center. He has published research on second language writing instruction, computer-assisted language learning, extensive reading, content-based language instruction and Englishmedium instruction. Hiroyuki Takagi is an associate professor in the Center for International Education, Kobe University. He is the academic coordinator of the Programme for European Studies and the Masters double degree programs offered in cooperation with European universities. His research interests include the internationalization of university curricula. He is currently carrying out research on quality assurance of double degree programs between Japanese and European universities from the perspective of students’ experiences.

Contr ibutors

xiii

Beverley Anne Yamamoto is a professor of transformative education in the Graduate School of Human Sciences, Osaka University. Beverley received her PhD in East Asian Studies from the University of Sheffield and has published in Japanese and English on education, health, sexuality, gender and multiculturalism. She recently contributed to two related volumes: Cosmopolitan Perspectives on Academic Leadership in Higher Education (2017) and Access to Higher Education: Theoretical Perspectives and Contemporary Challenges (2017). She is director of the Human Sciences International Undergraduate Program and associate director of the International College.

Abbreviations

C1 CBI CLIL EAP EFL ELF ELT EMI ESP ETP FD G30 GELT HE HEI ICL ICLHE IDC JALT JASSO JMI JSPS JTP L1 L2 MEXT NAFSA NES NEST NNES NNEST STEM TESOL TGU

first culture content-based instruction content and language integrated learning English for academic purposes English as a foreign language English as a lingua franca English language teaching English-medium instruction English for specific purposes English-taught program faculty development Global 30 global Englishes language teaching higher education higher education institution integrating content and language integrating content and language in higher education intercultural development continuum Japan Association for Language Teaching Japan Student Services Organization Japanese-medium instruction Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Japanese-taught program first language second language Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Association of International Educators native English speaker native English-speaking teacher non-native English speaker non-native English-speaking teacher science, technology, engineering and mathematics teaching English as a second or other language Top Global University xv

Introduction: English-Medium Instruction in Japanese Higher Education Annette Bradford and Howard Brown

Universities around the world are seeking to become more domestically and internationally competitive in an increasingly fierce global higher education market. As a result, over the past three decades they have increased and diversified their international activities. Japanese universities are no exception. Domestic competition among higher education institutions (HEIs) in Japan has been increasing owing to a low domestic birth rate and quasimarket higher education reforms in recent years (Goodman, 2005; Kinmonth, 2005; Tsuruta, 2006). In terms of international competition, Japanese universities are striving to become world-class and secure top places in international ranking schemes by enhancing the quality of their research and teaching (Ishikawa, 2009; Yonezawa, 2011). It is therefore becoming crucial for Japanese HEIs to internationalize and take advantage of international student, faculty and researcher mobility, both to compensate for the shrinking market of domestic students and to sustain research capacities. Englishmedium instruction (EMI) is one way to do this. Universities in non-English-dominant countries worldwide are increasing their use of English for teaching and learning. English has become the language of international cooperation and competition and increased English use in higher education enables universities whose home language is not widely studied or spoken abroad to promote cross-border student mobility and international partnerships with foreign institutions, as well as to participate in international research endeavors and widely circulate academic publications. In turn, HEIs are able to boost their positions in international ranking schemes (Hazelkorn, 2015) and develop a reputation for internationalism and academic rigor in the domestic market. For the most part, language learning is regarded as of secondary importance to internationalization as a rationale for introducing EMI (Smit & Dafouz, 2012). The global growth of EMI has been likened to that of an ‘unstoppable train’ (Macaro, 2015: 7). Driven by the Bologna Process, the number of xvii

xviii

English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japanese Higher Educat ion

European bachelor and master degrees taught in English rose more than 1000% from 725 to a remarkable 8089 between 2001 and 2014 (Wächter & Maiworm, 2014). In East Asia, EMI is also burgeoning, with multiple government and institutional policies underpinning its development in South Korea, Taiwan, China and Japan (Bradford, 2015; Kirkpatrick, 2014). Currently, over one-third of Japan’s nearly 800 universities offer EMI (MEXT, 2015) with a rising number of both international and domestic students studying at least part of their degree in English. EMI is seen in a range of institutions from small private universities to government-funded local (or municipal) public universities and to large, prestigious national research universities. However, in contrast to Europe, full-degree English-taught programs (ETPs) are fairly rare in Japan. Undergraduate students can earn an entire degree in English at just over 30 universities and approximately 70 campuses offer graduate ETPs. For the most part, EMI programs in Japan are short-term or make up part of a predominantly Japanese-medium degree program.

Terminological Considerations Before embarking upon any discussion of EMI, it is worth taking a moment to consider the range of terminology used to describe instruction carried out via a language which is non-dominant, or foreign, to the context within which the instruction occurs. This volume focuses on EMI – Englishmedium instruction – in Japanese universities, and uses the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) definition. EMI refers to courses conducted entirely in English, excluding those whose primary purpose is language education (MEXT, 2015). Thus, EMI refers to the teaching of academic content through English in classes that do not focus on language teaching or learning goals. As the term EMI is relatively new, there is not yet a universally accepted definition (Dearden, 2014). Research literature referring to the teaching of academic content through a foreign language may also use the terms Content and Language Integrated Learning, or CLIL (cf. Coyle, 2007), Integrating Content and Language in Higher Education, or ICLHE (cf. Wilkinson & Walsh, 2014), Content-based Instruction, or CBI (cf. Brinton et al., 1989), and Integrating Content and Language, or ICL (cf. Wilkinson, 2004). Some literature (e.g. Doiz et al., 2011) may use two or more of these terms interchangeably. However, in our view, the terms CLIL, ICLHE and CBI all incorporate, to differing extents, explicit language teaching goals along with the teaching of content and should not be used interchangeably with EMI. Therefore, this volume uses EMI to identify courses and programs delivered through English with no consideration to establishing language learning goals. When language learning aims are present in the programs under discussion in the following chapters, each author introduces the term that best suits their specific case.

Introduc t ion

xix

About this Book While the broader issues of education reform and internationalization of higher education in Japan have gained attention in the literature, less is known about the role that English is playing as a medium of instruction. This book aims to fill that gap by providing insights into EMI in Japanese higher education. It locates EMI within Japan’s current policy context, describes the impacts and challenges of EMI and examines the experiences of its stakeholders. This volume appears at a time when government policies and funding initiatives have specifically called for universities to introduce more content taught in English. Yet many of the institutions in Japan embarking on this new programming have little or no prior experience with EMI and are struggling to find best practices for implementation. This book provides a touchstone for higher education practitioners and policy-makers, enabling them to more clearly understand why EMI policies are in place, how EMI is being enacted, what challenges exist and how they have been overcome, and what the impacts of EMI may be. This volume brings together scholars and practitioners who have direct involvement with EMI in Japanese higher education and who look at EMI from the perspectives of policy planning, program design, marketing and classroom practice. Via various approaches and methods that include policy analysis, participant observation, autoethnography, case study and interview, the authors highlight the policies driving current EMI growth and the impacts that EMI is having on universities in Japan. They also discuss the challenges that institutions face in implementing EMI and examine the experiences of students and faculty. Many of the chapters are based on primary research covering a range of institutions and institutional stakeholders to provide a thorough representation of EMI in Japan. A special section entitled ‘Curriculum Contexts’ contains short case studies which draw attention to specific EMI practices at three universities. The curriculum contexts section will be of particular value to those new to EMI program design and implementation. However, the book will also benefit those with more EMI experience by providing an in-depth examination of the under-researched Japanese situation. The book is organized into six main sections. The first section, ‘EnglishMedium Instruction in Context,’ examines the social and policy environment that has allowed the rapid expansion of EMI in Japan. In Chapter 1, the editors, Annette Bradford and Howard Brown, paint a picture of the current state of EMI using Dafouz and Smit’s (2014) ROAD-MAPPING framework. We look at the role and position of English in EMI, the global and local drivers of EMI development, and the policies and agents that are shaping its growth. Although expanding rapidly, EMI is not yet fully embedded in the fabric of higher education in Japan. Next, in Chapters 2 and 3,

xx English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japanese Higher Educat ion

Hiroko Hashimoto and Bern Mulvey address government education policy and its implications for EMI. Hashimoto describes the evolution of government policy regarding EMI starting in the 1990s. She shows how a sense of crisis about Japan’s competitive position in the world is motivating the development of EMI and discusses how issues with the policies themselves may hinder its qualitative growth. Then, Mulvey examines the changing relationship between universities and the government. He argues that current efforts to promote EMI and the wider internationalization of higher education are made possible only by an unprecedented shift in the power balance between universities and MEXT. Section 2 of the book, ‘The Implementation of English-Medium Instruction in Japan,’ looks at how programs are planned and developed. In Chapter 4, Hiroyuki Takagi situates several EMI courses and programs developed by two universities in relation to the internationalization of the curriculum. He finds that EMI in Japan is shifting from a focus on international students to more of an internationalization-at-home model, as universities develop EMI programs that encourage interaction of local and international students. In Chapter 5, Beverley Yamamoto and Yukiko Ishikura explore how an ETP can develop and find its place in the university community. Despite early criticisms of the ETPs developed as part of the government’s Global 30 Project for funding internationalization in higher education, they show that, with careful planning and attention to the students’ experiences, EMI programs can provide a meaningful education and avoid isolation and the segregation of international students. Section 3, ‘Challenges and Solutions for English-Medium Instruction in Japan,’ comprises three contributions that deal with some of the difficulties facing EMI stakeholders. Chapter 6 by Gregory Poole discusses institutional identity and administrative culture as impediments to EMI implementation. Through vignettes culled from his own experience, Poole outlines the conflict between the macro-level forces driving EMI and internationalization and the micro-level issues of institutional identity that limit possible transformations of higher education in Japan. He asks if the present model of university administration is sufficient to respond to EMI programs. In Chapter 7, Hiroshi Ota and Kiyomi Horiuchi analyze the accessibility of Japanese universities’ ETPs for foreign students. They show that ETPs, while supposedly intended to attract top-quality international students, are in fact creating barriers to entry through their admissions policies and procedures. This reinforces EMI’s peripheral position and limits its ability to foster widespread internationalization across the university. Sarah Louisa Birchley explains in Chapter 8 that EMI programs are often developed in isolation without university-wide consensus on goals or identity, resulting in peripheral programs that fail to reach their full potential. She argues that universities in Japan could benefit from taking a closer look at how they market their EMI programs, both to external stakeholders and within the university

Introduc t ion

xxi

community, in order to develop a shared sense of the role of EMI and increased student satisfaction. In Section 4, ‘The Student and Faculty Experience,’ the authors consider student participation and the roles and opinions of faculty members in EMI. Chapter 9 by Christopher Haswell focuses on how Asian varieties of English are perceived by domestic and international EMI students in Japan. He shows that, despite interacting with mainly Asian speakers of English, both classmates and faculty members, EMI students at an international university maintain a strong preference for native-speaker norms. Such opinions may cause stress in the EMI classroom and have the potential to negatively affect the success of programs. Juanita Heigham looks at the broader campus experience in Chapter 10, examining the sometimes dichotomous experience of non-Japanese-speaking international EMI students as an essential and yet invisible and unheard component of internationalization programs. These students are invaluable to ETPs, but find that their needs often go unnoticed, leaving them feeling disenchanted and unconnected to their university. Heigham argues that addressing international student dissatisfaction is fundamental to creating truly internationalized universities. In Chapter 11, Sae Shimauchi presents a study of gender differences in the international outlook of EMI students. She finds that, while male and female students’ motivations for joining EMI programs do not differ, there is a strong gender imbalance within the programs, with female students participating in EMI at a much greater rate than male students. She also finds that experiences in EMI seem to have reinforced dualistic notions of Japan vs the international other, but only among male students. In Chapter 12, Bernard Susser changes the focus from students to faculty and uses autoethnography to explore his own journey as a faculty member transitioning from language teaching to EMI. Increasing numbers of foreign-born language instructors in Japan are beginning to teach EMI courses, but this raises interesting questions about their qualifications and their understandings of specialist-level content knowledge and disciplinary norms. Susser concludes that it is crucial for faculty members to change their ways of thinking and perceptions of student needs as they become cognizant of the new demands of the EMI classroom. Miki Horie reports on the training needs of EMI faculty in Chapter 13. She argues that domestic faculty are not well supported in EMI courses and outlines barriers that prevent them from taking on the new challenge of teaching in English. Beyond language proficiency training, many EMI faculty need support as they develop new pedagogical skills and learn how to foster positive interactions in multicultural classrooms. Section 5 of the book, ‘Curriculum Contexts,’ shifts gear away from policy and research questions and highlights specific EMI practices at three universities around Japan. Bethany Mueller Iyobe and Jia Li (Chapter 14) draw attention to the importance of integration and cooperation in a small EMI program. They show that, for a newly forming EMI program to

xxii

English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japanese Higher Educat ion

succeed, communication and collaboration between language and content faculty is a must. They also demonstrate that, in order to be able to take advantage of the program, students need more, rather than less, exposure to EMI. Chapter 15 by Jim McKinley looks at how an established EMI program is transforming in light of a new understanding of the role of English. He argues that widespread adoption of EMI will necessitate a change in attitude to see students as owners of English, with their own agency and identity as global English users, rather than as imperfect copies of a native-speaker model. McKinley shows that a range of courses that cover a spectrum of classroom practices are on offer at this particular university. In Chapter 16, Nílson Kunioshi and Harushige Nakakoji profile how EMI is being implemented for science and engineering students at a top tier university. They show that EMI programs for international students face not only linguistic and pedagogical challenges, but also have serious administrative and logistical issues that need to be addressed. In Section 6, ‘Future Directions for English-Medium Instruction,’ we wrap up the book with a look at where EMI might go from here. In Chapter 17, Akira Kuwamura unpacks the key questions that need to be considered if EMI is going to become a part of mainstream higher education in Japan. He looks at both ethical and practical objections to EMI that have been raised in the literature and discusses how these issues can be addressed as EMI becomes more widespread. And in the final chapter, the editors, Annette Bradford and Howard Brown, take a look back at an earlier example of innovation and reform in Japanese higher education. Building upon the themes highlighted in this volume, we draw out parallels with the current trend toward the internationalization of higher education and the adoption of information technology by universities in Japan in the 1990s. By looking at how reform has been handled in the past, perhaps we can catch a glimpse of the future of EMI.

References Bradford, A. (2015) Internationalization policy at the genba: Exploring the implementation of social science English-taught undergraduate degree programs in three Japanese universities. EdD dissertation, The George Washington University. Brinton, D.M., Snow, M.A. and Wesche, M. (1989) Content-Based Second Language Instruction. New York: Newbury House. Coyle, D. (2007) Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 10 (5), 543–562. Dearden, J. (2014) English as a Medium of Instruction – A Growing Global Phenomenon. London: British Council. Goodman, R. (2005) W(h)ither the Japanese university? An introduction to the 2004 higher education reforms in Japan. In J.S. Eades, R. Goodman and Y. Hada (eds) The ‘Big Bang’ in Japanese Higher Education: The 2004 Reforms and the Dynamics of Change (pp. 1–31). Melbourne: Trans Pacific Press.

Introduc t ion

xxiii

Hazelkorn, E. (2015) Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education: The Battle for WorldClass Excellence (2nd edn). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Ishikawa, M. (2009) University rankings, global models, and emerging hegemony: Critical analysis from Japan. Journal of Studies in International Education 13 (2), 159–173. Kinmonth, E.H. (2005) From selection to seduction: The impact of demographic change on private higher education in Japan. In J.S. Eades, R. Goodman and Y. Hada (eds) The ‘Big Bang’ in Japanese Higher Education: The 2004 Reforms and the Dynamics of Change (pp. 106–135). Melbourne: Trans Pacific Press. Kirkpatrick, A. (2014) English as a medium of instruction in East and Southeast Asian universities. In N. Murray and A. Scarino (eds) Dynamic Ecologies: A Relational Perspective on Languages Education in the Asia-Pacific Region (pp. 15–29). Dordrecht: Springer. Macaro, E. (2015) English medium instruction: Time to start asking some difficult questions. Modern English Teacher 24 (2), 4–7. MEXT (2015) Heisei 25 nendo no daigaku ni okeru kyouiku naiyoutou no kaikaku joukyou ni tsuite [About the state of affairs regarding university reforms to education in 2013]. See http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/daigaku/04052801/__icsFiles/ afieldfile/2015/09/10/1361916_1.pdf Smit, U. and Dafouz, E. (2012) Integrating content and language in higher education: An introduction to English-medium policies, conceptual issues and research across Europe. AILA Review 25, 1–12. Tsuruta, Y. (2006) Transnational Higher Education in Japan (pp. 59–89). RIHE International Publication Series 10. Wächter, B. and Maiworm, F. (eds) (2014) English-Taught Programmes in European Higher Education: The State of Play in 2014. ACA Papers on International Cooperation in Education. Bonn: Lemmens. Wilkinson, R. (ed.) (2004) Integrating Content and Language: Meeting the Challenge of a Multilingual Higher Education. Maastricht: Universitaire Pers Maastricht. Wilkinson, R. and Walsh, M.L. (eds) (2014) Integrating Content and Language in Higher Education: From Theory to Practice. Selected Papers from the 2013 ICLHE Conference. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Yonezawa, A. (2011) The internationalization of Japanese higher education: Policy debates and realities. In S. Marginson, S. Kaur and E. Sawir (eds) Higher Education in the Asia-Pacific: Strategic Responses to Globalization (pp. 329–342). Dordrecht: Springer.

Section 1 English-Medium Instruction in Context

1

ROAD-MAPPING EnglishMedium Instruction in Japan Annette Bradford and Howard Brown

Japan is in the midst of a rapid, though largely uncoordinated, growth in English-medium instruction (EMI) in higher education institutions. In some respects, this parallels trends in Europe and elsewhere. However, Japan is also forging its own path toward the use of English as a tool for teaching academic content. The compulsory use of English seen in some parts of Asia is not present in the Japanese context and degree programs carried out entirely in English (English-taught programs, or ETPs) are much rarer than in Europe. There is a great deal of variation in the implementation of EMI in Japan and a lack of explicit information about how and why such programs and classes are being implemented by universities. As the use of EMI has increased in countries where English has not traditionally been the common language of higher education, the number of research publications addressing issues surrounding it has grown. They examine such topics as policies governing EMI, the language demands that EMI places on its stakeholders, and pedagogical dilemmas relating to the relationship between teaching language and academic content (see for example, Dearden, 2014; Dimova et al., 2015; Doiz et al., 2013). This research has a wide range of foci stemming from a variety of disciplines, such as applied linguistics, international education, literacy, and management studies, and is situated in many different complex EMI settings. In response to the fragmented perspectives offered by current EMI research, Dafouz and Smit (2014) developed a conceptual framework for describing, analyzing and comparing EMI within and across contexts. Their ROAD-MAPPING framework is based upon what Dafouz and Smit (2014) identify to be six ‘core dimensions that operate dynamically across higher education institutions’ that use English (or any other additional language) as a means of instruction (p. 2). These six dimensions are: Roles of English (RO), Academic Disciplines (AD), (language) Management (M), Agents (A), Practices and Processes (PP) and Internationalization and Glocalization (ING), which together form the acronym ROAD-MAPPING. The dimensions overlap and intersect with each other and are actualized differently in their various contexts. 3

4

Section 1: English-Medium Instruc t ion in Conte x t

Together they ‘offer a blueprint for outlining’ EMI in its specific settings (Dafouz & Smit, 2014: 16). In order to provide a solid foundation for the subsequent discussions in this volume, this chapter uses Dafouz and Smit’s (2014) ROAD-MAPPING framework to identify and describe the current state of EMI in Japan. It takes each of the ROAD-MAPPING dimensions in turn, drawing upon the growing literature on EMI in Japan. Much of the empirical analysis is based on data from recent studies carried out by the authors, a case study of three ETPs at elite universities conducted by Bradford (2015) and a survey of 95 universities with EMI programs conducted by Brown (2015).

Roles of English English holds a central position in the internationalization of higher education in Japan. English language learning and, by extension, EMI are assumed to be important roads to internationalization. While the concept of internationalization might imply diversity and a certain amount of pluralism, a multilingual interpretation of internationalization and the concomitant concepts of plurilingualism and parallel language use are rarely mentioned in Japan. English is clearly the dominant force. Increases in academic mobility mean that English plays the role of lingua franca in many countries, being the only shared language of a diverse student and faculty body (Dafouz & Smit, 2014). However, in Japan, this is not generally the case. The vast majority of international students study alongside domestic students in Japanese-medium programs. ETPs, for which international students are not required to have any Japanese language skills upon entry, are, particularly at the undergraduate level, still in their infancy and serve very few international students (Ota & Horiuchi, this volume). The majority of EMI courses currently occur in classrooms with Japanese students and Japanese instructors. English does, however, have a greater lingua franca role in short-term EMI programs especially designed for international students. In these programs, the diversity of international students is much greater than in full degree programs. The Japan Student Services Organization (JASSO) (2015) reports that, in contrast to the overall international student population in Japan, which is 91.5% Asian, international students in shortterm programs nationwide are 32.6% European and North American and only 61.9% Asian. Dafouz and Smit (2014: 9) state that the multiple functions of English in higher education settings may form a ‘contested terrain.’ However, in Japan, aside from the small (but growing) number of universities and faculties that operate entirely in English, English does not have a wide variety of functions. While English is now increasingly a vehicle for communicating content, it nevertheless remains an academic language amongst teachers and students

ROAD-MAPPING English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japan

5

who share Japanese as their first language. As such, when instructors do not see the efficacy of teaching in a second language, it is often resisted, although its utility as the language of internationalization is not often contested (Mulvey, this volume).

Academic Disciplines Each academic discipline has its own literacies and practices, and to achieve success in academia, it is important to acculturate to these disciplinary norms. Both teachers and students should be aware of the discourses, specialized language and curricular elements (such as forms of assessment) that govern their discipline. Dafouz and Smit (2014) point out that this poses two immediate challenges for EMI: a need to recognize these disciplinary differences and integrate them into classes; and a need to ensure that the use of English does not homogenize disciplines according to an Anglocentric model. In Japan, the development of discipline-specific knowledge and academic literacy in Japanese is considered a primary goal of higher education (Kuwamura, this volume); however, in EMI programs, it is an issue that is perhaps not getting the attention it deserves. With the growth of EMI, the range of academic disciplines taught in English in Japan is diversifying. In a nationwide survey of 95 universities with EMI programs, Brown (2015) found that undergraduate EMI courses tend to focus on the humanities and social sciences, with more than 60% of responding universities offering EMI courses in these two areas. Universities that offer ETPs, on the other hand, have increasing numbers of Englishmedium undergraduate engineering and natural sciences courses (MEXT, 2012, 2015). Regardless of the discipline they study, EMI students in Japan may not be receiving guidance they need to help them acculturate. The development of academic literacies for EMI courses is often considered a language proficiency issue and is thus assumed to be in the domain of language classes. However, very few EMI programs have a direct connection with language courses or regular communication with language teachers (Brown, 2015), and so students are unlikely to receive focused disciplinaryliteracy instruction. Without that explicit instruction, it is questionable whether academic literacies develop in EMI programs in Japan as they are currently organized. Academic literacies are in many, if not most, cases culturally transmitted through socialization into academic communities of practice (Molle et al., 2015; Scribner, 1984). However, in some EMI programs at Japanese universities, instructors are not specialists in the subject they are teaching and do not feel comfortably embedded into the disciplinary community. They may unknowingly blend disciplinary practices (Bradford, 2015; Susser, this volume). In other programs, faculty members teach courses based on their

6

Section 1: English-Medium Instruc t ion in Conte x t

individual research interests with little regard to how such courses fit together to form a coherent curriculum (Bradford, 2015; Takagi, 2015). In both cases, students may not have sufficient socialization into the norms of any one discipline to develop real academic literacies.

Language Management Language management refers to language policy statements made by governments, institutions and other actors in an attempt to control the position and role of languages (Dafouz & Smit, 2014). In the case of EMI in Japan, such statements are most noticeable by their absence. Policy documents seen as key in the development of EMI often fail to specify English as the language in question. They refer to instruction in foreign languages, or in foreign languages such as English (H. Hashimoto, this volume). In all practical terms, these phrases are taken to mean English, but at the policy level the plurilingual façade of instruction in foreign languages is maintained. Despite the dominance of English as the language of internationalization, lack of acknowledgment as an official medium of instruction in the higher education sector serves to highlight the foreignness of English and those who speak it. In policy documents, the government has thus far avoided using the term shidogengo, or instructional language, to talk about EMI. This term, equivalent to medium of instruction, is reserved for Japanese (K. Hashimoto, 2013). Instead, the Japanese term used in referring to EMI in Japan, eigo ni yoru jugyou, is best translated as lessons conducted in English, a term that focuses attention on language use at the level of classroom practice, rather than one that formalizes the status of English. As such, EMI is a pedagogical issue, a question of classroom practice at the individual course or program level, not something that implies Englishization – large-scale changes in the communicative structures of universities. English may be a classroom language but it is not a language of administration or policy-making. Furthermore, most universities, even those adopting EMI and implementing ETPs, do not have formal institutional-level language policies. Although a growing number of HEIs promote themselves as international institutions, few make reference to language or multilingualism in their publicly available internationalization strategy statements. With regards to policy for entry into EMI courses and programs, individual departments and sometimes individual instructors, often set their own language proficiency benchmarks. Even among the more formalized ETP degrees, there is not a consistent, shared understanding of appropriate language proficiency benchmarks for entry into the program. Of course, the degree programs have entry benchmarks, but they appear to be set on an ad hoc basis, rather than as a

ROAD-MAPPING English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japan

7

matter of policy. Consistent exit requirements or expectations for performance are also rare. There are also no established policies regarding faculty members’ language proficiency or language use (Bradford, 2015).

Agents EMI is shaped by its agents. It is important to acknowledge these stakeholders, as the divergent rationales and demands driving their EMI engagement may hinder successful EMI implementation. In Japan, agents at the national, institutional and individual levels all influence EMI. At the national level, the government, acting mainly through the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), is the key actor in EMI developments. MEXT has established several prominent funding schemes to support EMI development and has encouraged EMI through both formal policy statements and more informal means. As Mulvey (this volume) discusses, there is a strong implication that accreditation is contingent on universities pursuing internationalization aims as laid out by MEXT. Another, somewhat less important, actor at the national level has been the business community, acting through Keidanren, the Japan Business Federation. Keidanren has been a leading voice in the call for universities to foster global jinzai (i.e. globally competitive individuals), a call often considered synonymous with more study abroad, better international education and EMI programs. As institutional-level agents, universities are approaching EMI in different ways. National universities became early adopters of short-term EMI programs for international students after the government established support for such programs in the 1990s (Tsuneyoshi, 2005). A limited number of private and prefectural or municipal public universities followed suit, offering EMI courses as part of exchange programs with partner universities abroad. These universities are now expanding their EMI offerings for both international and domestic students. The current growth in EMI programs sees more private universities offering content classes through English for the first time. Many of these newer programs make up part of a predominantly Japanese-medium degree and are intended for domestic students (Brown, 2015). Kudo and Hashimoto (2011) identify four distinct institutional categories that exemplify different approaches to internationalization among universities offering EMI in Japan. Institutions that are categorized as global-minded tend to be large-scale elite HEIs that are better able to compete for government funding. EMI and ETPs in these institutions are seen as a way to attract high-quality international students and improve research outputs, especially at the graduate level. Innovative institutions are small, well-funded and nimble. They infuse EMI into a single department or across the entire

8

Section 1: English-Medium Instruc t ion in Conte x t

university and are likely to focus on creating an international environment. Ad hoc and pseudo-international HEIs, on the other hand, are concerned with filling student quotas and promoting themselves as ‘international’ for the domestic market. As the name implies, universities in the ad hoc category implement EMI and other international initiatives without strategic planning or campus-wide cooperation. Pseudo-international HEIs do not make meaningful efforts toward internationalization, though they may market themselves as if they do. The majority of Japanese universities fall into the ad-hoc category. Here, EMI programs have a peripheral place in the curriculum and are of varying quality. At the individual level, administrators, faculty members and students are key actors. Full-time, permanent university administrators often represent, or at least purport to represent (see Poole, this volume), the institutional position on matters of internationalization and reform. However, as Poole elaborates, these permanent administrative staff members are employed as generalists, and often have little expertise in international education. The day-to-day running of EMI initiatives usually falls to contract workers who have little decision-making power. These short-term employees, often young Japanese women with overseas experience, do not usually receive formal international education training, but instead are expected to teach themselves the skills needed for their position. They take care of the marketing of programs, recruiting of students and even of the international students themselves once they arrive on campus (Bradford, 2015). As these administrators’ contracts expire, universities lose great sources of expertise. Individual faculty members teaching in EMI programs have agency over the courses they teach, but, like the contract administrators, may have little authority to affect the university’s mission. Among universities responding to Brown’s (2015) survey, there is a rough balance between Japanese and international instructors teaching EMI courses. Just over a third of universities report that the courses are taught by Japanese faculty; likewise, just under a third report that they are taught by international faculty. At about one-quarter of responding universities, there is a balance of international and Japanese faculty members teaching EMI courses (Brown, 2015). However, there are indications that this balance may not be all that it seems. Rather, many of these universities offer EMI in more than one department, with one EMI program taught predominantly by Japanese nationals and one staffed mainly by non-Japanese faculty members who often have primary responsibility for language classes. The international academics are more likely than their Japanese peers to be short-term contract faculty or adjunct teachers, and therefore lack voice in the wider university community. EMI affects only a small minority of students at Japanese universities, and the students enrolled in the courses are predominately domestic. In the institutions that received funds from the government’s Global 30 Project for internationalization, for example, when ETPs were first established, most

ROAD-MAPPING English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japan

9

enrolled fewer than 30 students a year (MEXT, 2012). Furthermore, Brown’s (2015) survey showed that, in more than three-quarters of universities, EMI courses serve less than 10% of the student body. However, student enrollment is expected to grow. Nearly 80% of universities that offer EMI are currently expanding their programs or plan to expand them in the near future. The ETPs tend to serve more international students, but over two-thirds of university EMI courses draw only or mostly domestic students. Only 16% of universities report that their courses enroll a balance of international and domestic students (Brown, 2015). Although the number of international students in English-medium courses is small, these students are playing a significant role in shaping EMI programs. They have been invited to talk about their experiences at symposia for educators in Japan (e.g. Gomez et al., 2014), and individual universities are incorporating their feedback into programs (see Heigham, this volume; Yamamoto & Ishikura, this volume).

Practices and Processes Practices and processes refer to the ‘teaching and learning activities that construct and are constructed by’ the realities of EMI and the ‘ways of thinking,’ ‘ways of doing’ and ways of thinking and doing that inform these practices (Dafouz & Smit, 2014: 11). It is well documented that, informed by Confucian ideology of the teacher as a model from which students learn, the traditional lecture dominates Japanese undergraduate classrooms (Horie, this volume; Takagi, this volume). Japanese academics generally favor research over teaching and value lectures as a way to transmit disciplinary knowledge to their students (Fukudome, 2015; Takagi, this volume). Japanese higher education courses are also known to be relaxed and unstructured, with opaque course descriptions and evaluation methods (Tsuneyoshi, 2005). However, in recent years, practices have been changing as universities seek to emphasize pedagogy to differentiate themselves from their rivals and respond to government pressure for more transparency and quality assurance (MEXT, 2008; Yamada, 2012). Both approaches are seen in EMI classrooms. EMI teaching methods are becoming student-centered, partly as a result of an increasing number of international faculty members or those with experience teaching overseas conducting EMI courses, and partly because the use of English often obliges faculty to rethink their classroom strategies. In the words of one Japanese professor, interviewed by Bradford, who centers his lessons around international-student-led, small-group discussion: ‘At the beginning, actually still now, my English ability is, in my imagination, not enough. This is also why I introduced this system. I use, so to speak, international students in a good sense. It works.’ Moreover, international students in EMI courses are pushing for interactive, transparent classrooms. They are speaking

10

Section 1: English-Medium Instruc t ion in Conte x t

up during lectures, voicing complaints about faculty members’ lecture styles and assessment techniques and, in some cases, voting with their feet and leaving recently established ETPs in favor of those with faculty members more experienced in delivering content in English (Bradford, 2016; Heigham, this volume; Yamamoto & Ishikura, this volume). In attempts to improve the international standing of Japanese HEIs, accountability measures and international (Western-oriented) standards such as detailed syllabi, reading lists and in-class discussion are part of the EMI landscape, particularly in short-term programs for international students that necessitate that credits earned in Japan are transferrable back to the student’s home institution (Tsuneyoshi, 2005). A westernized approach to EMI is, however, not the only approach adopted in Japan. Many Japanese students struggle with language and cultural issues in student-centered EMI classrooms. In addition, the framework and credit requirements of a Japanese degree program may not allow time for the heavier reading and assessment workloads that a Western-style course structure may demand. Many faculty members believe that it is possible to divorce EMI from its Western origins and teach in English using a more traditional Japanese pedagogic approach (Bradford, 2016). Others see a blend of Japanese and Western norms emerging in EMI as Japanese faculty members take on some aspects of Western pedagogy but remain grounded in Japanese norms (Brown, 2017). Two models of EMI appear to be emerging based upon the disciplinary origins of the faculty members teaching the courses. In the first model, EMI courses are developed based on the disciplinary specializations of Japanese faculty members. While the Japanese faculty continue to teach mainly Japanese-medium courses, they also take on one or more EMI courses in their specialist field. In some cases, a small number of international content experts are also hired for their ability to teach in English. In the second model, EMI courses are evolving out of language-teaching programs. Courses once offered in a content-based instruction or content and language integrated learning paradigm are being redesigned as EMI courses staffed by language teachers (see Carty & Susser, 2015; Susser, this volume). These teachers may continue to have primary responsibility for language classes and are likely to bring practices from the language classroom into their EMI teaching. In institutions that offer ETPs, EMI courses evolving out of either model are likely to form part of the ETP curriculum. This creates interesting challenges for students as they navigate the classroom cultures and expectations of teachers from two very different pedagogic backgrounds.

Internationalization and Glocalization Japanese universities that are implementing EMI must seek to balance the ‘conflicting but also complementing’ global and local forces that act upon

ROAD-MAPPING English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japan

11

them (Dafouz & Smit, 2014: 12). Government rhetoric often situates EMI as a strategy to enhance the competitiveness of the nation, its HEIs and its students (e.g. MEXT, 2013, see also H. Hashimoto, this volume). EMI can attract top-level international talent, both students and faculty, and improve Japan’s position in university ranking tables. It can also help the nation educate and nurture the best possible local talent – global jinzai, young graduates who can deal with the demands of a global market. At the same time, EMI can be seen as a response to local demographic pressures; Japan is facing a shrinking cohort of university-aged students and, despite high tertiary education enrollment rates (in 2013, 70% of high school graduates moved onto a university, junior college, or specialized training college, MEXT, n.d.), the nation is experiencing excess capacity in the higher education sector as a result of over-expansion. In fact, 46% of private universities in Japan are unable to recruit enough students to fill all available seats (The Promotion and Mutual Aid Corporation for Private Schools of Japan, 2014). EMI is potentially attractive to domestic students looking for added value from their university education. The global and local forces described above appear complementary: EMI is an asset for boosting Japan in the world scene, and a useful tool for institutions vying to recruit local students. However, universities are struggling to implement EMI in comprehensive ways that can fulfil both needs. Many of the universities investigated by Brown and Iyobe (2014) and Brown (2015) have a collection of EMI courses as electives in a predominately Japanesemedium degree program in one department, and perhaps an ETP in another, with little indication of interdepartmental collaboration and a lack of university-wide consensus on the need for or role of EMI. The government’s Global 30 Project and Go Global Japan funding schemes have in some ways incited this parallel EMI development by encouraging the development of EMI for recruiting international students on the one hand, and for preparing domestic students for study abroad on the other (see H. Hashimoto, this volume for more discussion of these government initiatives). The ad hoc manner in which the majority of Japanese universities approach internationalization and EMI (Brown, 2015; Kudo & Hashimoto, 2011) highlights the lack of the ‘systematic and institutionally supported implementation measures’ that Dafouz and Smit (2014: 12) regard as necessary for ‘increasingly multicultural and multilingual university scenarios.’ Universities state that they would like to create internationalized environments where international and domestic students can grow together, but many have yet to articulate strategies for achieving this (Bradford, 2015). More positively, universities are recognizing this, and the number of formal, coordinated EMI programs that aim to promote curriculum internationalization are growing (Takagi, this volume). The recent Top Global University Project holds further promise for university-wide consensus over EMI, as it expects universities to move ahead with comprehensive internationalization.

12

Section 1: English-Medium Instruc t ion in Conte x t

Somewhat concerning, however, are the local forces within Japanese HEIs that threaten to hinder the further development of EMI programs. The linguistic, cultural, structural and institutional challenges facing EMI implementation have been often discussed (see for example, Bradford, 2016; Tsuneyoshi, 2005; Yamamoto & Ishikura, this volume). One institutional challenge that is particularly strong in the Japanese context is the university bureaucracy. Poole (this volume) argues that university administrators embody a fundamentally change-averse embedded institutional identity. This makes the university bureaucracy not just a challenge, but perhaps an active opposition, not to EMI itself, but to the deeper changes in university structure that are necessary to make EMI an integrated part of the curriculum. Bringing the six dimensions together and looking at the current state of EMI in Japan through the lens of Dafouz and Smit’s (2014) ROAD-MAPPING framework, we see an image of EMI still in development. English is assuming the role of a vehicle for communicating academic content in a number of disciplines, and EMI is acting as an impetus for change in pedagogy and classroom practice, but it is not yet fully embraced by all stakeholders and not yet fully embedded in the fabric of higher education. However, the global and local forces behind EMI in Japan are continuing to drive growth in the number and scale of programs and enhance their quality. And, as the current volume attests, there has been serious consideration of and a boom in research on EMI in Japan, which is leading to a more codified and, perhaps, thoughtful adoption of English as a medium of instruction.

References Bradford, A. (2015) Internationalization policy at the genba: Exploring the implementation of social science English-taught undergraduate degree programs. EdD dissertation, The George Washington University. Bradford, A. (2016) Toward a typology of implementation challenges facing Englishmedium instruction in higher education: Evidence from Japan. Journal of Studies in International Education 20 (4), 339–356. Brown, H. (2015) Module 2: Painting a picture of EMI in Japan: Extent of, rationales for, and implementation of undergraduate English-medium instruction classes at universities in Japan. PhD thesis, University of Birmingham. Brown, H. (2017) Cooperation and collaboration in undergraduate EMI: Adapting EAP to the emergence of a bended academic culture in a Japanese university. In J. Valcke and B. Wilkinson (eds) Selected Papers from the IV International Conference Integrating Content and Language in Higher Education 2015: At the Crossroads between Innovation and Practice. Bern: Peter Lang. Brown, H. and Iyobe, B. (2014) The growth of English medium instruction in Japan. In N. Sonda and A. Krause (eds) JALT2013 Conference Proceedings (pp. 9–19). Tokyo: JALT. Carty, P. and Susser, B. (2015) Global education and classroom teaching: From CBI to EMI. In P. Clements, A. Krause and H. Brown (eds) JALT2014 Conference Proceedings (pp. 1–8). Tokyo: JALT. Dafouz, E. and Smit, U. (2014) Towards a dynamic conceptual framework for Englishmedium education in multilingual university settings. Applied Linguistics, Advance Access. DOI: 10.1093/applin/amu034.

ROAD-MAPPING English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japan

13

Fukudome, H. (2015) Teaching and research in the academic profession: Nexus and conflict. In A. Arimoto, W.K. Cummings, F. Huang and J.C. Shin (eds) The Changing Academic Profession in Japan (pp. 169 –183). Cham: Springer International. Gomez, A., Song, E.J., Juber, N.F., Sjoberg, C., Sinha, S., Yamase, K., Shih, H, and Thanh Nga, N.T. (2014) Internationalization in the eyes of students: Voice of students. Presentation given at Internationalizing Japanese Universities: The Global 30 Experience. Symposium conducted in Fukuoka, Japan, February. See http://www. jsps.go.jp/j-kokusaika/follow-up/data/h26/global30_report.pdf Hashimoto, K. (2013) ‘English-only,’ but not a medium-of-instruction policy: The Japanese way of internationalising education for both domestic and overseas students. Current Issues in Language Planning 14 (1), 16–33. JASSO (2015) Result of an annual survey of international students in Japan 2014. See http://www.jasso.go.jp/en/about/statistics/intl_student_e/2014/__icsFiles/afieldfile/ 2015/11/27/data14_e.pdf Kudo, K. and Hashimoto, H. (2011) Internationalization of Japanese universities: Current status and future directions. In S. Marginson, S. Kaur and E. Sawir (eds) Higher Education in the Asia-Pacific: Strategic Responses to Globalization (pp. 343–359). Dordrecht: Springer. MEXT (n.d.) School basic survey. Statistics. See http://www.mext.go.jp/english/statistics/ index.htm (accessed 21 March 2016). MEXT (2008) Gakushi katei kyōiku no kōchiku ni mukete [Toward building undergraduate education]. See http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/chukyo4/ houkoku/080410.htm (accessed 18 March 2016). MEXT (2012) Global 30 course list. See http://www.uni.international.mext.go.jp/ documents/20121127corse_list_A4.pdf MEXT (2013) Sekai no seichō o torikomu tame no gaikokujin ryuugakusei ukeire senryaku [Strategies of accepting international students to take advantage of global growth]. See http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/ryugaku/__icsFiles/afieldfile/ 2013/12/24/1342726_2.pdf MEXT (2015) Global 30 course list. See https://www.uni.international.mext.go.jp/docu ments/g30courses.pdf Molle, D., Sato, E., Boals, T. and Hedgespeth, C.A. (eds) (2015) Multilingual Learners and Academic Literacies: Sociocultural Contexts of Literacy Development in Adolescents. New York: Routledge. Scribner, S. (1984) Literacy in three metaphors. American Journal of Education 93 (1), 6–21. Takagi, H. (2015) The internationalization of curricula: The complexity and diversity of meaning in and beyond Japanese universities. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 52 (4), 349 –359. The Promotion and Mutual Aid Corporation for Private Schools of Japan (2014) Shiristudaigaku tanki daigaku to nyuugaku shigan doko [Trends in applicants for admission to private universities and junior colleges]. See www.shigaku.go.jp/files/ shigandoukou26.pdf Tsuneyoshi, R. (2005) Internationalization strategies in Japan: The dilemmas and possibilities of study abroad programs using English. Journal of Research in International Education 4 (1), 65–86. Yamada, R. (2012) The changing structure of Japanese higher education: Globalization, mobility and massification. In D.E. Neubauer and K. Kuroda (eds) Mobility and Migration in Asian Pacific Higher Education (pp. 83 –102). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

2

Government Policy Driving English-Medium Instruction at Japanese Universities: Responding to a Competitiveness Crisis in a Globalizing World Hiroko Hashimoto

Englishization, the expansion of the area in which English is used, is not new, but is one of the distinctive characteristics of the modern world (Yoshino, 2014: 1). Domains including business and science have seen a global expansion in the use of English as a lingua franca, and, notably, in education, English-medium instruction (EMI) is spreading worldwide. In many multiethnic and multilingual former colony countries such as Malaysia and Singapore, the medium of instruction (MoI) in the education system has been a politically sensitive issue, leading to extensive debate and the establishment of explicit policies for language use in education. In contrast, postwar Japan has not explicitly enacted a single, unified MoI policy, so understanding the context of EMI in Japan requires an examination of variety of separate policies. During the Meiji period (1868–1912) in Japan, foreign academics teaching in a European language (including English) were gradually replaced by Japanese academics who had returned to Japanese universities after studying abroad. Since that time, the Japanese language has been the assumed MoI from primary school through university. Even teaching English language lessons in English is new to most Japanese schools. The 2009 government requirement that English classes at high schools should be conducted in English and a similar recommendation to junior high schools (MEXT, 2009a, 2013a) have created confusion in schools and have faced criticism from 14

Gover nment Polic y Dr iv ing EMI at Japanese Universit ies

15

scholars (e.g. Torikai, 2014). There is no such clear-cut policy statement directly requiring or recommending universal adoption of EMI at the university level. However, when we investigate the policies regarding international students, internationalization of universities and university reform, the recent government stance encouraging EMI becomes clearer. This chapter introduces and analyzes Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) policies relevant to EMI. These include policies on the internationalization of higher education and student mobility. First, the context for promoting EMI at Japanese universities is examined. Next, the policies focusing on special EMI exchange programs and English-taught degree programs (ETPs) are introduced and reviewed. Finally, the hows and whys of the government’s promotion of EMI in Japanese universities and the future of EMI programs are discussed. The author demonstrates that the promotion of EMI in Japan has been motivated by an ongoing sense of crisis that Japan’s competitiveness is weakening in Asia and in the world. Several potential issues with the policies promoting EMI are discussed. These include the limited scope of internationalization activities, a focus on quantifiable numerical targets, an excessively competitive atmosphere in the higher education sector, and an overall lack of a clear objective for the promotion of EMI.

Context for Promoting EMI at Japanese Universities Lack of global competitiveness as a crisis EMI at Japanese universities is often discussed as a strategy to recover the global competitiveness of the nation, universities (institution) and students (individual) (e.g. MEXT, 2013b, 2013c). Japan has been confronting a lengthy recession and stagnant economy for almost a quarter of a century. Labor forces are shrinking due to the declining birth rate and the aging population. China overtook Japan and became the world’s second largest economy (after the United States) in 2010, and emerging economies are strengthening their presence in the world. At the same time, global competitiveness rankings have received attention. For example, the IMD World Competitiveness Centre (2015) in Switzerland has published annual reports on the competitiveness of nations since 1989. Japan was highly ranked in the early 1990s, but lost its position in the late 1990s and has remained between 15th and 30th place since then. According to their 2015 rankings of 61 economies as a place to conduct business, Japan is ranked 27th. The sense that Japan’s declining global competitiveness is a crisis has become more evident in such a context. The results of these various rankings have been analyzed and inform policy-makers about the weakening of Japan’s competitive advantage

16

Section 1: English-medium Instruc t ion in Conte x t

in technological innovation capabilities. Cross-national comparisons have reminded them of the importance of universities as the foundation of research and innovation, and of the role of elementary and secondary education to enhance the technological literacy of the people (see for example, MEXT, 2013d). Universities play an important role in the knowledge economy through creating and disseminating knowledge. Globally competitive universities are essential for an advanced economy, but insecurity about the competitiveness of Japanese universities has been observed. Policy discussions aiming at ‘universities with global standards’ started in the 1990s in Japan (Yonezawa, 2013: 72), but the meaning of global standard was unclear. When Asiaweek magazine started the region’s first university ranking scheme in 1997 (Asia’s Best Universities, 2000), the impact of such rankings was uncertain. The creation of two new ranking schemes in the early 2000s, the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) published by Shanghai Jiao Tong University and the Times Higher Education Supplement World University Ranking (later Times Higher Education Ranking, THE), changed this (Marginson, 2007). According to Marginson (2012), in fewer than 10 years, global rankings have become very influential. They determine policy and university strategies and shape the cross-border movements of students and faculty around the world. These rankings have given Japanese policy-makers specific evidence to cite when discussing universities with global standards. International aspects – for example, foreign student and staff ratios (an indicator of THE), and the number of citations demonstrating the international impact of research (indicators in both the ARWU and THE rankings) – have become recognized as weaknesses of top Japanese universities (Yonezawa, 2013). These weaknesses are linked to the limitations of a higher education system operating in Japanese, a language not commonly used outside Japan, in light of the dominance of English as a lingua franca (see for example, Otake, 2013; Sumita, 2015). Increasingly intense pressure for top universities to appear high in these ranking tables and the competitive advantage of English-speaking universities seem to have led to a feeling of crisis and caused policy-makers to demand an answer from EMI to internationalize universities and enhance student mobility. Pressure on universities to educate their students to become global jinzai (global human resources, i.e. globally competitive individuals) is significant as well. Policy toward global jinzai has been driven by a strong demand from Japanese industry, which has concerns about the competence of domestic university graduates, and an insufficient flow of highly skilled human resources from abroad (Ashizawa, 2012; Yonezawa, 2014). The Global Human Resource Development Promotion Council (Guroubaru Jinzai Ikusei Suishin Kaigi, 2012: 8) defined global jinzai quite broadly including the following factors: linguistic and communication skills; self-direction and positiveness, a spirit for challenge, cooperativeness and flexibility, a sense of

Gover nment Polic y Dr iv ing EMI at Japanese Universit ies

17

responsibility and mission; and an understanding of other cultures and a sense of identity as a Japanese. Although linguistic competence is only a part of the definition, language proficiency, especially English proficiency, often dominates discussions of global jinzai (see for example, Guroubaru Jinzai Ikusei Suishin Kaigi, 2012: 8–9, 15–17). Because measurable outcome indicators are required by policy-makers, global jinzai is often misrepresented as referring to graduates with high English competence and, in practice, is further trivialized as meaning those with high scores in an external examination like TOEIC or TOEFL. The policy was modified and renamed Keizai Shakai o Ken’in Suru Guroubaru Jinzai Ikusei Shien [Go Global Japan] in 2014, but its emphasis on English language competence remains. The lack of global competitiveness of Japan, Japanese universities and their graduates has been identified as a problem and the internationalization of universities through EMI is considered to be a solution.

Internationalization of universities and EMI Internationalization has been a central issue for Japanese universities since the 1970s (Kitamura, 1989), and with more intense global connectedness in recent years, EMI has become part of the process of internationalization. Promoting EMI is a response to globalization and the global expansion of English as a lingua franca in higher education and research. The desire of universities to enhance their global competitiveness by raising their international profile (or more concretely, by increasing the number of international students and foreign academics) is a crucial motivation for introducing EMI. However, universities in Japan are diverse, and therefore it is untenable to discuss their internationalization in all-encompassing terms and to expect EMI to be a part of all universities’ strategies. In 2014, there were 781 universities in Japan: 86 national, 92 public and 603 private universities (MEXT, 2015). Kudo and Hashimoto (2011) identified five distinct approaches to the internationalization of universities in Japan: (a) global, (b) innovative, (c) ad hoc, (d) pseudo-international and (e) no international. In terms of numbers, the majority of universities are taking an ad hoc approach. Although most universities engage in some international activities, there is not much university-wide consensus on the mission/ visions for internationalization. This chapter focuses on universities taking either a global or an innovative approach. Their common characteristics are that a clear vision or mission (or both) for internationalization is articulated, special funds for internationalization are available, and EMI courses are provided in most cases. In Japan, however, EMI is still in its early stages and is small in scale; its impact on universities and society in general is constrained. In contrast, in many parts of the world, including Asia, Europe, South America and Africa, EMI at universities has spread widely (Dearden, 2014). Kirkpatrick (2014)

18

Section 1: English-medium Instruc t ion in Conte x t

argues that the main goal of an increasing shift toward EMI in Asian universities is to attract international students. Some countries such as Malaysia and Singapore are aspiring to become educational hubs in their region, and have shown interesting developments through transnational education offered by universities based in English-speaking countries, including the UK, the United States and Australia. The expansion of EMI is not just happening in former British or American colony countries with a history of EMI. The Englishization of classes, courses and programs as a part of curriculum reform responding to globalization is growing in universities in South Korea, Taiwan and China (Ota, 2011). Englishization, especially in Asia, has created concern over the delay in implementing EMI at Japanese universities, and the government has started initiatives to promote EMI.

Japan’s Policy Concerning EMI Growing scope of EMI English-taught programs (ETPs), where students can earn their full degree via EMI, have been available in Japan for quite some time, but the number and scope of the programs has been limited. Starting in the 1980s, the government promoted small-scale postgraduate programs for international students at national universities. In 2004, 74 special ETPs (masters programs, doctorate programs or both) at 44 national universities were available. Among the 74 programs, one was established in 1982, five in 1985–1989, seven in 1990– 1994, 14 in 1995–1999 and 47 in 2000–2004 (MEXT, 2004). The programs started slowly, but the number of such programs has increased steadily and grew sharply after the turn of the century, although some accept fewer than 10 students. By 2010, MEXT (2010) listed 109 programs at 44 universities as International Priority Graduate Programs, which they described as ‘internationally attractive programs for international students’ (p. 14). The majority of these programs were in natural sciences, as was the case in earlier years. Postgraduate students in natural sciences are typically assigned to a laboratory, are supervised in English and submit a dissertation in English. There is limited coursework and class or seminars conducted in English are generally not required, as they would be for undergraduate students. In terms of numbers of undergraduate programs, as of the mid-1990s, limited opportunities to obtain an entire undergraduate degree in English were available at a few private universities in Japan, for example, International Christian University and Sophia University. Introduction of EMI undergraduate programs at national universities started with the Shortterm Student Exchange Promotion Program in the mid-1990s, but government initiatives to promote undergraduate ETPs were not observed until the late 2000s.

Gover nment Polic y Dr iv ing EMI at Japanese Universit ies

19

Policy initiatives Table 2.1 shows government policies in which EMI is mentioned. They will be discussed with two foci: earlier policies on not-for-degree EMI exchange programs and more recent policies on ETPs. The column on the right explains how EMI is referred to in each policy. The table includes policies and recommendations focusing on university reform, internationalization of universities and international students, but it excludes language education policies such as teaching English in English at schools. In many cases the policies do not identify English as the MoI and use expressions like a foreign language or English or other language. Practically, however, they are referring to EMI.

Special EMI programs for exchange students A few EMI exchange programs at private universities started in the 1970s, but all programs at national universities and many programs at private universities started after 1995, when the government introduced the Short-term Student Exchange Promotion Program. Exchange students study abroad for one or two semesters and acquire credits while enrolled at a university in their home country on the basis of an inter-university exchange agreement. The number of exchange programs and their students increased significantly, especially in the early years of the program. According to MEXT (2010), 30 national universities, one public university and 35 private universities offered an EMI short-term (mostly for between six months and one year) exchange program for undergraduate students in 2009. However, the number of exchange students was small compared with the number of full-time international students studying in Japanese-medium programs (JASSO, 2015). An EMI exchange program was understood by MEXT and universities as a way to give extra consideration to international students and as a program that would be attractive to them. The term guroubaru sutandaado [global standard] was extensively used in policy discussions in relation to the internationalization of Japanese universities in the late 1990s. A naïve understanding that the introduction of an EMI exchange program would result in guroubaru sutandaado was observed (Hashimoto, 2004). The desire for guroubaru sutandaado was a manifestation of sense of crisis that the Japanese way (in this case, teaching in Japanese) had failed to meet the guroubaru sutandaado. The impact of short-term EMI programs on the internationalization of universities was limited because the scale of the majority of these programs was small, and each program was often physically and structurally isolated in a university. Yet, exchange programs have contributed to some degree to the diversification of the source countries of international students in Japan. The most recent data show that the majority of international

20

Section 1: English-medium Instruc t ion in Conte x t

Table 2.1 Japanese government policies in relation to EMI Year

Policy

1995

Tanki ryuugaku suishin seido [Short-term Student Exchange Promotion Program] October 21-seiki no daigakuzou to 26, kongo no kaikaku housaku ni 1998 tsuie, Toushin [A Vision for the University of the 21st Century and Future Reform Measures, Recommendations] November Guroubaruka jidai ni 22, motomerareru koutou kyouiku 2000 no arikata ni tsuite, Toushin [Higher Education in a Global Era, Recommendations] December Aratana ryuugakusei seisaku 16, no tenkai ni tsuite, toushin 2003 [Developing a New Policy on International Students, Recommendations] May Asian Gateway Initiative 16, 2007 January 31, 2008

July 1, 2008 July 29, 2008

Education Rebuilding by Society as a Whole, Final Report [Shakai sougakari de kyouiku saisei o, saishuu houkoku] Basic Plan for the Promotion of Education [Kyouiku shinkou kihon keikaku] 300,000 International Students Plan

Global 30 (2009–2013)

Reference to EMI Expand special curriculum in English or other languages (MEXT, 1995) Develop programs attractive to international students, such as programs conducted in a foreign language (University Council, 1998)

Implement classes and exams in a foreign language for both international students and Japanese students (University Council, 2000) Implement classes and exams in a foreign language; enhance education programs which do not require Japanese language competence for short-term exchange students (Central Council for Education, 2003) Create systematic education programs offered in English (Council for the Asian Gateway Initiative, 2007) Offer more classes in English. Goal to have 30% of classes held in English) (Education Rebuilding Council, 2008: 16)

Encourage universities to introduce classes in English or other foreign languages (MEXT, 2008a) (In selected universities) develop a system which allows students to obtain academic degrees by studying only in English, and significantly increase the number of courses taught in English (MEXT, 2009b) Select 30 universities as centers of internationalization of higher education and support them intensively; develop courses which allow students to obtain academic degrees by studying only in English (MEXT, 2008b) (Continued)

Gover nment Polic y Dr iv ing EMI at Japanese Universit ies

21

Table 2.1 (Continued) Year

Policy

June 4, 2012

Guroubaru jinzai ikusei suishin jigyou [Go Global Japan]

Reference to EMI

Promote universities setting their own goals for the ratio of classes conducted in English (Guroubaru Jinzai Ikusei Suishin Kaigi, 2012). Increase the ratio of courses taught in May University Education and English and improve the foreign language 28, 2013 Global Human Resource capability of Japanese faculty, particularly Development for the Future, the Third Proposal [Korekara no their ability to conduct classes and provide educational guidance in English; increase daigaku kyouiku no arikata ni the number of degree programs that permit tsuite, daisanji teigen] students to graduate by taking courses only in English (Education Rebuilding Implementation Council, 2013) June Dainiki kyouiku shinkou kihon Prioritize support to universities that offer 14, 2013 keikaku [Second Basic Plan for classes in English (MEXT, 2013b: 59) the Promotion of Education] June Nihon saikou senryaku – Japan Prioritize support to universities that 14, 2013 is Back [Japan Revitalization aggressively pursue the reform including Strategy] expanding classes in English (Office of the Prime Minister, 2013: 36) Enhance programs in which students can December Sekai no seichou o torikomu 18, tame no gaikokujin ryuugakusei take credits and a degree in a foreign language such as English; enhance courses 2013 ukeire senryaku [Strategies in which students can study Japanese of Accepting International Students to take Advantage of culture and history in English (MEXT, 2013c: 20) Global Growth] April Top Global University Project Prioritize support to universities promoting 9, 2014 [Suupaa guroubaru daigaku internationalization; increase programs in sousei shien] which students can take a degree using only English (JSPS, n.d.)

students (91.5%) are from Asia, but among short-term exchange students there is more diversity, with 11.4% from North America and 21.2% from Europe (JASSO, 2015). Moreover, exchange programs have contributed to the internationalization of universities as a result of the negotiation of different expectations and values in teaching and learning. It is notable that many EMI exchange programs have been adjusted to international students’ needs, and their desire to improve their Japanese language competence and mix with local students. For example, universities started offering courses in which exchange and local students study together, decreased the number of compulsory EMI courses

22

Section 1: English-medium Instruc t ion in Conte x t

and let students take courses in Japanese, and/or encouraged students to do a research project and use Japanese for the project. In interviews conducted by the author in 2000–2002, issues regarding the quality of education were raised by the coordinators of and students in exchange programs. Teaching and learning in English, a foreign language for many lecturers and students, increased lecturers’ workload, decreased the interaction between teachers and students and reduced the depth of content, making exchange programs less academically challenging for students (see Hashimoto, 2004, 2005 for details). Some of these issues have also been discussed in other studies on EMI programs (e.g. Bradford, 2013), and they seem to be still relevant.

English-taught programs In the late 2000s, policy focus shifted from isolated small-scale EMI exchange programs to the introduction and expansion of ETPs. Promoting EMI seemed to have been motivated by the sense of crisis discussed above. For example: We should recognize that the age when Japan was the only giant in Asia is over … We should rather face the reality that it is Japan, than any other Asian country, that is likely to be left out. Unfortunately, Japan is still viewed as a closed country by most other countries. In fact, there are a number of fields where Japan’s competitiveness is weakening due to delayed measures to cope with globalization. (Council for the Asian Gateway Initiative, 2007: 2) Along with financial, agricultural, aviation and other policies, the ‘ten major policy priorities’ in the Asian Gateway Initiative of 2007 included calls to ‘restructure policy for foreign students in order for Japan to serve as a hub for human resource network in Asia,’ and to ‘further open up universities to the world’ (Council for the Asian Gateway Initiative, 2007: 8). The initiative recommended that the government radically increase the competitive allocation of educational funds and create systematic EMI programs as an example of activities to be funded. They also insisted that the government, industry and academia should set up a new international student strategy (Council for the Asian Gateway Initiative, 2007), which was shaped as the 300,000 International Students Plan of 2008. Yonezawa (2013) identified the Asian Gateway Initiative as a turning point in the government policy on universities, from supporting research and making world class universities to raising the presence of Japan in the world by enhancing the internationalization of competitive universities. The sense of crisis is repeated in the final report of the Education Rebuilding Council (2008). In the report, universities were asked to immediately offer more classes in English; the goal was to have 30% of the classes

Gover nment Polic y Dr iv ing EMI at Japanese Universit ies

23

held in English (Education Rebuilding Council, 2008) to improve the quality of university education and to enhance global competitiveness. In this report, EMI is considered as a core of university internationalization and reform, although it is unclear what the denominator of the 30% is – all classes offered at selected universities or at Japanese universities in general – and on what basis the 30% was derived. The Basic Plan for the Promotion of Education (MEXT, 2008a) also promoted university internationalization and encouraged universities to promote EMI programs. It was claimed that the government would be implementing the 300,000 International Students Plan systematically through cooperation with relevant ministries. As written in the Asian Gateway Initiative and the Basic Plan for the Promotion of Education, the government announced the outline of the 300,000 International Students Plan in July 2008 in the joint names of six ministries: MEXT; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA); the Ministry of Justice (MOJ); the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (MHLW); the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI); and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT). This indicates that the government positioned the plan as a part of Japan’s global strategy to open up the country to the whole world and aimed to accept 300,000 international students by the year 2020. In the plan, they announced that 30 universities were to be selected as ‘bases of globalization’ and were to be ‘developed intensively,’ i.e. financial support would be provided to these institutions (MEXT, 2009b: 4). This project is commonly called the Global 30 or G30, but the official name at the outset of the project was Project for Establishing Core Universities for Internationalization; this was changed to Project for Establishing University Network for Internationalization in 2011. The government recommended that a system be developed to allow students to obtain degrees by studying only in English and that EMI courses be increased significantly (MEXT, 2009b). The system to be developed for EMI included development of teaching materials in English, training of Japanese academics, internationally open recruitment of academics teaching specialized courses in English and employment of fixed-term foreign academics (Cabinet Office et al., 2009: 8). In a similar way to earlier discussions on EMI exchange programs, it was expected that EMI would make Japanese universities more attractive to international students and improve the international status of Japanese universities. In 2009, 13 universities were selected for the five-year project. Owing to budgetary restrictions, further selection was then stopped and the opportunity was limited to these 13 universities. It is important to note that selected universities were those that had already taken a global or an innovative approach towards internationalization. In its progress report on the 300,000 International Students Plan, MEXT (2011) claimed that the response of Japanese universities to internationalization was far behind when compared to other leading advanced economies at the time the plan was formulated, but they positively evaluated the increase

24

Section 1: English-medium Instruc t ion in Conte x t

of ETPs. Upon completion of the project, MEXT reported that ETPs at 13 universities had increased from eight postgraduate programs in 2009 to 33 undergraduate and 123 postgraduate programs in 2013. The number of international students at the 13 G30 universities and their percentage of all students at these universities increased from 23,083 students (6.8%) to 28,636 students (8.4%) (Aruga, 2014). Especially among national universities, the EMI programs supported by the Global 30 Project were mainly used for attracting international students and were not intended to meet the needs of Japanese students (Yonezawa, 2014). MEXT suggested several tasks for the future. These included magnifying the impact of internationalization on Japanese students and on all other departments and faculties of the G30 universities, as well as on other universities. However, magnifying the impact may prove to be very challenging in the internationalization of Japanese universities. As Ota (2011) argues, Japanese universities have not considered EMI a core part of their educational reform, but have introduced EMI as an additional program without changing the existing curriculum. The structural and physical issues encountered by EMI exchange programs are also relevant to more recent ETPs (Bradford, 2015). As the G30 Project was nearing completion, the government began turning its attention toward EMI as a solution for domestic students. The Global Human Resource Development Promotion Council again expressed a sense of crisis and asked for constant efforts by schools, universities and industries (Guroubaru Jinzai Ikusei Suishin Kaigi, 2012). They encouraged universities to set quantitative goals, like the number of international students and foreign academics and the percentage of EMI classes. As part of this drive for global jinzai, in 2012 the government selected 42 universities for the Guroubaru Jinzai Ikusei Suishin Jigyou [Go Global Japan] initiative: 11 universities for Type A (programs run throughout the university) and 31 universities for Type B (special programs run in certain departments and graduate schools). In the interim review (JSPS, 2015), the 42 universities were evaluated on a five-level scale. It was reported that the ratio of classes conducted in a foreign language (in effect, EMI classes) had reached 89.9% of the target, and the number of foreign academics had exceeded the target, at 116.8%. In the Second Basic Plan for the Promotion of Education (MEXT, 2013b), the sense of crisis worsened. The plan described the current situation in Japan as a crisis situation and proposed four basic policy directions, eight goals and 30 crucial measures to avoid worsening the current crises. One of the measures was to develop global human resources and the internationalization of universities was considered a way to do this. More specifically, the government was to give intensive support to universities that promoted EMI and employed foreign academics and young Japanese academics who had obtained their degrees overseas, in order to develop the global competitiveness of leading universities (MEXT, 2013b: 59).

Gover nment Polic y Dr iv ing EMI at Japanese Universit ies

25

In 2013, MEXT (2013c) announced Sekai no Seichou o Torikomu tame no Gaikokujin Ryuugakusei Ukeire Senryaku [Strategies for Accepting International Students to Take Advantage of Global Growth]. These strategies were presented as unprecedented because they included analysis of the characteristics and situations of different regions of the world and identified countries to prioritize in student recruitment efforts. The strategies also identified four fields of study – engineering, medicine and health sciences, social sciences (especially the legal system), and agriculture – which were priorities to more effectively recruit international students. They also suggested promoting the internationalization of universities and enhancing programs in which students can take credits and earn a degree in English. However, strategies with such a narrow focus on a small number of countries, limited fields of study and only EMI programs may result in excessive control by the government and take away the autonomy and uniqueness of universities. The most recent government effort, the Top Global University Project, is aimed at supporting universities implementing reform and internationalization, and enhancing international acceptability and competitiveness. In 2014, MEXT selected 37 universities (13 called top type and 24 called global traction type). The top type are world-class universities that have the potential to be ranked in the top 100 in world university rankings; the global traction type are innovative universities that lead the internationalization of Japanese society. These universities are provided with prioritized support to lead the internationalization of Japanese universities and are expected to press forward with comprehensive internationalization and university reform. Selection criteria included whether a university had a track record of internationalization and therefore deserved to be selected as a top global university and whether they had set a goal regarding university reform and internationalization. Items used to evaluate internationalization were diversity, mobility, support systems for international students and language competence. The last item included the number and the percentage of classes in a foreign language and the number of degree programs in which students could graduate only in a foreign language – that is, without needing to take classes in Japanese (JSPS, 2014b). These numerical targets are easier to measure than other targets, like improving Japanese language education, and were more influential in the selection. These criteria were used in the selection of both types of universities, but some criteria focusing on the global ranking of universities and the international impact of research were only applicable to the top type, and others focusing on strategies in accordance with the university’s particular characteristics applied only to the global traction type. Identifying the two different types was a strategy to support universities with different approaches to internationalization, but EMI was promoted for both types of university.

26

Section 1: English-medium Instruc t ion in Conte x t

Discussion and Conclusion Why has the government promoted the introduction of EMI at universities? The government has experienced an ongoing sense of crisis and a fear that Japan, Japanese universities and Japanese graduates will be marginalized from global competition. The number of international students coming into Japan has experienced a downturn in growth and has remained relatively static in the last decade, even while international student mobility continues to expand in the rest of the world. In these times of the increasing impact of global university rankings, Japanese universities have struggled to maintain or improve their position (Sumita, 2015). When the government introduced EMI exchange programs, it was understood that the Japanese language was a disincentive for international students to select Japan as a destination for studying abroad and an impediment to increasing the number of international students. This understanding is still present in policy discussions. Measurable evaluation indicators of global rankings such as the percentage of international students and foreign academics, as well as the fact that universities in English-speaking countries tend to be evaluated highly, could have guided the policy direction toward EMI. Although increasingly fierce competition has accelerated the promotion of EMI, the same motivators to promote EMI have been stable since the 1990s. They have been driven by an enduring sense of competitiveness crisis. Furthermore, requests from the business community for universities to supply global jinzai are growing. University administrations desire to raise the percentage of their graduates placed in jobs, in order to make their university more attractive to potential students and parents who are increasingly conscious about opportunities after graduation, and in order to become more competitive domestically. As global jinzai tends to be simplistically understood as a graduate with high English competence, the expansion of EMI at universities could be an imagined solution. At the same time, facing fiscal restraints, the government has supported a limited number of universities in enhancing their EMI programs by concentrating funds on universities of proven worth. Recent policies like the Global 30 and the Top Global University Project demonstrate the would-be cost-effective direction of selecting a small number of universities and concentrating funding on them. Increasing stratification where the top tier of universities, already different from the rest, continues to pull away is noted here. Where are Japanese universities going from here? The 13 universities selected for the Global 30 Project had all already taken a global or innovative approach to internationalization, and it is likely that the same universities will be selected repeatedly for competitive funds. For instance, among the 13 universities selected as Global 30 in 2008, 12 universities were selected again

Gover nment Polic y Dr iv ing EMI at Japanese Universit ies

27

for Top Global University Project in 2014. Nine were among the 13 top type universities and three were among the 24 global traction type universities. Selection and concentration give an advantage to universities that have received previous funds and have already made great progress toward internationalization. Selected universities can advertise their status to attract domestic students. For example, ‘Top 13 universities in Japan offering degree programs in English’ is a banner headline on the Global 30 website. They identify themselves as ‘top universities;’ readers could interpret the expression to mean the best universities in teaching and learning, the most prestigious universities in Japan or both. Another example is that of an individual university. Kanazawa University, one global traction type university, advertises the Top Global University Project information very vigorously to the domestic market through their website. After displaying a pyramid-shaped figure to emphasize that Kanazawa University is one of 37 universities selected for the project among all universities in Japan, there is a message: ‘From now on, how proactive a university is to globalization is also an important reason for you to select a university!’ Included is an illustration of a man and a woman dressed like Superman symbolizing Kanazawa University students staying ahead in a race and leaving others behind. This message is targeting Japanese high school students and their parents. In this time of a declining youth population, the power to brand themselves as a selected university is highly significant. The gap between the small number of selected universities and the rest of the never-selected universities widens. Winner-takes-all situations continue, in which elite, global-minded universities and innovative, nicheconscious universities are almost always at an advantage in international engagements (Kudo & Hashimoto, 2011). The current climate of constant competition is challenging even for selected universities. They are asked to set measurable goals and their achievements are constantly evaluated quantitatively. Extreme pressure to achieve numerical targets could lead to easy solutions like increasing isolated programs and employing fixed-term foreign academics instead of reforming existing curricula and employing tenure-track academics. Universities seem to have little other alternative but to follow the government’s direction in order to become more globally competitive and maintain their position as leading universities in Japan. In such a situation, the promotion of EMI could be a reactive response to globalization rather than a proactive one. Quantitative outcome indicators such as the percentage of EMI classes would be ahead of issues such as the quality of teaching and learning. The risks of compromising quality due to the use of a foreign language have not been well investigated in the policy-making process. On the other hand, the promotion of EMI, like in the Global 30 Project, has created an opportunity to discuss the quality of education and to share new approaches to teaching, learning and faculty development among these universities (JSPS, 2014a).

28

Section 1: English-medium Instruc t ion in Conte x t

Furthermore, even though the small number of selected universities have succeeded in implementing EMI and in increasing the number of international students, their capacity to accept international students is limited. The future of the 300,000 International Students Plan lies in the hands of other universities, currently with ad hoc as well as global or innovative approaches to internationalization, as discussed in Kudo and Hashimoto (2011). The government announced in 2013 that, in 10 years, 10 universities would be listed in the top 100 worldwide universities in a global ranking, even though only two were listed at that time (Office of the Prime Minister, 2013). Universities selected as top type in the Top Global University Project are expected to head for that goal, but such an ambition is shared by other countries and not everyone can be a winner. The universities could become worn out from continuous competition. EMI-related policies exhibit government attempts to control universities through competition and lead them in a certain direction. Yet truly globally competitive universities should perhaps be free from government support and control. Similarly, truly global jinzai should be able to select and move to a nation of their choice, especially because some countries have an immigration policy of attracting highly skilled migrants. Why international students study abroad in Japan and why Japanese students study in English in the first place are fundamental questions in relation to EMI at Japanese universities. Nowadays, there is easy, free-of-charge online access to high-quality lectures in English by world-prominent professors through Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Opportunities to interact with other students with the same interests around the world are open to all. What is value-added EMI in Japan? Early in the Meiji era, the use of a foreign language as a MoI at Japanese universities was an instrument to introduce advanced Western knowledge and technology, but the current promotion of EMI does not seem to have the same clearly defined objective. The expansion of EMI and Englishization themselves should not be a goal, but only an instrument.

References Aruga, O. (2014) MEXT Presentation. Presentation given at Internationalizing Japanese Universities: The Global 30 Experience. Symposium conducted in Fukuoka, Japan, February. See https://www.jsps.go.jp/j-kokusaika/follow-up/data/h26/global30_ report.pdf Ashizawa, S. (2012) Ryuugakusei ukeire to koudo jinzai kakutoku senryaku: Guroubaru jinzai ikusei no tame no senryakuteki kadai to wa [Accepting international students and strategies to recruit highly skilled people: Strategies to develop global human resources]. JASSO Web Magazine: Ryuugaku Kouryuu 10, 1–14. See http://www.jasso. go.jp/about/documents/shingoashizawa.pdf Asia’s Best Universities (2000) See http://edition.cnn.com/ASIANOW/asiaweek/features/ universities2000/artic_missing.html (accessed 2 February 2016). Bradford, A. (2013) English-medium degree programs in Japanese universities: Learning from the European experience. Asian Education and Development Studies 2 (3), 225–240.

Gover nment Polic y Dr iv ing EMI at Japanese Universit ies

29

Bradford, A. (2015) Internationalization policy at the genba: Exploring the implementation of social science English-taught undergraduate degree programs. EdD dissertation, The George Washington University. Cabinet Office, MEXT, MOFA, MOJ, MHLW, METI and MLIT (2009) Ryuugakusei 30 man nin keikaku no shinchoku joukyou ni tsuite [Progress report of 300,000 International Students Plan] FY2008–2009, August. See http://www.mext. go.jp/a_menu/koutou/ryugaku/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2009/10/02/1284755_1.pdf Central Council for Education (2003) Aratana ryuugakusei seisaku no tenkai ni tsuite, toushin [Developing a new policy on international students, recommendations], 16 December. See http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/chukyo0/ toushin/03121801.htm (accessed 10 March 2016). Council for the Asian Gateway Initiative (2007) Asian gateway initiative, 16 May. See http://japan.kantei.go.jp/gateway/kettei/070516doc.pdf Dearden, J. (2014) English as a Medium of Instruction – A Growing Global Phenomenon. London: British Council. Education Rebuilding Council (2008) Education rebuilding by society as a whole: Toward ensuring its effectiveness. Final report, 31 January. See http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/ singi/kyouiku/houkoku/eiyaku0131.pdf Education Rebuilding Implementation Council (2013) University education and global human resource development for the future, third proposal (provisional translation). See http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/kyouikusaisei/pdf/dai3_en.pdf Guroubaru Jinzai Ikusei Suishin Kaigi [Global Human Resource Development Promotion Council] (2012) Guroubaru jinzai ikusei suisen senryaku [Global human resource development strategy]. See http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/global/1206011matome.pdf Hashimoto, H. (2004) Globalization and the internationalization of universities in Japan: Issues of identity in student exchange. PhD thesis, Monash University. Hashimoto, H. (2005) Internationalization of universities: The impact of the global expansion of English on Japanese universities. Transcultural Studies: A Series in Interdisciplinary Research 1, 1–21. IMD World Competitiveness Centre (2015) World competitiveness yearbook 2015. See http://www.imd.org/wcc/news-wcy-ranking/ (accessed 1 October 2015). JASSO (2015) Gaikokujin ryuugakusei zaiseki joukyou chousa kekka [International students’ enrollment]. See http://www.jasso.go.jp/statistics/intl_student/documents/ data14.pdf JSPS (n.d.) Top Global University Project. See http://www.jsps.go.jp/j-sgu/ (accessed 2 October 2015). JSPS (2014a) Internationalizing Japanese universities: The Global 30 experience, 24 February, Fukuoka, Japan. See https://www.jsps.go.jp/j-kokusaika/follow-up/data/ h26/global30_report.pdf JSPS (2014b, April 8) Suupaa guroubaru daigaku sousei shien: Shinsa kijun [Top Global University Project: Selection criteria]. See http://www.jsps.go.jp/j-sgu/data/ download/03_sgu_shinsakijun.pdf JSPS (2015) Keizai shakai no hatten o ken’insuru guroubaru jinzai ikusei shien: Chuukan hyouka kekka no soukatsu [Go Global Japan: Interim assessment report]. See http:// www.jsps.go.jp/j-gjinzai/data/chukan_hyoka/hyoka_kekka/h26_hyoukakekka_all. pdf Kirkpatrick, A. (2014) English as a medium of instruction in East and Southeast Asian universities. In N. Murray and A. Scarino (eds) Dynamic Ecologies: A Relational Perspective on Languages Education in the Asia-Pacific Region (pp. 15–29). Dordrecht: Springer. Kitamura, K. (1989) Daigaku Kyouiku no Kokusaika: Soto kara Mita Nihon no Daigaku [The Internationalization of University Education: Japanese Universities as Seen from Outside]. Tokyo: Tamagawa Daigaku Shuppanbu.

30

Section 1: English-medium Instruc t ion in Conte x t

Kudo, K. and Hashimoto, H. (2011) Internationalization of Japanese universities: Current status and future directions. In S. Marginson, S. Kaur and E. Sawir (eds) Higher Education in the Asia-Pacific: Strategic Responses to Globalization (pp. 343 –359). Dordrecht: Springer. Marginson, S. (2007) Global university rankings: Implications in general and for Australia. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 29 (2), 131–142. Marginson, S. (2012) Global university rankings: The strategic issues. Keynote address to the conference of Las universidades latinoamericanas ante los rankings internacionales: Impactos, alcances y límites [Latin American universities and the international rankings: Impact, scope, and limits], National University of Mexico, Mexico City, May. MEXT (1995) Monbu kagaku hakusho (White paper on education, culture, sports, science and technology). See http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/html/ hpad199501/hpad199501_2_255.html#top (accessed 10 March 2016). MEXT (2004) Outline of the student exchange system in Japan. See http://www.mext. go.jp/component/a_menu/education/detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2009/11/04/1222424_ 16_001.pdf MEXT (2008a) Basic plan for the promotion of education (chapter 3). See http://www. mext.go.jp/english/lawandplan/1303482.htm (accessed 10 March 2016). MEXT (2008b) White paper on education, culture, sports, science and technology. See http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/html/hpab200801/detail/1292585.htm (accessed 10 March 2016). MEXT (2009a) Koutou gakkou gakushuu shidou youryou: Kaisetsu (High-school course of study: Comment). See http://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/ micro_detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2010/01/29/1282000_9.pdf MEXT (2009b) Outline of the student exchange system in Japan: Study in Japan and abroad. See http://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/detail/__icsFiles/ afieldfile/2010/09/08/1286521_1.pdf MEXT (2010) Outline of the student exchange system in Japan: Study in Japan and abroad 2010. See http://www.mext.go.jp/component/english/_ _icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/12/14/1303740_1.pdf MEXT (2011) Ryuugakusei 30-man-nin keikaku no shinchoku joukyou ni tsuite [Progress report of 300,000 international students plan, as of August 2011]. See http://www. mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2012/08/03/132 4282_01.pdf MEXT (2013a) Guroubaruka ni taiou shita eigo kyouiku kaikaku jisshi keikaku (Implementation plan of English education reform responding to globalization). See http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/25/12/1342458.htm (accessed 10 March 2016). MEXT (2013b) Dainiki kyouiku shinkou kihon keikaku [Second basic plan for promotion of education]. See http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/keikaku/detail/__icsFiles/ afieldfile/2013/06/14/1336379_02_1.pdf MEXT (2013c) Sekai no seichou o torikomu tame no gaikokujin ryuugakusei ukeire senryaku [Strategies of accepting international students to take advantage of global growth]. See http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/ryugaku/__icsFiles/ afieldfile/2013/12/24/1342726_2.pdf MEXT (2013d) Monbu kagaku hakusho [White paper on education, culture, sports, science and technology]. See http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/html/ hpaa201301/detail/1338121.htm (accessed 10 March 2016). MEXT (2015) Monbu kagaku hakusho (White paper on education, culture, sports, science and technology). See http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/html/ hpab201501/1361011_022.pdf

Gover nment Polic y Dr iv ing EMI at Japanese Universit ies

31

Office of the Prime Minister (2013) Nihon saikou senryaku: Japan is back [Japan revitalization strategy]. See http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/keizaisaisei/pdf/saikou_jpn. pdf Ota, H. (2011) Daigaku kokusaika doukou oyobi Nihon no genjou to kadai: Higashi Ajia to no hikaku kara [University internationalization trends and Japan’s challenges and prospects: An East Asian comparative study]. Media Kyouiku Kenkyuu [ Journal of Meltimedia Education Research] 8 (1), S1–S12. Otake, T. (2013) Nihon no daigaku ga sekai rankingu de teimei suru wake: ‘Abenomikusu’ o kokusai hyouka kouzou ni ikase [Reasons why Japanese universities perform poorly in global university rankings: Use ‘Abenomics’ to improve their positions]. Nikkei Business Online, October. See http://business.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/interview/2013 1010/254438/ ?P=1 (accessed 10 October 2015). Sumita, M. (2015) Sekai daigaku rankingu 2014: Nihon no daigaku no doukou [Global University Rankings 2014: Trend of Japanese Universities]. Tokyo: Watanabe Memorial Foundation for the Advancement of New Technology. Torikai, K. (2014) Eigo Kyouiku Ronsou kara Kangaeru [Thinking from Debates on English Language Education]. Tokyo: Misuzu Shobo. University Council (1998) 21-seiki no daigukuzou to kongo no kaikaku housaku ni tsuite, toushin [A vision for the university of the 21st century and future reform measures, recommendations]. See http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/old_chukyo/old_ daigaku_index/toushin/1315932.htm (accessed 10 March 2016). University Council (2000) Guroubaruka jidai ni motomerareru koutou kyouiku no arikata ni tsuite, toushin [Higher education in a global era, recommendations]. See http:// www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/old_chukyo/old_daigaku_index/toushin/1315960. htm (accessed 10 March 2016). Yonezawa, A. (2013) Nihon no ‘sekai suijun daigaku’ seisaku no yukue [The direction of Japan’s policy on ‘world class universities’]. In P.G. Altbach and J. Balan (eds) Shinkou Kokka no Sekai Suijun Daigaku Senryaku: Sekai Suijun o Mezasu Ajia, Chuunanbei to Nihon [Worldclass Worldwide: Transforming Research Universities in Asia and Latin America] (pp. 69–88). Tokyo: Toshindo. Yonezawa, A. (2014) Japan’s challenge of fostering ‘Global Human Resources’: Policy debates and practices. Japan Labor Review 11 (2), 37–52. Yoshino, K. (2014) Eigoka Suru Ajia: Toransunashonaruna Koutou Kyouiku Moderu to sono Hakyuu [Englishizing Asia: The Transnationalization of Malaysia’s Higher Education and its Impact]. Nagoya: Nagoya Daigaku Shuppankai.

3

Recent Government Policy and its Impact on EnglishMedium Instruction: Why this Time may be Different Bern Mulvey

A number of researchers (e.g. Brown & Iyobe, 2014; Yonezawa, 2014) have written about the recent rise in the number of Japanese universities offering content classes through English-medium instruction (EMI). This chapter focuses on the changes in government policy that have propelled this expansion. However, it is essential to keep in mind that this is not Japan’s first foray at the national level into curriculum reform, EMI classes or raising foreign faculty numbers to facilitate the expansion of EMI class offerings. Why is this important? A number of Japanese educators (e.g. Erikawa, 2009, 2014a, 2014b; Kubota, 1998, 1999, 2009, 2013, 2014, 2015; Narita, 2013; Saito, 2013; Suzuki, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2008; Terashima, 2009; and Tsuda, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2013) have repeatedly spoken out in opposition both to EMI and to the government policies responsible for its recent expansion. Moreover, their various objections in many ways mirror those used successfully in the 1890s and the 1980s to limit and/or eliminate EMI classes and programs, not to mention to get rid of the non-Japanese faculty hired to help staff those programs. Given this, understanding the substance of these objections and finding persuasive answers to them would seem critical to sustaining the current progressive climate (and its potential for realizing real improvements both to English language instruction and to the employment conditions of the non-Japanese educators helping to institute these improvements). Accordingly, this chapter discusses the present EMI expansion in the context of these past attempts to implement similar programs, including both recent changes in government policy and the growing backlash against these changes. As a former gaikokujin kyouin (i.e. tenured foreign faculty hire, the first such hire in Fukui University’s history), the dean of the first 32

Recent Gover nment Polic y and it s Impac t on EMI

33

university in Japan to feature English-medium instruction (Miyazaki International College), the head of MIC’s accreditation committee (assigned with defending our EMI program to outside auditors) and the former Division Head of a national university (Iwate University) currently considering expanding EMI offerings, I can offer possibly unique insights into the present challenges and future possibilities.

The Current Situation: Where We Are and How We Got Here Currently, over one-third of Japan’s 781 universities offer EMI, an almost 38% increase from 2008. The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology has recently published an extensive report (MEXT, 2015) tracking developments in EMI, including the number of universities offering programs (see Table 3.1). These statistics highlight the rapid increase in the number of universities offering English-medium classes in Japan. From the same report, 19 universities (38 schools/departments) now offer sufficient classes in English to allow students to graduate without taking additional classes in Japanese (MEXT, 2015: 9). This expansion is directly attributable to government policies enacted over the last 15 years, reforms intended to completely transform tertiary education in Japan. Before discussing the policies themselves, however, I want to clarify how it is that MEXT has been able to enact these far reaching changes. There has been a significant shift in the traditional power relationship between MEXT and Japan’s universities. Before 2001, MEXT had only nominal control over Japan’s universities: interventions into university governance (to include issues of curriculum and pedagogy) and critical appraisals of university quality (e.g. the appropriateness of, and school effectiveness in meeting, institutional mission objectives; the adequacy of school financial and physical resources; the quality of faculty, etc.) were allowed but once – at Table 3.1 Japanese universities offering subject classes taught solely in English by year Year

Number of schools

2008 2009 2011 2012 2013

190 194 222 241 262

Source: MEXT (2015).

34

Section 1: English-medium Instruc t ion in Conte x t

the time of initial application to MEXT for license to operate as a university (MEXT, 2005a; Mulvey, 2010; Mulvey et al., 2011). After this examination, and certainly upon completing the customarily four-year probationary period that followed, Japanese universities were essentially ‘ensured a lifetime status of laissez faire’ (Mori, 2009: 73), as no additional controls or quality assurance procedures existed (except, as Mori also notes, for MEXT’s control over student admissions, particularly their ability to set limits on intake numbers). Note that these observations contradict the received understanding, asserted mostly recently by Christensen (2011) – citing Hirose (2004) and Yamamoto (2005), and echoing that of many other researchers (e.g. Burden, 2009; Wada, 2002) – regarding Japan’s ‘tradition of centralized oversight’ (Christensen, 2011: 129). Between 2001 and 2014, MEXT gave itself broad new powers over public and private universities, including tighter fiscal controls and a say in internal curriculum reform and hiring decisions (detailed in Mori, 2009; Mulvey, 2000, 2010; Mulvey et al., 2011; Yamamoto, 2005). Chief among these new policies were: •

• •

the Kokuritsu Daigaku Gyousei Houjinka laws (2003) and related Kokuritsu Daigaku Kaizen plan (2013), which in combination essentially granted MEXT complete control over most aspects of national university governance; the Ninshou Hyouka laws (2004) mandating exhaustive accreditation inspections by MEXT-approved agencies every seven years for all universities; the various policies associated with the Daigaku Kaikaku Jikko plan (2012) which, among other things, made much yearly funding – for public and private universities – no longer automatic but competitive (with MEXT the sole arbiter of said competition).

Universities and/or schools which respond appropriately to the accreditation and competitive funding requirements continue to receive both, with stiff penalties for those that do not. A very recent example of this is the August 2014 decision (discussed in more detail below) requiring substantial reforms of the schools of humanities, education and social sciences at all 85 national universities, with the termination of any inadequately ‘reformed’ schools explicitly threatened. This, again, is a power MEXT did not have before. Almost immediately, the Ministry began using its new powers to enforce its vision of an internationally competitive university system, pressuring universities to change admissions standards, classroom pedagogy and evaluation methodology. With respect to EMI, current policy first began to take shape in 2003 with MEXT’s ‘Action plan to cultivate Japanese who can use English’ (MEXT, 2004). Since then, MEXT has enacted 18 new programs, most directed at ‘internationalizing’ Japan’s universities (MEXT, 2008, 2012a,

Recent Gover nment Polic y and it s Impac t on EMI

35

2012b, 2013a, 2014a). Furthermore, since 2008, official government policy has promoted eigo o tsuujite (learning through English) – in other words, the usage of English as a tool for academic discovery (MEXT, 2005a, 2005b, 2008, 2009, 2010). In high schools, this means that English is no longer to be taught in isolation, mainly for university entrance and typically in language classes featuring lecture, rote memorization and via yakudoku – that is, teacher-led and dominated by line-by-line translation – methodologies. Instead, language classes are to become ‘communicative’ and focused on critical thinking and academic English skills. In universities, this means that the emphasis is to be on expanding the number of EMI classes (MEXT, 2006, 2010, 2012a, 2012b, 2013a, etc.). English ability is to be used as a means to enable greater subject mastery, with the ultimate goal of producing a Japanese student population capable of learning a wide range of subject matter in English. Finally, as part of this new emphasis on instruction in English, the government has advocated hiring 1500 new foreign faculty; if successfully implemented, this would represent a nearly 10% increase in the number of non-Japanese teaching full-time at Japan’s universities (Abe, 2013; MEXT, 2013b, 2015). To understand fully MEXT’s motivations and ultimate goals, it is critical to remember that the reforms are being enacted not just due to internal pressures (for instance, Japan’s economic and demographic issues as detailed in Mulvey, 2010, 2012), but in response to perceived external pressures as well. As Hall (1998: 103) and Mulvey (2010: 16) note, a reoccurring theme in Japanese education has been how government defensiveness over international reputation and/or embarrassment over perceived poor showings on diagnostic tests becomes the impetus for attempts at sweeping change. This time as well, MEXT has repeatedly (MEXT, 2005a, 2005b, 2012b, 2013a, 2013b) cited poor Japanese showings on international rankings as a major motivating factor behind its new reform policies, particularly the disappointing TOEFL and Programme for International Student Assessment scores, as well as the inability of more Japanese universities to break into the yearly Times Higher Education rankings of the top 100 universities in the world. (Only two Japanese universities were ranked in the top 100 in 2015, with Tokyo University highest at 43.) Tellingly, MEXT sees these issues as connected. Note that all the major international university ranking systems include a score for issues related to faculty and student diversity. For this reason, lack of diversity, particularly the low numbers of international students and the low percentage of non-Japanese on Japanese university faculties, are repeatedly offered as important reasons for the continuing inability of more Japanese universities to break into the top 100 rankings (e.g. MEXT, 2008, 2012a, 2012b, 2013a, 2013b). Ostensibly, the scarcity of EMI classes, coupled with archaic and ineffective pedagogy, has contributed both to the low scores on the various diagnostic tests and to the inability to recruit greater numbers of international students (who often lack the Japanese language skills to graduate courses solely in that language). In other

36

Section 1: English-medium Instruc t ion in Conte x t

words, MEXT sees EMI expansion as an important part of a ‘solution’ consisting of pressuring universities to use more innovative pedagogy and hire up to 1500 more foreign faculty. Increasing the number of foreign faculty is not only to lead to a rise in the number of classes taught in English, but also to be an important part of effecting pedagogical change. Skilled and experienced foreign faculty are expected to bring with them new ideas about teaching and learning, ideally stimulating systemic improvements to classroom practice. Accordingly, most of the 67-page report (MEXT, 2015) cited above is dedicated not just to documenting the expansion of EMI, but also to providing current statistics for the wide range of reforms occurring in other areas as well. For instance, the first seven pages focus on the move from so-called ‘traditional’ classroom pedagogies to classroom methodology featuring active learning and the acquisition of critical thinking skills, providing both statistics and specific examples that these improvements are ongoing. Similarly, the report provides statistical evidence of substantial changes in university hiring practices, including a greater emphasis on employing foreign faculty members (e.g. MEXT, 2015: 58). Finally, much of this increase can be seen to stem from the Top Global University Project that both the Japanese government and MEXT (Abe, 2013; MEXT, 2014b) hope will spearhead Japan’s internationalization and result in at least 10 schools breaking into the top 100 universities in the world.

EMI: Past Incarnations A number of sources – including MEXT itself – have characterized the changes described above as new, even groundbreaking. However, it is important to remember that EMI, taught either by proficient Japanese instructors or by foreign nationals, used to be the cornerstone of education in this country. As Kitao et al. (1985: 128–129) and Smith and Motomichi (2003: 234– 236) also note, from the early to mid-Meiji period (1868–1893), most subjects were taught solely in a foreign language (usually English, but in German for many medical schools), using textbooks in that language. The reason was expediency; Japan needed to respond quickly to what it saw as serious external threats, requiring the quick mastery of ideas and technologies not yet available in Japanese. Notably, English was not then considered an academic subject per se; instead, it was considered a tool for learning about the technologies and ideas that would help the country modernize. Accordingly, an overriding educational tenet of the time was ‘in English and through English but never about English’ (Smith & Motomichi, 2003: 235). The teachers were qualified native speakers or Japanese highly proficient in English, with the preferred methodology discussion-based and emphasizing critical thinking (Hall, 1998: 101–102; Kitao et al., 1985: 128–129; Smith & Motomichi, 2003: 234–237).

Recent Gover nment Polic y and it s Impac t on EMI

37

Things began to change with the rebirth of Japanese nationalism in the mid-Meiji period and the anti-foreigner sentiment that accompanied it. Beginning in 1893, and over the objections of Japanese educators such as Kanda Naibu, the Japanese government put a stop to virtually all EMI in Japan (Hall, 1998: 101–102; Kitao et al., 1985: 128; Smith & Motomichi, 2003: 235). At the same time, and for similar reasons, the government instituted the gaikokjin kyoushi system (Hall, 1998: 93); suddenly, foreign faculty members in ostensibly ‘tenured’ positions at Japan’s universities were no longer ‘colleagues’ but ‘temporary foreign lecturers;’ by 1905, most were gone, their jobs eliminated. However, it must be emphasized that this ‘government’ policy was instituted at the prompting and with the strong support of a majority of Japanese university faculty and administrators, including those at the top schools in the country. Hall includes an extended quote from Tetsujiro Inoue, then dean at Tokyo University, detailing the personal satisfaction a number of Japanese university faculty felt at instituting these changes: We had many foreigners as teachers at Tokyo University in the early years of Meiji, in order to make up the deficiency in Japanese professors. In principle, however, professors at Japanese universities should all be Japanese. Accordingly, we managed to dismiss the foreign instructors relatively quickly from the Faculties of Medicine, Law, and Science so that there was not one of them left. That was the policy throughout the university. In the Faculty of Letters too, we were guided by the belief that every field should be taught exclusively by Japanese staff, and that the number of foreigners should gradually be reduced and ultimately eliminated altogether. (Hall, 1998: 102) Here, in a pattern that will be shown to occur again and again; resistance to the presence of foreign instructors came most heatedly from their Japanese colleagues, and emanated from issues well beyond the classroom, to include nationalistic and even racial concerns. Moreover, Kitao et al. (1985) and Smith and Motomichi (2003) discuss in detail how the Japanese relationship to English changed at this time as well. Instead of being a tool for academic exploration, English became an academic subject, one to be taught solely in Japanese by Japanese. It was only at this time that yakudoku methodology became popular. As many Japanese teachers of English were not sufficiently proficient in the language to use English as the medium of instruction (Kitao et al., 1985: 128–129; Smith & Motomichi, 2003: 234–235), this methodology allowed them to avoid using English, often entirely. The second attempt to institute EMI nationally was in the 1980s. As Hall (1998: 103) notes as well, the initial impetus for this too was external – chiefly, a 1971 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

38

Section 1: English-medium Instruc t ion in Conte x t

survey that noted the closed nature of Japanese university life and the ‘need for new attitudes.’ These criticisms were not acted upon immediately; Yano (2000) and Yonezawa (2014) discuss how the economic prosperity culminating in the 1970s and early 1980s ‘bubble economy’ finally gave Japan both the confidence and the incentive to develop human resources suited to the globalized economy and labor market. By 1979, faced with the rapid expansion of exports of Japanese high-technology products (and the resultant need for bilingual, culturally literate staff to push this expansion), Japan started on a full-scale ‘internationalization’ of education (Yonezawa, 2014: 40). These efforts included new measures allowing universities and schools to accept returnees (children with Japanese citizenship who had received the majority of their K–12 education outside of Japan), a government plan to accept 100,000 international students by the end of 2000, the institution of the Japan Exchange and Teaching Program (JET), and the enactment of the Kyouin Law. For the purposes of this chapter, I will focus on universities and the Kyouin Law of 1982, the latter crafted by and enacted at the urging of MEXT. Unlike those in gaikokujin kyoushi positions, foreigners hired in the new gaikokujin kyouin positions were to have all the rights and privileges of regular Japanese university faculty – including tenure on hire, an equal say in curriculum decisions, the ability to attend faculty meetings and the right to vote in faculty elections. More importantly, these faculty were to teach not just English but in English, chiefly content courses in their field of study. In other words, for the first time since the early Meiji era, non-Japanese faculty were to be hired with tenure to teach in their specialty, and in English. Hall (1998) and Yonezawa (2014) discuss the heated political debate and media fanfare that both preceded and followed the enactment of this law, pitting the nation’s universities against MEXT itself. This time, MEXT lost. Hall (1998) details, with multiple examples, the reasons for its ultimate failure, to include issues of territorialism (why should MEXT have the right to make such decisions?) and nationalism (why should non-Japanese be allowed Japanese-equivalent, tenured university positions), as well as more pragmatic issues (who would do the paperwork for these non-Japanese, who would translate for them and, most importantly, would Japanese students really understand their lessons?). Finally, as Hall notes, it was again faculty members from many of the most prestigious universities in Japan that led the opposition to MEXT policy, including a number of universities (e.g. see the extensive, harrowing discussion of Tsukuba University, pp. 107–117) which ostensibly were founded on principles of international exchange and cooperative research. Lacking the ability to enforce either the spirit or the letter of its initiatives, MEXT was forced to acquiesce as to how the individual universities put them into practice. As a result, by 1990, most kyouin were hired in non-tenure positions and relegated to teaching outside their specialty, typically term-limited contracts teaching

Recent Gover nment Polic y and it s Impac t on EMI

39

English as a foreign language. In other words, and despite MEXT’s intentions, the new positions were effectively the same as gaikokujin kyoushi positions. Meanwhile, nearly all non-language classes were still taught only by Japanese faculty and only in Japanese. I was one of these kyouin hires. In 1996, the School of Education at Fukui National University hired me to teach British and American literature (my specialties) in English. As their first gaikokujin kyouin hire, I faced a number of obstacles, some of which were related later in a Chronicle of Education article (McNeill, 2007) appearing after I had become dean of a different Japanese university: specifically, a continued ambiguity regarding the terms of my employment, not to mention an initial refusal to allow me to attend meetings, advise students and participate in curriculum policy discussions. However, I was comparatively lucky; fluent in Japanese and blessed with some supportive colleagues, I would eventually be fully accepted as a faculty member, allowed into meetings, given administrative duties and even would become the first non-Japanese in the university’s history to be promoted to jokyouju (associate professor). Still, at no time during my employment was there concerted effort made by the school to take advantage of my presence and increase the number of EMI offerings; on the contrary, I was pressured to teach my literature classes in Japanese due to (unwarranted) concerns over the ability of Japanese college students to understand the subject matter in English. Moreover, time and again I was reminded that the reason for the ‘special’ (i.e. equal) treatment I was receiving was not my contributions to ‘internationalization’ (MEXT’s purpose in creating the position), but my Japanese language fluency. The two other foreigners hired to kyouin positions (in the School of Engineering) were less fortunate. Lacking Japanese ability, they were increasingly ostracized by their departments (whose members lacked the English language ability to deal with them) and left out of all decision-making; eventually they were also relegated to teaching EFL classes – that is, classes outside both their field and research interest. What lessons are to be learned from the above? First, in both the 1890s and the 1980s, the Japanese government initiated the moves toward internationalization in reaction to outside pressures; in both cases as well, the reforms included an emphasis on adding EMI classes and hiring foreign nationals to teach these classes. Second, despite hopeful beginnings, practical, territorial and nationalistic concerns led to the programs being either halted or gutted; importantly, these concerns were raised by the universities themselves, and particularly in the 1980s, in direct opposition to MEXT.

Why Things May be Different This Time As mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, a number of Japanese university educators are again writing and speaking out repeatedly to oppose

40

Section 1: English-medium Instruc t ion in Conte x t

the recent MEXT policy decisions on EMI. Moreover, as with opposition seen in the 1890s and 1980s, their arguments against EMI can be divided into nationalistic and pragmatic issues. Regarding the former, Terashima (2009) has characterized EMI as, among other things, a bunkateki bouryoku [cultural assault] on Japan. Suzuki (2001, 2003, 2005, 2008) and Tsuda (1998, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2013) repeatedly have stressed the dangers of so-called eigo shinkou or ‘English worship,’ warning against what they see as the resultant inferiority complex and hatred of all things Japanese. (Aspinall, 2003, makes similar observations about both Suzuki and Tsuda.) Kubota has argued repeatedly that these new policies are an overreaching of Japanese government power, outdated (owing to a perceived weakening of the West in the face of expanding Chinese economic and political might) – and yet at the same time somehow representative of ongoing ‘English imperialism’ threatening the very cultural integrity of Japan (Kubota, 1998, 1999, 2009, 2013, 2014, 2015). Finally, as with past attempts to introduce EMI, it is also interesting to note that all these anti-EMI (and anti-English) nationalistic educators are English teachers. In other words, their strong, ongoing positions against this ‘language of imperialism’ have stopped none of them from making a living teaching that very language to university students for over 20 years. Indeed, not only are the arguments similar to those made in the past, but the status of the people making them is similar as well. Suzuki is a professor at Keio University. Tsuda is a professor at Tsukuba University, whose latest book was published by Keio University. Terashima was a professor (now professor emeritus) at Gifu University. Kubota, a professor at the University of British Columbia, penned two recent articles – as Erikawa (2014a) also notes – while in Japan at the invitation of Sophia University, before and after giving a lecture there. What do these universities have in common? All of them applied to be part of the Top Global University Project that MEXT hopes will spearhead Japan’s internationalization. With the exception of Gifu University, all were accepted at some level into the Top Global program and made recipients of MEXT funding (and note that Gifu, despite failing to receive MEXT funding, has chosen to go ahead with its new Global Education program regardless). And, finally, with the exception of Kubota (who works overseas), all of the professors mentioned are affiliated with these Top Global schools and programs. In other words, as before, it is the Japanese educators tasked with (and often directly in charge of) the EMI-related reforms that are leading the opposition against them. That said, as alluded to above, there are important differences this time. First, the Kokuritsu Daigaku Gyousei Houjinka laws have both severely undermined faculty self-governance at national universities and made their yearly funding levels conditional, dependent on institutional ability to meet goals set by MEXT. The result has been to weaken the potential for resistance from this traditionally rebellious sector. Second, by instituting accreditation

Recent Gover nment Polic y and it s Impac t on EMI

41

and competitive funding, MEXT has given itself additional, substantial controls over all universities, including the nuclear options of rescinding accreditation and/or halting all funding. As all universities need to maintain current accreditation, and as even many private schools depend on MEXT funding to survive (Mulvey, 2012), universities have a vested interest in fully satisfying MEXT demands. The result, I believe, is a much improved chance of making these latest reforms lasting, even in the face of stiffening opposition. Here are two specific examples of how the new government policies are impacting Japan’s universities and realizing substantive changes. First, I was dean of Miyazki International College (MIC) and in charge of its accreditation committee when it first underwent the two-year (2007–2008) accreditation process. Note that MIC was the first Japanese university to offer most courses in English, allowing students to graduate without having to take classes in Japanese. I describe the accreditation process more fully elsewhere (Mulvey, 2010; Mulvey et al., 2011); with regards specifically to MIC, the accreditors demanded fairness, student-focused teaching and research, faculty voice (including participation in the administrative process) and complete transparency and honest reflection at all levels. In other words, using powers formerly unavailable to it, MEXT was able to gain complete access to all university records, evaluate our curriculum content and attendant policies, and make specific requests for change. In particular, they graded our utilization of EMI very highly, reinforcing the institution-wide decision to retain this practice. Finally, MIC used feedback from its assessment review to initiate clearer delineations of level- and learner-appropriate learning outcomes for its EFL classes, not to mention ensure better coordination between these classes and the EMI curriculum. Accordingly, the system worked as MEXT intended: we were not only rewarded for using EMI, but the accreditation process itself improved our ability to provide these classes. The second example is how Iwate National University has had to evolve to meet the demands of this new competitive funding era. Beginning in 2010, MEXT had requested the complete revamping of our curriculum, to include additional EMI offerings, a greater emphasis on international exchange and additional reforms of our admissions and grading policies. As discussed above, these requests became demands in 2014 (MEXT, 2014b), when a blanket order was made to all national universities demanding immediate, substantial changes to their schools of Education and the Humanities or face their possible closure. As English Department Head at Iwate National University, and then as Division Head in charge of the Western Languages and Cultures Division, I helped oversee the complete revamping of the curriculum that has resulted. This included adopting the Common European Framework (CEF) as the standard evaluation reference, with English faculty incorporating CEF level-appropriate accuracy and fluency goals in their course descriptions, lesson design and evaluations. Another improvement was the development of

42

Section 1: English-medium Instruc t ion in Conte x t

the Guro-baru/Chiiki Jinzai Ikusei Puroguramu [Global-Regional Student Development Program]. The latter program dramatically increases student exposure to EMI, integrating both in-class and out-of-class experiences to provide students with the cross-cultural, linguistic and analytical skills and experiences necessary to contribute productively as regional and global citizens. Again, none of these changes would have happened without MEXT’s new-found controls over funding and accreditation, necessitating university compliance. Finally, a number of Japanese faculty members have campaigned against EMI for more practical reasons, including Erikawa (2009, 2014a, 2014b), Narita (2013), Saito (2013) and Terashima (2009). All four of these authors point out the extremely low levels of English, including very limited vocabularies and poor reading and writing skills, possessed by the majority of students in Japan. They feel that these low levels of proficiency, combined with the limited amount of class time devoted to English each week (six hours on average in high school), almost invariably result in students who simply cannot understand content via EMI; moreover, merely lecturing at these students in English will not lead to noticeable improvement. They note too that most Japanese teachers have not been trained in providing EMI, suggesting that suddenly requiring these teachers (a number with many years of experience) to undergo such training in their own time (and often at their own expense) is both inappropriate and unfair. Moreover, both Saito and Terashima express concerns over what would be lost by teaching subject classes in English, questioning among other things how students unable to understand basic English conversation will be able to master the nuances of different fields when taught in a foreign language. The concerns of Erikawa, Narita, Saito and Terashima are belied by the many universities and programs now offering EMI classes and the growing number of Japanese students taking them. Moreover, per MEXT figures, 19 universities (38 schools/departments) now offer sufficient classes in English to allow students to graduate without taking additional classes in Japanese. These include Miyazaki International College, which has been doing so successfully since 1994, and Akita International University, which has been operating successfully since 2004. As these universities continue to demonstrate, and despite the inherent challenges, Japanese students can and do master the materials sufficiently in English. Indeed, many of the concerns expressed by these educators, particularly regarding the supposed inability of Japanese students to understand subject material in English, echo those I heard from my former colleagues at Fukui National University. Despite employing multiple measures of student comprehension and accomplishment – measurements that consistently showed high levels of understanding – these colleagues continued to feel that my students could not grasp the material in English; moreover, they seemed to believe that no methodology existed to help Japanese students to overcome any initial

Recent Gover nment Polic y and it s Impac t on EMI

43

challenges with said material. However, again, the overwhelming majority of my students were able to overcome these challenges and master the material. And yes, despite such success stories, Erikawa, Narita, Saito and Terashima raise important points that need to be considered by any school looking to increase the number and scope of their EMI offerings. My point, though, is this: classroom policies and inventive methodologies exist to address their concerns. Moreover, a growing number of schools and programs in Japan are using said policies and methodologies to provide first-rate education through EMI. Finally, questions remain about the logistics of managing the thousands of non-Japanese speaking foreigners who will be hired to teach these classes. In real terms, even after adding 1500 foreign educators, the percentage of non-Japanese to Japanese faculty at Japan’s universities would still be under 6% nationally. However, this remains a sensitive issue for Japanese educators, many of whom worry that the new foreign faculty hires will be unable to converse in Japanese, necessitating special assistance and support (which these Japanese see as an unfair burden on themselves). Certainly, creating and then maintaining the kind of support system crucial to ensuring the seamless inclusion of non-Japanese into a Japanese-style workplace can seem daunting. Also, it is worth noting that this support, at least initially, often extends beyond the workplace, to include such things as setting up bank accounts, insurance, housing and other acculturalization issues. Still, again, not only can such support systems be created, but they are being created successfully at a number of Japan’s universities. As one example, at MIC, over 80% of the faculty have been non-Japanese from its founding. Of course, many of these non-Japanese faculty initially lacked the language ability and cultural awareness necessary to work (and live independently) in Japan. The institutional answer has been to hire bilingual university administrators and office personnel, as well as to institute a mentor system whereby more experienced faculty members assist with the acclimatizing of the new faculty members. The result is a support system where the responsibility for training and caring for new faculty is shared among multiple providers – lessening the sense of individual burden – and yet still more than comprehensive enough to ensure that all new faculty receive the support necessary to succeed. Certainly, questions also remain about the nature and strength of the political will to resist ongoing pressure from some university educators, often the same educators MEXT is relying on to see the changes through. Still, the demands of the accreditation assessments (particularly the requirements of transparency and accountability), backed by MEXT’s new-found powers to limit and even deny funding, suggest reasons for continuing optimism. Moreover, I want to touch briefly on one additional cause for hope: culturally as well, this is not the Japan of 1980 (let alone 1880), when foreigners (especially outside of Tokyo) were still rare enough that one walking down the street would stop traffic (as often happened to me during my first visit to this country). Non-Japanese at this time were often treated either as exotic

44

Section 1: English-medium Instruc t ion in Conte x t

guests or as curious (and sometimes even dangerous) intruders. Thanks to the internet and social networking services (SNS), to television and cinema, to quicker and more convenient transportation to and from overseas, and to the resulting exponential increase in tourism, the average Japanese person has far more encounters with non-Japanese people than ever before. The result is a population which is far less isolated, one which increasingly sees English mastery as not just admirable in the abstract, but necessary. This change in perception is helping to fuel, and in my opinion will continue to sustain, the EMI movement as well.

References Abe, S. (2013) Abe Souri ‘Seichou sennryaku dai 2 dan’ supi-chi [Speech by Prime Minister ‘On the 2nd stage of our strategies for growth’]. See http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/96_ abe/statement/2013/0517speech.html (accessed 28 October 2015). Aspinall, R. (2003) Japanese nationalism and the reform of English language teaching. In R. Goodman and D. Phillips (eds) Can the Japanese Change their Educational System? (pp. 103–118). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brown, H. and Iyobe, B. (2014) The growth of English medium instruction in Japan. In N. Sonda and A. Krause (eds) JALT2013 Conference Proceedings (pp. 9–19). Tokyo: JALT. Burden, P. (2009) A case study into teacher perceptions of the introduction of student evaluation of teaching surveys (SETs) in Japanese tertiary education. Asian EFL Journal 11 (1), 126–149. Christensen, T. (2011) Japanese university reform – Hybridity in governance and management. Higher Education Policy 24 (1), 127–142. Erikawa, H. (2009) Eigo Kyoiku no Politics [Politics in English Education]. Tokyo: Sanyusha Shuppan. Erikawa, H. (2014a) Eigo de jyugyo wa jidaiokure I [Conducting English lessons in English is out of date I], blog. See http://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/gibson_erich_man/34080971.html (accessed 20 September 2015). Erikawa, H. (2014b) Eigo de jyugyo wa jidaiokure II [Conducting English lessons in English is out of date II], blog. See http://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/gibson_erich_ man/34086874.html (accessed 20 September 2015). Hall, I. (1998) Cartels of the Mind: Japan’s Intellectual Closed Shop. New York: W.W. Norton. Hirose, K. (2004) Japan: Adapting the American model to centralized oversight. In C. Hood, O. James, B.G. Peters and C. Scott (eds) Controlling Modern Government. Variety, Commonality and Change (pp. 91–97). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Kitao, S.K., Kitao, K., Nozawa, K. and Yamamoto, M. (1985) Teaching English in Japan. In K. Kitao, K. Nozawa, Y. Oda, T. Robb, M. Sugimori and M. Yamamoto (eds) TEFL in Japan: JALT 10 Shunen Kinen Ronbunshu [ JALT 10th Anniversary Collected Papers] (pp. 127–138). Tokyo: JALT. Kubota, R. (1998) Ideologies of English in Japan. World Englishes 17 (3), 295 –306. Kubota, R. (1999) Japanese culture constructed by discourses: Implications for applied linguistics research and ELT. TESOL Quarterly 33 (1), 9–35. Kubota, R. (2009) Internationalization of universities: Paradoxes and responsibilities. The Modern Language Journal 93 (4), 612–616. Kubota, R. (2013) Eigo bannooron wa yameyoo [Stop saying that English is a universal language]. Tokyo Shinbun, 16 December, p. 2. Kubota, R. (2014) Orinpikku to eigo kyooiku: Han guroobaru teki kaikaku [The Olympics and English language teaching: The Anti-global reforms]. Shuukan Kinyoobi, 17 January, p. 63.

Recent Gover nment Polic y and it s Impac t on EMI

45

Kubota, R. (2015) Eigo Kyouiku to Bunka, Jinshu, Jenda [English Education and Culture, Race and Gender]. Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan. McNeill, D. (2007) Japan: still foreign after all these years. Chronicle of Higher Education 53 (24), 47. MEXT (2004) Eigo ga tsukaeru nihonjin no ikusei no tameno kodo keikaku [Action plan to cultivate Japanese who can use English]. See http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/ shingi/chukyo/chukyo3/004/siryo/04031601/005.pdf MEXT (2005a) Dokkairyoku kojo puroguramu [Program for improving critical reading skills]. See http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/gakuryoku/siryo/05122201/014/005. pdf MEXT (2005b) Kyoiku katei bukai (Dai sanki Dai 1–12 kai) ni okeru omo na iken [Key opinions given at the education program meetings (The third term/1st–12th meetings)]. See http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/chukyo3/004/siryo/05111 603/001.htm (accessed 3 October 2015). MEXT (2006) Wagakuni no daigaku no kyosoryoku kyoka to kokusai tenkai ni tsuite – Daigaku bunka kai kakubukai o fumaeta omona iken no seiri [On enhancing the competitiveness and internationalization of Japanese universities — Opinions from the University Division]. See http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/ chukyo4/003/gijiroku/06102415/001.htm (accessed 3 October 2015). MEXT (2008) Shisaku mokuhyou 4–1: Daigakutou no kokusaika ya kyouiku kenkyuu no shitsuno koujou/hoshou no suishi [Policy goals 4–1: Internationalizing universities and improving/guaranteeing better quality education and research]. See http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/hyouka/kekka/1285673.htm (accessed 3 October 2015). MEXT (2009b) Koukou gakkou gakushuu shidou youryou kaisetsu: Gaikokugo hen. [An explanation of the changes to high school instruction: Foreign languages section]. See http://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/micro_detail/__icsFiles/afield file/2010/01/29/1282000_9.pdf MEXT (2010) Eigo shido hoho to kaizen no suisin ni kannsuru kondankai [Meeting to Discuss Ways to Promote the Improvement of English Language Instruction]. See http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chousa/shotou/018/toushin/010110b.htm (accessed 3 October 2015). MEXT (2012a) Daigaku kaikaku jikko puran — Shakai no henkaku no enjin to naru daigaku zukuri [University reformation action plan— To create universities which will function as engines for social reformation]. See http://www.mext.go.jp/b_ menu/houdou/24/06/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2012/06/05/1312798_01_3.pdf MEXT (2012b) Guro-baru jinzai ikusei suishin jigyou [Project to foster the development of global human resources]. See http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/24/09/ attach/1326084.htm (accessed 4 October 2015). MEXT (2013a) Kokuritsu daigaku kaikaku puran. [Reform plan for national universities]. See http://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/detail/__icsFiles/ afieldfile/2013/12/18/1341974_01.pdf MEXT (2013b) Waga kuni no daigaku no kokusaika no joukyou ni tsuite [About the current state of internationalization at our universities]. See http://www.mext.go.jp/b_ menu/shingi/chousa/koutou/57/siryo/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2013/11/28/1341936_07_1. pdf MEXT (2014a) Su-pa guro-baru daigaku sousei shien [Top Global University Project]. See http://www.jsps.go.jp/j-sgu/gaiyou.html (accessed 2 October 2015). MEXT (2014b) Kokuritsu daigaku houjin no soshiki oyobi gyoumu zenpan no minaoshi ni kansuru shiten ni tsuite [About the complete overhaul of structure and duties at the national universities]. See http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/kokuritu/ gijiroku/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2014/08/13/1350876_02.pdf

46

Section 1: English-medium Instruc t ion in Conte x t

MEXT (2015) Heisei 25 nendo no daigaku ni okeru kyouiku naiyoutou no kaikaku joukyou ni tsuite [About the state of affairs regarding university reforms to education in 2013]. See http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/daigaku/04052801/__icsFiles/ afieldfile/2015/09/10/1361916_1.pdf Mori, R. (2009) Accreditation systems in Japan and the United States: A comparative perspective on governmental involvement. In P.M. O’Brien (ed.) Accreditation: Assuring and Enhancing Quality. New Directions for Higher Education 145 (pp. 69–78). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mulvey, B. (2000) The recent Monbushou reform proposals: Ramifications and opportunities. College and University Educators Journal (OnCue) 8 (1), 18–23. Mulvey, B. (2001) The role and influence of Japan’s university entrance exams: A reassessment. The Language Teacher 25 (7), 11–17. Mulvey, B. (2010) University accreditation in Japan: Problems and possibilities for reforming EFL education. The Language Teacher 34 (1), 15–24. Mulvey, B. (2012) From resistance to resolution: The journey towards a sustainable vision of continuing education in Japan. Continuing Higher Education Review 76, 122–137. Mulvey, B., Winskowski, C. and Comer, K. (2011) University accreditation developments in Japan: Matching or moving beyond the US process? Higher Education Policy 24 (4), 535–553. Narita, H. (2013) Nihonjinn ni Fusawasii Eigoka Kyoikuho: Monka Gyo¯sei ni Furimawasarezu Seito ni Sekinin o Motou [English Education Suitable for Japanese: Take Responsibility for Students without Being Swayed by MEXT Policies]. Tokyo: Shohakusha. Saito, M. (2013) Monkashou ‘gurobaru jinzai ikusei’ jigyou e no gimon: Eigo de kougi suru to ushinawareru mono. [Concerns about the MEXT ‘Global Jinzai Kyouiku Ikusei Suishin Jigyou’ mandate: What will be lost by teaching in English]. Chuuou Kouron 128 (2), 58–63. Smith, R. and Motomichi, I. (2003) Harold E Palmer: 1877–1949. In H. Cortazzi (ed.) Britain & Japan: Biographical Portraits 4 (pp. 233–245). London: Japan Library. Suzuki, T. (2001) Eigo ha Iranai!? [English is not Necessary!?] Tokyo: PHP Shinsho. Suzuki, T. (2003) Amerika o Shiru tame no Eigo, Amerika kara Hanareru tame no Eigo [English to Know America, and to Move Away from America]. Tokyo: Bungei Shunshun. Suzuki, T. (2005) Nihonjin ha naze Nihon o ai senai no ka? [Why don’t Japanese love Japan?] Tokyo: Shinchousensho. Suzuki, T. (2008) Shin Buki to shite no Kotoba: Nihon no ‘Gengo Senryaku’ o Kangaeru [Language as the New Weapon: Thinking about Japan’s ‘Linguistic Strategies’]. Tokyo: Art Days Inc. Terashima, T. (2009) Eigo Kyouiku ga Horobiru Toki: Eigo de Jugyo¯ no Ideorogi [The Time when English Education Perishes: Ideology of Conducting English Classes in English]. Tokyo: Akashi Shoten. Tsuda, Y. (1998) Nihonjin to Eigo: Eigo-ka suru Nihon no Gakusaiteki Kenkyu [The Japanese People and English: Interdisciplinary Research on the ‘English-fication’ of Japan]. Kyoto: International Research Center for Japanese Studies. Tsuda, Y. (2002) Guro-baru Komyunike-Shonron – Tairitsu kara Taiwa e [Global Communication Theory – Conversation Coming from Confrontation]. Kyoto: Nakanishiya Shuppan. Tsuda, Y. (2003) Eigo shihai to ha Nanika: Watashi no Kokusai Gengo Seisakuron [What is Meant by ‘English Rule’: My Thoughts on International Linguistic Policy]. Tokyo: Akashi shoten. Tsuda, Y. (2005) Gengo, Jouhou, Bunka no Eigo Shihai [The English Domination of Language, Information and Culture]. Tokyo: Akashi shoten. Tsuda, Y. (2006) Eigo Shihai to Kotoba no Byoudou [English Dominance and Language Fairness]. Tokyo: Keio University Press.

Recent Gover nment Polic y and it s Impac t on EMI

47

Tsuda, Y. (2013) Nihongo o Mamore! Nihongo Hogohou Seitei no tame ni [Defend the Japanese Language! On the Need to Enact Laws to Preserve Japanese]. Tokyo: Meijishoin. Wada, M. (2002) Teacher education for curricular innovation. In S. Savignon (ed.) Interpreting Communicative Language Teaching (pp. 31–41). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Yamamoto, S. (2005) Government and the national universities: Ministerial bureaucrats and dependent universities. In J.S. Eades, R. Goodman and Y. Hada (eds) The ‘Big Bang’ in Japanese Higher Education: The 2004 Reforms and the Dynamics of Change (pp. 94–105). Melbourne: Trans Pacific Press. Yano, M. (2000) Guro-barize-shon to kyouiku [Globalization and education]. Kyouiku Shakaigaku Kenkyuu 66, 5–19. Yonezawa, A. (2014) Japan’s challenge of fostering ‘Global Human Resources’: Policy debates and practices. Japan Labor Review 11 (2), 37–52.

Section 2 The Implementation of English-Medium Instruction in Japan

4

Development of EnglishMedium Instruction as a Key for Internationalizing Curricula in Japan Hiroyuki Takagi

In recent years, universities have responded to the process of globalization with a number of internationalization strategies. One such strategy is Internationalization of the Curriculum (IoC), defined by Leask (2009) as: the incorporation of an international and intercultural dimension into the content of the curriculum as well as the teaching and learning processes and support services of a program of study … It will purposefully develop their [students’] international and intercultural perspectives as global professionals and citizens. (Leask, 2009: 209) The idea of IoC, however, is interpreted differently and its rationales and development process vary depending on its context (Knight, 2008; Leask & Bridge, 2013). In Japan, English-medium instruction (EMI) is a key element of IoC. EMI has, like IoC, been developed by individual institutions in ways that are appropriate to their own internal and external demands (Brown & Iyobe, 2014). The various motives and values for promotion of IoC and EMI include: economic and political rationales – for example, gaining managerial benefits from student recruitment or international competitiveness by the development of global jinzai (global human resources); and social, cultural and academic rationales – for example, promotion of intercultural understanding and national cultural identity, and the expansion of educational and research dimensions (Brown, 2014; Knight, 2008). This chapter examines the development of EMI in Japan as part of an internationalized curriculum. It takes a comparative perspective of different types of institutions and their faculties. Firstly, a conceptual framework for IoC is explained. Takagi (2013) formed this conceptual framework by linking 51

52

Sec t ion 2: The Implement at ion of English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japan

contrasting views of the approaches to internationalization (competitiontype and cooperation-type) and of curriculum models (product model and process model). It proposes four patterns of IoC: (a) Competitive-Product; (b) Competitive-Process; (c) Cooperative-Product; and (d) Cooperative-Process. Secondly, EMI programs and courses developed by a national university and a private university in Japan are examined with reference to IoC case studies conducted by Takagi (2012). Data were collected through analysis of university documents and open-ended interviews with staff members, including faculty-level deans and heads of departments involved in the curricula in each university. Takagi’s (2012) case studies found differences in how the meanings of IoC and EMI were interpreted and implemented at these two universities. This chapter makes a comparative analysis of these universities, drawing on the conceptual framework of IoC, and finds that EMI has been developed across all four patterns of the conceptual framework. However, there are differences between the two universities in the degree of their emphasis on EMI. Furthermore, analysis shows that there appears to be a transition of the development of EMI over time, from the Competitive-Product pattern to the Cooperative-Process pattern. Recently, EMI is increasingly used with an emphasis on internationalization at home that aims to internationalize both international and domestic students’ learning processes and the campus environment. The chapter concludes with a discussion of challenges and recommendations for further development of EMI.

Conceptual Framework of IoC The concept of IoC and its development process are complex and multifaceted, depending on national, institutional and disciplinary contexts (Leask & Bridge, 2013). This reflects different perspectives on the two terms internationalization and curriculum and allows curriculum developers to understand IoC in various ways (Leask, 2008; LeBlanc, 2007; Takagi, 2009). Takagi (2013) attempted to conceptualize IoC with reference to contrasting views of both internationalization and curriculum. Internationalization is often thought of as either a competition-type or a cooperation-type approach (Huisman & Van der Wende, 2005; Turner & Robson, 2008), while curriculum is explored with product and process models (Fraser & Bosanquet, 2006; Grundy, 1987; Kelly, 1999). As Tables 4.1 and 4.2 illustrate, the two types of approach to internationalization and the two curriculum models have conflicting purposes and foci. The competition-type approach to internationalization aims to enhance the international profile of national higher education systems and institutions and to generate income through international education as a tradeable commodity; whereas the cooperation-type approach inherits the traditional

Development of EMI as a Key for Inter nat ionaliz ing Cur r icul a in Japan

53

Table 4.1 Approaches to internationalization Competition-type

Cooperation-type

Pragmatic rationales • External-led, extrinsic stimuli • Business/market-driven, entrepreneurism and cost-efficiency focus • Student recruitment, research and consultant contracts and world university ranking • Economic or political motivation • HE as a tradable commodity Top-down operations • Short-term planned engagement or compliance • Behavioral conformity with institutional policy • Structured and assessed quantitatively • Prescriptive and specifically articulated achievement • Convergence Local/national positions • Meeting needs of local/national clients • Home and international students have different agendas • Different learning goals and educational opportunities • Exclusive and ethnocentric

Value-based rationales • Internal-led and intrinsic stimuli • Academic/cultural-driven, internationalism and investment focus • International exchange and networking and collaborative programs • Social or cultural or academic values • HE as a public service Bottom-up operations • Long-term commitment or emergent • Inspiring the enthusiasm of individuals • Open-ended and assessed qualitatively • Descriptive and generally articulated achievement • Divergence International positions • Meeting needs of international clients • Home and international students have one agenda • Equal learning goals and educational opportunities • Inclusive and ethno-relative

HE, Higher education.

view of internationalization, which associates it with social, cultural and academic notions and activities with an emphasis on quality and excellence (Huisman & Van der Wende, 2005). Curricula based on the product model are designed to achieve pre-specified learning outcomes through a controlled learning environment and a prescriptive and rigidly structured curriculum content, whereas the process model focuses on the learning conditions and experiences of teachers and learners, and treats students as subjects rather than objects and the curriculum as an ongoing social process (Fraser & Bosanquet, 2006; Grundy, 1987). However, while the approaches to internationalization and the models of curriculum may appear separate, there are no clear distinctions between them, since they are not mutually exclusive and are rather interrelated like

54

Sec t ion 2: The Implement at ion of English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japan

Table 4.2 Models of curriculum Product curriculum model

Process curriculum model

Cognitive objectives • Disciplinary and specialist knowledge and skills • International competencies (hard or technical skills) • Intellectual or professional development for global economy • Accumulative assessment • Human or economic capital Content-focused designs • Prescribed content for pre-specified objectives and means related to ends • What is taught and what is learned • Fixed and linear responded to external demands • Knowledge is technical, measurable and discipline-based • Teacher-centered; teachers are instructors

Affective objectives • Awareness, attitudes, behaviors, values, cultural sensitivity and moral responsibility • Intercultural competencies (soft or generic skills) • Personal or social development as global citizens • Formative assessment • Social or cultural capital Experiences-focused designs • Learning experiences and processes, and interactions among students and teachers • How is taught and learned • Flexible reflecting individual desires or interests • Knowledge is created by learners beyond a discipline • Leaner-centered; teachers are facilitators and critical appraisers

the two ends of a continuum in a state of tension (Fraser & Bosanquet, 2006; Grundy, 1987; Huisman & Van der Wende, 2005; Turner & Robson, 2008). The idea of IoC is rarely completely dominated by either of the ends of the continuum. This is because today’s 21st century universities need to have hybrid missions, functions and perceptions in order to thrive within the complexity in the twin processes of post-modernity and globalization (Barnett, 2000). The concept of IoC, therefore, is likely to reflect two sets of ideas, as institutions strive to meet a combination of objectives and various stakeholder needs, while they attempt a reconciliation between the conservation of traditional systems and the adoption of innovative approaches (Clark, 2004). Takagi’s (2013) conceptual framework of IoC (see Figure 4.1) combines the contrasting approaches to internationalization and the two curriculum models to create four patterns: Competitive-Product (upper-left), Competitive-Process (upper-right), Cooperative-Product (lower-left) and Cooperative-Process (lower-right). In the Competitive-Product pattern, IoC is led by pragmatic rationales, in response to the demands of external stakeholders, such as governments and the market. This pattern is often seen among cash-strapped institutions, particularly in Western nations. They often treat an internationalized

Development of EMI as a Key for Inter nat ionaliz ing Cur r icul a in Japan

55

Competition

(Competitive-Product)

(Competitive-Process)

Product

Process

(Cooperative-Product)

(Cooperative-Process)

Cooperation

Figure 4.1 The conceptual framework for IoC

curriculum as a bag of content to be filled with some international bits and flavors in order to appeal to potential students as a selling point (De Vita, 2007). A business-like, top-down approach is taken to enhance international competitiveness. This pattern primarily emphasizes the benefits of IoC to local or national clients and institutions, rather than international students. IoC focuses on education for the knowledge economy and students’ acquisition of specific knowledge and skills aimed at their professional development. The teachers are expected to provide clear statements of the intended outcomes on course syllabi, and direct students to achieve pre-specified objectives in an efficient manner by following technical procedures that are prescriptive, fixed and linear (Fraser & Bosanquet, 2006; Grundy, 1987). In the Cooperative-Process pattern, IoC is directed by value-based rationales derived from internal visions that emphasize social, cultural and academic cooperation. This pattern is consistent with idea that an internationalized curriculum is designed for both national and international students as one agenda to provide equal learning goals and opportunities (Jones & Killick, 2007). The curricular focus is on education for the global society, with an emphasis on the development of students’ personal qualities as responsible citizens (Haigh & Clifford, 2009). Curriculum development is a flexible and open-ended process and is led by the educational ideologies, values and aspirations of the individual curriculum developers, teachers and learners. The curriculum is portrayed as being a long-term learning or social process that encourages teachers and learners to interact, understand and empower each other (Fraser & Bosanquet, 2006; Grundy, 1987; Kelly, 1999). The other two combinations, Competitive-Process and CooperativeProduct, are contradictory, and are not evidently underpinned by theory. However, the Competitive-Process pattern may be understood as the process model that is adopted from the competition-type approach. This pattern

56

Sec t ion 2: The Implement at ion of English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japan

aims to promote intercultural competencies and experiences that are increasingly seen by society and employers as improving students’ employability. Universities see this pattern as useful for fulfilling their responsibilities to produce members of the workforce who can compete globally. As a result, curriculum developers expect this pattern to enhance the international competitiveness of graduates, programs and universities in the labor or higher education market. Thus, students’ learning and social processes are likely to be capitalized on by the university as being an effective means of achieving its pragmatic aims (Takagi, 2013). The Cooperative-Product pattern can be understood as the product model that emerges through the cooperative-type approach to internationalization with the aim of achieving cultural and academic purposes. A pragmatic or piecemeal approach to curriculum design, through which programs are adjusted to meet the diverse or utilitarian demands of external stakeholders, is used to realize educational ideologies. This pattern also includes programs that address global citizenship agendas within specific disciplinary theories and paradigms and tend to focus exclusively on students’ professional development in line with external accreditation or funding bodies. Intercultural activities are not usually a part of students’ main studies or of the formal requirements of the programs (Takagi, 2013).

Situating EMI Developments in the IoC Framework Takagi (2012) investigated IoC implementation at two universities in Japan, looking at how they had developed EMI programs. The case studies of one national university (hereafter referred to by the pseudonym University N) and one private university (hereafter University P) provide an interesting view of how EMI fits into IoC. University N accommodates about 15,000 students, of which a third are postgraduates. Its internationalization strategy has been developed with the financial support of the government, particularly since 2004 when it was corporatized. In 2014, the university was selected for the Japanese government’s Top Global University Project as a Type A category university. This category is for institutions that have the potential to be ranked in the top 100 in world university rankings. EMI courses have been offered across several faculties, particularly in the university’s strong fields of research such as international development or peace studies, although full English-taught programs have been established only at the postgraduate level. University P is a large institution with approximately 35,000 students, including about 2000 postgraduates. The university has been striving to internationalize and has been selected for both the Global 30 Project and as a Type B university in the Top Global University Project. Type B universities are expected to improve their current efforts to lead the internationalization

Development of EMI as a Key for Inter nat ionaliz ing Cur r icul a in Japan

57

of society. In this institution, EMI has been introduced across several faculties. For example, the program for International Studies, which has been established by a consortium of five faculties in the areas of humanities and social sciences, offers an EMI program and courses through which home and international students study together in English. The EMI initiatives at both universities fit into more than one of the four possible patterns of IoC, as the concept of IoC is rarely led totally by either of the internationalization approaches or the curriculum models.

The Competitive-Product pattern The rationales for IoC in both University N and University P appear to be increasingly affected by external forces. Market needs have been ever more pressing on Japanese universities, owing to national and international competition for students among higher education institutions. This competition has intensified through demographic change, the increase in international student mobility and the advancement of IT. Universities are also pressured by Japanese government policies, including the corporatization of higher education institutions and the introduction of a competitive funding system influenced by neoliberal doctrine (Mulvey, this volume). Japanese universities are stimulated to develop entrepreneurship and take a business-like approach in response to the market demands for the sake of their survival. Government policies and funds, such as the Global 30 Project and the Top Global University Project, have been key drivers for recent initiatives undertaken by Japanese universities (MEXT, 2014). Indeed, the development of IoC in both universities has primarily been directed by the government (Takagi, 2012). IoC in the two universities has been promoted through their international strategies, and top-down initiatives led by management in order to achieve their institutional goals with an expectation of gaining managerial benefits, such as attracting students or enhancing international competitiveness. EMI has been adopted by University P as helpful for recruiting home and/or international students and as a result generating income from fees for the entrance examination and tuition, whereas University N promotes EMI in its strong areas of research to enhance its international presence and competitiveness as a world-class research university. Expansion of foreign language courses, particularly in English-language studies, and study abroad programs appear to be the most important elements of international education across faculties in both University N and University P. Their students have been encouraged to acquire adequate English language skills and to achieve a targeted score in language tests such as TOEFL or TOEIC required for studying abroad or in order to garner international employment. Students’ understanding of subject-knowledge in English is important for EMI in both universities. Course content is often determined by what

58

Sec t ion 2: The Implement at ion of English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japan

existing staff can teach in English. Questions of how such content is to be taught or learned are secondary. Students are usually taught through the teacher-led approach that has been traditionally adopted by Japanese institutions. Affective aspects, the so-called soft skills, such as cross-cultural capability, sensitivity and adaptability, are seen as secondary outcomes to be acquired by students outside classes or when they study abroad. Graduates who are equipped with both specialized knowledge and English language skills are expected to be able to work in the global economy and enhance the competitiveness of their institutions as well as themselves. In addition, this pattern includes EMI courses in hard-pure disciplines, such as natural and physical sciences – for example, chemistry and physics, where the knowledge and principals are universal. EMI is adopted in existing programs and focuses on teaching disciplinary knowledge in accordance with the requirements of accreditation agencies or employers. The professional bodies in these areas tend to have little concern with the cultural aspect of the subjects, even though those working in hard-applied fields, such as engineering and medicine, have been increasingly positive about the cultural aspect, as they are aware that their knowledge will be put into practice differently within other countries and systems (Blum & Bourn, 2013; Clifford, 2009).

The Competitive-Process pattern EMI programs and courses following this pattern are designed for both home and international students to study together with the expectation that the international students will bring intercultural opportunities, which are limited on Japanese campuses, and as a result benefit the university’s stay-at-home students and local clients. Intercultural experiences are promoted as a way to enhance students’ employability, making the programs and institution, as well as the graduates, more competitive. These opportunities have been capitalized by the two universities as a selling point in recruiting both domestic and international students, or gaining a higher position in world university rankings. The universities see EMI as being necessary to recruit international students in the current climate. In the past, the Japanese government and universities provided the majority of international students from developing countries, mainly in Asia, with scholarships as part of Official Development Assistance (ODA). These students would then study in Japanese-language programs or in mainstream Japanese-medium programs. Universities took for granted that international students would adapt to the Japanese language and education system and contribute to the universities, local students and society in return for receiving the financial support. However, budget constraints no longer allow such generous financial support. Universities must now adapt, and offer courses that appeal to non-Japanese speaking

Development of EMI as a Key for Inter nat ionaliz ing Cur r icul a in Japan

59

international students who have many other choices in the international education marketplace. The Competitive-Process pattern appeared to be more evident in University P than in University N. As a private university, University P exhibits a managerial culture where the university responds to market demands by taking a top-down or business-like approach to internationalization and sets numerical targets for sending home students abroad as well as for recruiting international students. Amid this institutional culture, the number of EMI courses has radically increased across the university and University P also offers a program for international studies in a consortium of five faculties to popularize student study abroad and intercultural experiences. These experiences are increasingly appreciated in the labor market (Keidanren, 2015) and are seen to increase the students’ employability. The program is supposed to advantage University P graduates, who might possibly have less impressive academic skills than those from more elite universities. The program is also meant to differentiate both University P and its graduates from their rivals. Some academics in University P expressed a fear of falling into financial difficulty and feel a sense of crisis over survival owing to the growing competition for students. Under these circumstances, the EMI courses are likely to be externally led or market oriented in order to obtain advantage in the higher education market. In University N, the student experience has basically been left up to individual faculty members and students, whose autonomy has traditionally been highly respected amid its collegial culture. Academics at University N generally do not feel pressure to achieve financial gain from the educational programs, nor do they have a fear of falling into financial difficulty. They know that the university is relatively competitive owing to their higher domestic and international status, and that they are individually financially secure through their research grants and public funds. This sense of security leads to initiatives driven by faculty members’ own academic interests, with less attention to market demands. EMI in the Competitive-Process pattern is identified more in the areas of soft-applied subjects, particularly the low-theory fields, such as business, languages and culture, and international studies. Their degrees tend to be less recognized among employers or to be less certain routes to graduate employment than those in the high-theory fields that are associated with the traditional professions, such as medicine, engineering and law, where students are required to acquire highly specialized skills through extensive, systematic and scholarly training (Squires, 1990). The low-theory fields take advantage of their flexibility in learning objectives, curriculum designs and teaching and learning methods, including medium of instruction. They tend to promote the uniqueness and importance of the subjects to improve the reputation and attractiveness of the programs in the student and labor market. The usefulness and compatibility of this pattern in these fields is a factor behind the

60

Sec t ion 2: The Implement at ion of English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japan

fact that this pattern was more developed in University P, which includes a number of faculties in such fields, than in University N, where the majority of the faculties are natural and physical sciences, high-theory fields.

The Cooperative-Product pattern EMI in this pattern was identified in both University N and University P as they strive to create a multicultural campus by offering EMI programs or courses in areas such as cultural studies, international business or economics, international development and peace studies that could be suitable or attractive to both home and international students. The initiatives are based on internally led, academically driven rationales to improve the campus environment, the quality of students and educational and research functions. Now that EMI programs are increasingly offered in higher education institutions around the world, Japanese universities are upping the originality of content they offer to students – for example, areas which are strong in Japan that are not available in other countries. In addition, this pattern may include EMI courses that emphasize the educational value of soft skills such as global citizenship and competencies, but in effect the courses are outcome-based and students are assessed by their subject knowledge and skills through reliable indicators such as examination scores. This is attributed not only to a difficulty in evaluating the students’ understanding and perspectives of global citizenship, but also to a lack of teachers’ and students’ ability or enthusiasm for taking a learner-centered approach to international education. Teachers may be required to establish assessment criteria and evaluate students formatively as well as accumulatively, to get a good sense of what students have learned from their intercultural experiences in and outside of the classroom. However, some academics of both University N and University P see the current education system as reflecting the growing demands of the government and accreditation bodies, which stress clear learning outcomes and assessment criteria, as well as student achievements that are transparent and accountable to taxpayers. In this circumstance, the objectives of the programs tend to focus on the tangible aspects and exclude intangible factors such as culture, consciousness and attitudes, which are based on the individual students’ sense of values and might be invisible and difficult to assess. The Cooperative-Product pattern appeared to be more evident in University N as it has several EMI programs in strong research areas and faculty members teaching subject content derived from their individual research interests. Academics, particularly in the collegial culture of such a reputable research-led institution, tend to be narrowly specialized, often inward-looking and unresponsive to external needs (Amano, 2006). They focus on their research, and on the training of subject specialists or professionals by transmitting advanced knowledge and skills in English and

Development of EMI as a Key for Inter nat ionaliz ing Cur r icul a in Japan

61

Japanese in order to contribute to social and economic development in and outside Japan. For them, IoC might be seen as a by-product of international research. Indeed, academics at University N are primarily affiliated with postgraduate schools and the undergraduate curricula are structured vertically as a route to postgraduate education and/or research. In contrast, University P, which is an education-intensive institution, values horizontal links of the curricula to liberal or interdisciplinary education and extracurricular activities, and emphasizes students’ personal development and employability beyond their specialties by encouraging students to acquire intercultural experiences for their educational benefit. In both universities, intercultural learning opportunities are likely to be taken only by a limited number of domestic students who are capable of or interested in interacting with international students. The majority of other students tend to see specialized knowledge, and skills such as English language proficiency as more practical and useful for getting jobs than personal and social competencies that are not necessarily assessable and visible. They are interested in knowledge and skills that lead to related qualifications or can be explicitly articulated in their CVs. They may see international learning as additional or peripheral, rather than an integral part of their programs. In this circumstance, University P attempts to encourage students to acquire intercultural experiences as educational benefits by granting credits for intercultural activities or setting these as compulsory parts of the EMI program. In such programs, students have intercultural experiences, but these are treated as prescribed content controlled by teachers or curriculum designers, rather than an autonomous learning process.

The Cooperative-Process pattern EMI in this pattern was identified in both University N and University P. The universities’ policies toward the cultivation of global citizens and international talents and skills are derived from their own educational ideologies, and are incorporated into students’ learning opportunities. This pattern includes EMI programs and courses that promote interaction between home and international students and intercultural experiences and competencies reflecting the students’ own interests and needs. These intercultural opportunities are, however, limited at both universities as their campuses are not yet culturally diverse. Intercultural opportunities are mainly offered through several study abroad programs. These universities have relied on their foreign partner institutions, where students from various cultural backgrounds study together and are encouraged to gain intercultural experiences by making use of the multicultural campus environment (Takagi, 2012). Having said that, this pattern is increasingly seen in these two universities and in others in Japan, as they aim to internationalize the learning

62

Sec t ion 2: The Implement at ion of English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japan

environment of their campuses. Their EMI courses adopt various learning and teaching methods, including active learning, group work or project-based learning, to facilitate both home and international students studying together and actively participating in class. A recent example of an EMI course fitting in this pattern is introduced in next section.

An Example of Practice in the Cooperative-Process Pattern: Kobe University Programme for European Studies The Kobe University Programme for European Studies (KUPES), recently established in Kobe University, is a good example of the Cooperative-Process pattern of IoC in the implementation of EMI in Japan. KUPES is designed for students from the three faculties and graduate schools of Intercultural Studies, Law, and Economics. Several full-time academics from Europe have been employed to run the program. Students of KUPES acquire not only specialized knowledge of the EU from international and interdisciplinary perspectives, but also English and other European language skills and intercultural competencies that are useful for their study in Europe and future work and lives in a multicultural environment (Kobe University, 2013). KUPES offers several EMI courses through which Japanese students study with exchange students from partner institutions located mainly in Europe. Teachers adopt group projects and presentations to encourage students to work together and share their own thoughts and interests with other classmates and, as a result, students acquire international knowledge, skills and attitudes from various perspectives. Some guest lecturers from Europe have been invited to teach in these courses so that students will not only get knowledge but also familiarize themselves with different teaching and learning styles as well as with diverse varieties of English. This will be useful should they later study at European institutions, as they are likely to be taught by and learn with non-native English speakers. Furthermore, a teaching assistant (TA) plays an important role in the students’ learning processes in this program. This TA is a European postgraduate, fluent in both English and Japanese, who has taken some EMI courses with Japanese students at KUPES. His or her role is not only to facilitate discussions between Japanese and international students, but also to run a reading group outside class. In this group, the TA helps students, mainly Japanese, understand course materials by reading together and discussing the main points in English, but using Japanese when necessary. Module teachers sometimes join this group, particularly when the TA thinks the materials are difficult for students to understand. Students have found this group very helpful to prepare for coming classes.

Development of EMI as a Key for Inter nat ionaliz ing Cur r icul a in Japan

63

Additional sessions such as revision of class-content and advice on how to write assignments in English are also provided by the course teachers. The online learning platform, Moodle, is used to enable students to access various sources – for example, documents and videos, and familiarize themselves with the module topics in advance. In addition, extracurricular activities, such as eating out after class and organizing some European events together, are also a crucial part of the program, as these allow Japanese and international students to get to know each other and feel more comfortable interacting with each other. As Ishikura (2015) argues, it is necessary for teachers and TAs to be a part of students’ learning process and help students manage coursework. Adequate learning support in and outside of the classroom is crucial for Japanese students in KUPES and possibly other EMI programs.

Differences and Transition in the Development of EMI As seen above, there are the different rationales, objectives and ways to develop EMI programs or courses depending on the subject area, institution and context. Figure 4.2 shows the differences between University N and University P in degrees of their emphasis on EMI in the four possible IoC patterns. There is also a transition of the development of EMI in universities in Japan from the Competitive-Product pattern toward the CooperativeProcess pattern. The development in the Competitive-Process pattern was more easily identified in the managerial and innovative culture of University P than in the collegial culture of University N. University P promotes EMI programs and courses with an emphasis on the intercultural learning experiences of Competition

Japanese universities

University P

Product

Process

University N

Japanese universities

Cooperation

Figure 4.2 The differences and transition of the development of EMI as part of IoC

64

Sec t ion 2: The Implement at ion of English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japan

domestic and international students, giving advantages to them, particularly in the low-theory fields of social sciences and humanities, making these faculties as well as students more competitive in the labor or higher education markets. EMI within the Cooperative-Product Pattern appeared to be more evident in University N compared with in University P. EMI has been adopted by University N, which is a research-led institution, with a focus on teaching subject content derived from the individual academic’s interests. Its collegial culture allows academics to devote themselves to the training of subject specialists and professionals in the curriculum structure that is vertically connected with postgraduate education and/or research as well as in line with external accreditation agencies or funding bodies. EMI initiatives within the Competitive-Product pattern have been undertaken by both universities. They have expanded English-medium courses, as well as English language courses, that are designed primarily for home students to acquire the language skills and/or necessary subject knowledge. Those students are expected to improve English language skills in order to study and have intercultural experiences abroad. The focus is put on curriculum content, using the teacher-led approach that has traditionally been adopted in Japan. Government policies and funds have been the primary drivers for these initiatives, so that the courses are expected to turn out students who will be able to work in an international context and enhance the competitiveness of Japan in the global economy. While EMI mainly follows the Competitive-Product pattern in Japan, EMI programs or courses are recently developing further toward the Cooperative-Process pattern with the aim of promoting internationalization at home. Both the scope and number of EMI programs and courses are growing in Japan through an increase in the number of international students, and greater number of teaching staff who are capable of teaching through English. Yet Brown and Iyobe (2014) see a recent trend toward EMI targeted at domestic students. Newer EMI programs take into account how students learn, rather than simply what they are taught, to encourage both home and international students to learn together beyond acquisition of English language skills or subject knowledge in English. Taking this view, the development of EMI in Japan seems to be in transition from the Competitive-Product pattern to the Cooperative-Process pattern. This shift might reflect the changes in the world of higher education that Bourn (2011: 565) recognizes. They are: from fixed content and skills that conform to a predetermined idea of society, to concepts and strategies which address complexity, difference and uncertainty; from absorbing and reproducing knowledge and adapting to existing models of knowing, acting and being, to generating knowledge, living with difference and shifting positions and perspectives according to contexts; and from structured, stable and

Development of EMI as a Key for Inter nat ionaliz ing Cur r icul a in Japan

65

predictable universal meanings and interpretations to different, complex, uncertain and interconnected meanings and interpretation.

Difficulties in the Development of EMI toward the Cooperative-Process Pattern The case studies found several fundamental difficulties in the further development of EMI. These difficulties are related to four main issues, identified by Bradford (2015, 2016) as linguistic, cultural, administrative and institutional challenges. Linguistic and cultural challenges have been identified among Japanese teachers and students who lack English language abilities and intercultural learning experiences. It is an enormous challenge for Japanese teachers and students, used to an education system based on a Confucian conception, which values acquisition of knowledge as a process of transmission from teachers to learners, to adopt a student-centered approach. EMI, if led by Western standards, may conflict with traditional values and cultural textures in teaching and learning (Bradford, 2015). This may result in a deterioration in the efficiency of teaching and students’ understanding of the subject knowledge, as teachers have to struggle to clearly explain their subjects and teach students who are likely to need more time to learn and understand the subject content in English (Bradford, 2015; Wilkinson, 2005). Some academics of the two case universities were concerned with the use of a studentcentered approach in EMI as they think that the knowledge that students need to be taught has increased in the current society where there has been an overflow of various and ever-changing information. It is also difficult for teachers to promote intercultural activities, inclusive practices and reciprocal cultural understanding in a mono-cultural classroom (Whitsed & Volet, 2010). Although the number of international students is increasing, they are still a minority in Japan, particularly at the undergraduate level. The majority of international students are Asian, mainly Chinese, Korean and Taiwanese, who are fluent in Japanese. In this situation, teachers are unlikely to adopt teaching methods specific to international students. In addition, international students have not yet been seen as resources or as facilitators of intercultural learning. Moreover, the assessment of intercultural learning experiences of individual students is another challenge. As Carroll (2008) argues, formative assessment is needed to evaluate students’ experiences, but teachers in the case universities have found that Japanese students who are used to accumulative assessment tend to be reluctant to take part in learning opportunities that are not assessed, or are suspicious of informal methods of assessment. In the current situation, where there is an external demand for a clear

66

Sec t ion 2: The Implement at ion of English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japan

statement of learning objectives and outcomes, teachers might be required to set assessment criteria to reward such experiences, although it is difficult for them unless they have adequate understanding and experience and can reflect these in the assessment process (Dunne, 2009). Administrative and institutional challenges may also affect academics involved in the EMI programs. EMI is likely to increase their workload as they adjust to new practices and standards, and struggle to provide students with the learning support they need to fully participate in classroom activities and coursework (Bradford, 2015; Tsuneyoshi, 2005). This additional burden prevents other teachers from taking part in the programs. This situation might be improved by increasing the number of international students and faculty members who are experienced in EMI. However, this might lead to a situation where the majority of Japanese teachers and students are disqualified from teaching or learning in the programs and see intercultural learning as an additional or peripheral activity rather than an integral part of their main studies. Those in the EMI programs are likely to be separated or isolated from other programs that are taught in Japanese, and, as a result, they may have limited access to the support and resources of faculties or institutions. The identities and positions of those teachers and students and sustainability of the EMI programs might possibly be at risk.

Conclusion: Recommendation for Further Development of EMI This chapter found that EMI has developed in different ways across the four patterns of IoC among universities in Japan. EMI initiatives are mainly situated within the Competitive-Product pattern, although development in the Competitive-Process or Cooperative-Product pattern is also evident in the case institutions, reflecting their own internal and external climates. Further development of EMI toward the Cooperative-Process pattern is increasingly identified as indispensable to promote internationalization at home through an increase in the number of international students, particularly non-ODA students, and the creation of a multicultural campus environment, to cultivate Japanese and foreign students who are equipped with global perspectives and intercultural competencies. Several issues for the further development of EMI have also been identified. These are linguistic and cultural challenges stemming from a lack of students’ and teachers’ capability and enthusiasm to adopt unfamiliar teaching, learning and assessment methods in a mono-cultural classroom. Administrative and institutional challenges are associated with the heavy workload that is required of students and teachers taking part in the EMI programs or courses and related difficulties in providing appropriate

Development of EMI as a Key for Inter nat ionaliz ing Cur r icul a in Japan

67

pedagogical support. These issues may cause an exclusion or separation from many other campus members and make the programs and participants less connected to the faculties and institutional structures in terms of education, support systems and resources. In view of these challenges, it is necessary not only to improve the English language proficiency and teaching and learning skills of students and teaching staff, but also to raise their awareness of the importance of intercultural understanding and experiences and encourage them to make genuine, substantial and continuous effort to promote multicultural opportunities for all of the campus population (Kuwamura, 2009; Lassegard, 2006). EMI programs and courses in the Cooperative-Process pattern are supposed to meet the needs of both home and international students, and provide them with equal learning outcomes and relevant educational experiences in a supportive and inclusive environment. All students are seen as individuals with a great diversity of cultural capital, including social and cultural knowledge, experiences and aims. Students’ contributions are valued as not only for creating a culturally diverse environment, but also for broadening a narrow local agenda and perspective, and developing more complex understandings of new knowledge, skills and insights (Haigh, 2002). Therefore, the role of EMI teachers should be to take advantage of students’ cultural capital and maximize the educational effect of their presence. Leask (2007) regards teachers who facilitate interaction with and between students in the international classroom as intercultural learners. Those teachers are expected to critically examine different cultural backgrounds of students as learning resources and explore how these differences influence their thoughts, understanding and actions (Leask, 2007). Educational quality is supposed to be improved by EMI if it is used in an appropriate way. Faculty development programs that provide opportunities for teaching staff members to share their experiences and good practices or improve intercultural teaching skills could be useful (Bradford, 2012, see also Horie, this volume). For example, the Faculty of Economics, Kobe University has offered an intensive program in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) to all its faculty members every year. This program helps them become aware of several ways to teach their subjects in English and encourages them to take initiative for their own professional development. However, academics tend to be reluctant to participate in such programs and the participants are often limited to the same members who are passionate about international education. Having said that, the members and their initiatives are expected to gradually influence not only their colleagues but also students who do not seem to be fully aware of the wider benefits and potential of intercultural learning experiences through EMI programs. Carroll (2008) argues that success in achieving intercultural competencies depends on teachers’ and students’ willingness to try new and possibly uncomfortable approaches to teaching, learning and assessment.

68

Sec t ion 2: The Implement at ion of English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japan

Further development of EMI requires fundamental curriculum reforms as it is not only a matter of the medium of instruction and content. The methods of delivery, assessment and learning support all need to be considered, as does the entire classroom culture and campus environment. Too long has this important aspect of education been left outside the mainstream, often guided only by dedicated teaching staff employed by temporary funding. No fundamental changes will take place unless staff members and students have positive and proactive attitudes toward internationalization at home and international initiatives are undertaken by both individuals and the institution as a whole. These initiatives should be sustainable and become an integral part of a general structure of curricula, consistent with the institution’s broader mission, policies and strategies.

References Amano, I. (2006) Daigaku kaikaku no syakaigaku [Sociology in University Reform]. Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press. Barnett, R. (2000) Supercomplexity and the curriculum. Studies in Higher Education 25 (3), 255–265. Blum, N. and Bourn, D. (2013) Global perspectives for global professionals in the UK: Engaging students within engineering and health. Compare 43 (1), 37–55. Bourn, D. (2011) From internationalisation to global perspectives. Higher Education Research and Development 30 (5), 559–571. Bradford, A. (2012) Adopting English-taught degree programs. International Higher Education 69 (Fall), 8–10. Bradford, A. (2015) Internationalization policy at the genba: Exploring the implementation of social science English-taught undergraduate degree programs in three Japanese universities. EdD dissertation, The George Washington University. Bradford, A. (2016) Toward a typology of implementation challenges facing Englishmedium instruction in higher education: Evidence from Japan. Journal of Studies in International Education 20 (4), 339–356. Brown, H. (2014) Contextual factors driving the growth of undergraduate Englishmedium instruction programmes at universities in Japan. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics 1 (1), 50–63. Brown, H. and Iyobe, B. (2014) The growth of English medium instruction in Japan. In N. Sonda and A. Krause (eds) JALT2013 Conference Proceedings (pp. 9–19). Tokyo: JALT. Carroll, J. (2008) Assessment issues for international students and for teachers of international students. The Enhancing Series Case Studies: International Learning Experience, Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Network. See https://www. heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/carroll.pdf Clark, B.R. (2004) Sustaining Change in Universities: Countries in Case Studies and Concepts. Berkshire: SRHE and Open University Press. Clifford, V. (2009) Engaging the disciplines in internationalising the curriculum. International Journal for Academic Development 14 (2), 133–143. De Vita, G. (2007) Taking stock. In E. Jones and S. Brown (eds) Internationalising Higher Education (pp. 154–167). London: Routledge. Dunne, C. (2009) Addressing the challenge of the intercultural curriculum. In Internationalising the home student: Trigger papers. 2nd Annual Conference of the Centre for International Curriculum Inquiry and Networking (CICIN), Oxford, pp. 21–39.

Development of EMI as a Key for Inter nat ionaliz ing Cur r icul a in Japan

69

Fraser, S.P. and Bosanquet, A.M. (2006) The curriculum? That’s just a unit outline, isn’t it? Studies in Higher Education 31 (3), 269–284. Grundy, S. (1987) Curriculum: Product or Praxis. East Sussex: The Falmer Press. Haigh, M.J. (2002) Internationalisation of the curriculum: Designing inclusive education for a small world. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 26 (1), 49–66. Haigh, M. and Clifford, V. (2009) Widening the graduate attribute debate: A higher education for global citizenship. In Internationalising the home student: Trigger papers. 2nd Annual Conference of the Centre for International Curriculum Inquiry and Networking (CICIN), Oxford, pp. 40–49. Huisman, J. and Van der Wende, M.C. (2005) On Cooperation and Competition II. Bonn: Lemmens. Ishikura, Y. (2015) Realizing internationalization at home through English-medium courses at a Japanese university: Strategies to maximize student learning. Higher Learning Research Communications 5 (1), 11–28. Jones, E. and Killick, D. (2007) Internationalisation of the curriculum. In E. Jones and S. Brown (eds) Internationalising Higher Education (pp. 109–119). London: Routledge. Keidanren (2015) Global jinzai no ikusei • katsuyou ni mukete motomerareru torikumi ni kansuru anke-to kekka [The result of questionnaire survey concerning approaches needed for cultivation and use of global human resource]. See https://www.keidanren.or.jp/policy/2015/028_honbun.pdf Kelly, A.V. (1999) The Curriculum: Theory and Practice. London: Paul Chapman. Knight, J. (2008) Higher Education in Turmoil: The Changing World of Internationalization. Rotterdam: Sense. Kobe University (2013) Kobe University Programme for European Studies (KUPES). See http://www.ejce.kobe-u.ac.jp/eup/english/ (accessed 11 October 2015). Kuwamura, A. (2009) The challenges of increasing capacity and diversity in Japanese higher education through proactive recruitment strategies. Journal of Studies in International Education 13 (2), 189–202. Lassegard, L. (2006) International student quality and Japanese higher education reform. Journal of Studies in International Education 10 (2), 119–140. Leask, B. (2007) International teachers and international teaching. In E. Jones and S. Brown (eds) Internationalisation of the Curriculum (pp. 86–94). London: Routledge. Leask, B. (2008) Internationalisation, globalisation and curriculum innovation. In M. Hellstén and A. Reid (eds) Researching International Pedagogies: Sustainable Practice for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (pp. 9–26). Dordrecht: Springer. Leask, B. (2009) Using formal and informal curricula to improve interactions between home and international students. Journal of Studies in International Education 13 (2), 205–221. Leask, B. and Bridge, C. (2013) Comparing internationalisation of the curriculum across the disciplines: theoretical and practical perspectives. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 43 (1), 79–101. LeBlanc, E. (2007) Internationalizing the curriculum: A discussion of challenges and first steps within business schools. Higher Education Perspectives 3, 28–44. MEXT (2014) Selection for the FY 2014 Top Global University Project. See http://www.mext. go.jp/b_menu/houdou/26/09/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2014/10/07/1352218_02.pdf Squires, G. (1990) First Degree: The Undergraduate Curriculum. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Takagi, H. (2009) Internationalisation of undergraduate curricula: The gap between ideas and practice in Japan. London Review of Education 7 (1), 31–39. Takagi, H. (2012) The internationalisation of undergraduate curricula in England and Japan: The complexity and diversity of meaning. PhD thesis, University College London.

70

Sec t ion 2: The Implement at ion of English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japan

Takagi, H. (2013) The internationalisation of curricula: The complexity and diversity of meaning in and beyond Japanese universities. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 52 (4), 349–359. Tsuneyoshi, R. (2005) Internationalization strategies in Japan: The dilemmas and possibilities of study abroad programs using English. Journal of Research in International Education 4 (1), 65–86. Turner, Y. and Robson, S. (2008) Internationalizing the University. London: Continuum. Whitsed, C. and Volet, S. (2010) Fostering the intercultural dimensions of internationalization in higher education: Metaphors and challenges in the Japanese context. Journal of Studies in International Education 20 (10), 1–25. Wilkinson, R. (2005) The impact of language on teaching content: Views from the content teacher. Paper presented at the Bi- and Multilingual Universities – Challenges and Future Prospects conference at Helsinki, September. See http://www.palmenia. helsinki.fi/congress/bilingual2005/presentations/wilkinson.pdf

5

A Pebble that Creates Great Waves? Global 30 Classes and Internationalization of the Student Body Beverley Anne Yamamoto and Yukiko Ishikura

The Project for Establishing University Network for Internationalization, or Global 30 (G30), was launched in 2009 as part of the Japanese government’s plan to increase the number of international students to 300,000 by 2020. At the time there were 132,720 international students studying in Japanese institutions of higher education (JASSO, 2015). In the context of a declining population and economic stagnation, as well as the increasing reach of globalization and the knowledge economy, G30 was part of the government’s bid to attract some of the world’s brightest students to study and hopefully work in Japan by expanding English-taught programs (ETPs) both at undergraduate and graduate levels. At the same time, it was expected that increasing the number of courses taught in English would give Japanese students the opportunity to study in a more international environment at home, which in turn would enhance their English language proficiency (MEXT, 2008). Thirteen of Japan’s leading universities were awarded the five-year G30 funding. Seven were national universities (Tokyo, Kyoto, Tohoku, Nagoya, Osaka, Kyushu and Tsukuba), and six private universities (Waseda, Keio, Sophia, Meiji, Ritsumeikan and Doshisha). While all of these universities were offering some courses in English at the time, only two, Sophia University and Waseda University, were offering full ETPs at the undergraduate level. The delivery of an entire undergraduate degree program in English involves commitment and expertise not only to design a suitable program and deliver 124 credits’ worth of courses, but also to ensure quality of delivery, to recruit students from overseas and to care for 18- and 19-year-olds coming to Japan without any, or only minimal, Japanese language skills (see 71

72

Sec t ion 2: The Implement at ion of English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japan

Heigham, this volume). As such, G30 arguably represented a more demanding initiative for the 13 universities than previous Ministry of Education, Culture Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) projects. This chapter takes a case study approach to explore the implementation of the G30 Project in one national university, Osaka University, looking specifically at the development and implementation of a single degree program with two majors in the School of Human Sciences. The chapter begins with a discussion of English-medium instruction (EMI) as an internationalization strategy globally and in Japan, before detailing our exploration of the Human Science International Undergraduate Degree (HUS) Program.

English-Medium Instruction as an Internationalization Strategy in Japan In an era of global student mobility, higher education systems in many countries and regions around the world have greatly increased and enhanced provision of degree programs offered entirely or partially in the English language (Bradford, 2012). Japan is a relative latecomer to this process, but the launching of the G30 Project in 2009 marked Japan’s engagement with ETPs as a higher education internationalization strategy. Through the development of EMI and ETPs, Japan expects to be able cast its international student recruitment net a little wider than neighboring China and Korea, the main areas of recruitment to date. At the beginning of the G30 initiative, 78% of international students in Japanese post-secondary institutions were from China or Korea (JASSO, 2009). A year after the G30 Project finished this figure had dropped to 60% (JASSO, 2015). During this same period, the number of international students studying in post-secondary institutions in Japan had risen from 132,720 to 184,155 (JASSO, 2009, 2015). While it is too early to draw firm conclusions, it would seem that an increase in ETPs and government support in publicizing the G30 programs may indeed have brought about both an increase and a diversification of the international student body. While the growth of an ETP niche in leading Japanese universities along with a branding of the G30 name suggests that Japan’s initial experimentation with this internationalization strategy has been successful, the academic literature on the subject has taken a somewhat critical stance. We would like now to preface our own reflections with a brief look at this literature and categorize the key criticisms that it contains.

Japanese universities cannot do EMI The small body of scholarly literature on introducing EMI courses and ETPs into Japanese universities has highlighted the perceived challenges.

A Pebble that Creates Great Waves?

73

These challenges are seen as similar to those faced by universities offering EMI courses and ETPs in other non-English-speaking cultural settings (Bradford, 2015; Burgess et al., 2010; Jon & Kim, 2011; Kuwamura, 2009; Lassegard, 2006; Mori, 2011; Tsuneyoshi, 2005). Tsuneyoshi’s detailed study (2005) of EMI in the context of study abroad programs for incoming exchange students at her own institution, the University of Tokyo, and eight other universities, provides important insights into the challenges faced by key stakeholders. Tsuneyoshi identified three sets of ‘dilemmas’ facing Japanese universities implementing EMI to attract exchange students: structural, linguistic and cultural. Tsuneyoshi argued that these dilemmas are faced by program providers, instructors and students. According to Tsuneyoshi, linguistic and cultural dilemmas emerge as a result of the challenges of creating courses and programs in a language of instruction that is not the first language of the key stakeholders. This can result in instructors and students lacking confidence in the language of instruction. In addition, a more diverse teaching and learning environment may present cultural challenges. The learning style and expectations may be challenging to both students and instructors (Tsuneyoshi, 2005). Structural challenges may emerge as a result of the hitherto takenfor-granted administrative culture of the university being insufficient to support more diverse student and faculty body. There are also additional demands placed on this administrative structure when students and faculty are neither proficient in the local language nor have the cultural skills to deal with institutional norms (Bradford, 2012). These challenges are not unique to the Japanese setting, and have been noted in wider discussion concerning ETPs and EMI in Asia and Europe (see for example, Bradford, 2012, 2015). While Tsuneyoshi’s research pre-dates G30, her conceptual framing of the challenges faced by stakeholders has already been used to look at the G30 program by Bradford (2015). We build on both Tsuneyoshi’s and Bradford’s analysis here.

Japanese instructors cannot provide high-quality English-taught courses It is argued in the literature that Japan does not have a sufficient resource pool of English-proficient instructors able or willing to teach entire courses in English (Bradford, 2013; Burgess et al., 2010; Kuwamura, 2009; Lassegard, 2006; Jon & Kim, 2011; Mori, 2011; Tsuneyoshi, 2005). In addition, it is suggested that Japanese professors often lack the necessary pedagogical and cultural competency skills to teach EMI courses. Jon and Kim, for example, suggest that Japanese faculty are overly challenged if required to ‘incorporate the Western style of instruction’ into their teaching (Jon & Kim, 2011: 166). Tsuneyoshi notes the extra effort needed to prepare EMI courses, which she

74

Sec t ion 2: The Implement at ion of English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japan

estimates to be four to five times greater than if the medium were Japanese (Tsuneyoshi, 2005). While there are undoubtedly linguistic and cultural challenges faced by any instructor teaching in a second language, our own impression is that there is an underutilized pool of foreign-trained academics who have to date found it difficult to secure employment in Japanese universities. With a dramatic expansion of EMI and ETPs in Japan, it remains to be seen whether this pool is being utilized or whether it is sufficient in size. We need a clearer vision of how instructors are chosen, assigned or hired for EMI and ETPs in Japanese universities to understand what is happening on the ground.

Japanese students cannot complete English-taught courses successfully Concerns are also expressed in the literature about the impact of EMI on Japanese students. Again, a deficit model tends to be utilized. It is noted that many Japanese students have insufficient English proficiency to complete an EMI course with any success (Burgess et al., 2010; Mori, 2011; Selzer & Gibson, 2009). At the same time, they are said to lack the requisite cultural competencies to perform well with ‘American-style instruction’ (Jon & Kim, 2011: 163; also see Tsuneyoshi, 2005: 80–81). Tsuneyoshi (2005) suggests that Japanese students come expecting a relaxed environment in university, but in the EMI classroom they find tight instruction, a different course structure with multiple evaluations and assignments, and detailed descriptions of what to do in a syllabus that many students are not familiar with. This leads to feelings of inadequacy as students realize that they are not independent scholars as is expected in an American-style classroom. In reality, we know very little about how Japanese students taking English-medium courses experience the learning environment across a range of different course delivery settings. As enrollment in EMI courses or ETPs is generally voluntary, we can assume that those students who do study in English are not representative of the entire student body. We need to know more about which students take courses in English and what kind of support they need. Burgess et al. (2010) suggest that Japanese students need appropriate scaffolding to complete English-taught courses. While an important insight, it is not clear whether such scaffolding is being constructed or not. One problem is the dearth of genba-, or on-site analysis-, level research targeting faculty and students. Jon and Kim (2011), for example, in their comparison of Korean and Japanese students’ experiences of EMI in their home countries, draw on their own empirical research for the former, but almost totally rely on Tsuneyoshi’s 2005 study for the latter. They thus repeat findings from a study that was conducted in 2005 even though the EMI and ETP landscape was already in the process of change when they were writing in 2011.

A Pebble that Creates Great Waves?

75

English-taught programs create a Dejima (an isolated community) Japanese internationalization has been equated with ‘Dejima-ization’ in the literature, Dejima being an island where the Dutch could trade with the Japanese during the period of isolation, or sakoku, in the Edo period. Burgess et al. (2010) argue, for example, that as both Japanese instructors and students experience difficulties with the teaching and learning of English-taught courses, a divide emerges between those who can perform well in English and those who cannot. As only those students with a high level of Englishlanguage proficiency will take EMI courses or enroll on ETPs, they argue, a linguistic boundary emerges between the Japanese-medium community and internationalized English-medium community (Burgess et al., 2010). A minority community made up of a few internationally competent Japanese faculty and students and the bulk of international faculty and students ends up being isolated from the majority, Japanese-speaking, university community, resulting in ‘Dejima-ization’ (Burgess et al., 2010). There is an alternative possibility, however, that the internationally competent Japanese faculty and students act as a bridge between majority and minority communities.

Our Focus in This Chapter Given the above line of questioning and the dearth of genba-level data and analysis, we hope that our chapter will make its own contribution here by taking a genba view that offers insights in the development and implementation of a single program. It is to this genba view that we now move. Taking a case study approach, four main questions drive our exploration here: (1) How was the HUS program at Osaka University designed and delivered in order to bring innovations and enhance the quality of university education? (2) What were the challenges and benefits of introducing an English-taught undergraduate program at this national university? (3) What steps were taken to avoid Dejima-ization? (4) What contribution, if any, has this G30 program made to campus internationalization? The process of inquiry is one of action research. Drawing on our direct experiences as researchers situated within the field itself, we hope to offer critical insights into the G30 Project. Yamamoto was responsible for the development and implementation of the HUS program. Ishikura investigated the program as part of her doctoral research, employing both qualitative and

76

Sec t ion 2: The Implement at ion of English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japan

quantitative methods. Together, we collected additional data for overall program monitoring and quality enhancement purposes. Drawing on part of this data, we offer here a reflective exploration of the G30 Project that spans the entire five-year funding cycle, from initial program development and implementation to consolidation and then mainstreaming of the program. As such, it offers a much-needed genba-level analysis of G30 that investigates the practice of ETP implementation (Bradford, 2015). This analytical approach recognizes research as ‘situated cultural practice’ (Arzubiaga et al., 2008: 309). We are mindful of our cultural positioning and that our reflections on the G30 program are not ‘view[s] from nowhere’ (Arzubiaga et al., 2008: 321), but are culturally situated responses that reflect our backgrounds as one British researcher and one Japanese researcher who have together clocked up many years of experience working in highly international environments, both within and outside Japan. As researchers embedded in the field, we aspire to engage in ‘selfanalysis as cultural producers’ (Arzubiaga et al., 2008: 324) who are part of the discourse of internationalization itself. We understand that we are approaching this exploration with positive understandings of the potential of internationalization within educational settings. Through this exploration we aim to offer critical insights into not only the challenges, but also the potential of ETPs in a leading Japanese research university.

Developing the Human Sciences International Undergraduate Program I (Yamamoto) have engaged with the G30 Project first and foremost as the associate director (2009–2013) and then director (from April 2014 onwards) of the HUS program. As associate director I was charged with designing and implementing the curriculum, recruiting staff and students, and providing professional (faculty) development activities to ensure program quality. After becoming director of the program, I held on to the above responsibilities, but also took on additional ones at senior leadership level. To date, we have not assigned a new associate director to the program. From April 2014, I also became associate director of the International College, which was established in 2010 to oversee the delivery of ETPs in the university. At the same time, before I also became the chair of the Committee on the Promotion of the Internationalization of Education in the School of Human Sciences. With these multiple hats, I have played a key role in establishing ETPs at Osaka University. Not surprisingly, in this process I also came face-to-face with the three sets of challenges noted above. In these different roles, I have been given enormous freedom and authority to shape the HUS program, but with this came very real constraints that limited the implementation of my own vision and the practice that stemmed

A Pebble that Creates Great Waves?

77

from this. Many of these constraints have been structural in nature, but there have been some important cultural and linguistic issues as well. These do not undermine the program, but they certainly shape it. Therefore, drawing on Tsueneyoshi’s (2005) three-part framework of linguistic, cultural and structural challenges, and Bradford’s (2015) delineations of the four dilemmas – linguistic, cultural, administrative and institutional – we now move on to my experiences of G30 from a genba perspective.

Staffing the program and capacity building First, I will address the issues of leadership and staffing of the program, and what this tells us about the reception of the G30 initiative. I have worked with a core group of extremely dedicated and talented colleagues, Japanese and non-Japanese, highly committed to the program. These colleagues have been willing to work and innovate in a particular context that has both benefits and challenges. One clear benefit is having a blank piece of paper upon which to write your ideas about what an ETP should look like and how to implement these effectively. I will outline some of the challenges here. At the beginning, the School of Human Sciences was offered six specially appointed positions at entry level (tokunin jokyō, or assistant professor) to support the bulk of the general education subjects taught in the first three semesters. These were contract positions linked to the funding cycle of the project. As specially appointed staff, these faculty members were only to engage in G30-related activities – teaching and supporting the program. It was unclear whether independent research during work time was permissible or not. This problem is common to many funded projects and not just G30. Owing to a combination of a strong yen and a dearth of entry-level academic posts worldwide, we had no shortage of applications when we advertised. However, holding on to staff was an issue. We took a number of steps to normalize these specially appointed positions. These included giving them a voice through monthly Core Group meetings, ensuring that they could continue with research to some degree, and creating a post-G30 career route. While only two of the initial six specially appointed faculty that we hired are still with us, we have held on to all those hired subsequently. We now have an extremely strong, effective and, I hope, happy team. Clearly, it is not possible to deliver a whole undergraduate program on the backs of six specially appointed staff, and from the beginning it was expected that regular faculty would make a major contribution. This was desirable, too, if we were to avoid Dejima-ization and if G30 was to work as a broader internationalizing stimulus. A shortage of regular faculty in the School of Human Sciences able or willing to teach in English meant that we reached out to a number of arts faculties and the curriculum was put together with offerings from five different schools. Even so, there were many painful meetings and a great deal of behind-the-scenes maneuvering [nemawashi] by

78

Sec t ion 2: The Implement at ion of English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japan

senior leadership before we had enough instructors for the program. As the literature suggests, many faculty, already feeling overburdened, were reluctant to take on a course that required 15 classes in English. The burden of preparation was one issue; another was that this teaching would be on top of regular teaching responsibilities as it was difficult to drop a course. Some professors got around this by offering in English a pre-existing course that had been taught in Japanese. Others used adjunct professors to do most of the teaching. Had we been able to hire a greater number of talented Japanese or non-Japanese faculty from outside, we could have easily met the requirements as we had an incredible response when we advertised for positions. Nevertheless, if a critical mass of foreign faculty or internationalized Japanese faculty were hired to teach the HUS program, this may have resulted in two separate tracks – the English (international) one and the regular Japanese one within the school. Since we started to offer upper-level courses, some professors teaching largely Japanese-medium courses have gained expertise in teaching in the English medium as well. These professors are attracting some of their own students to take their G30 courses if open to the wider student community. One professor told me how his students take his G30 course offering even though it is largely the same in content as one they have already taken in Japanese. Yet the students are motivated as they not only improve their English proficiency, but also learn how to participate in discussions, as the G30 classes tend to be more interactive than their non-G30 counterparts. The similarity of content is part of the scaffolding. The professor involved is very happy with the setup and his classes attract more and more students each year. While not particularly proficient in English speaking in the beginning, his enthusiasm and meticulous preparation have more than made up for this. It helps instructors to have a teaching assistant (TA) who can contribute in many ways to the English-medium classroom. All G30 professors have been assigned English-speaking TAs. While overall nurturing of the staff for the program has been a slow but steady process, the overall impact of G30 on campus has been greater for this.

Program development and structural dilemmas Osaka University has developed two undergraduate G30 programs: the Combined Biology and Chemistry Combined Major program (CBCMP) and the HUS program. The CBCMP team decided to enroll students in autumn 2010, just one year after receiving G30 funding. This created a timetable for development and implementation of the program that was extremely tight. In Human Sciences, we decided we needed more time to develop a program and recruit students and staff, and initially aimed for an April 2011 start. The Japanese academic year begins in April and ends in March. Most university programs start in April. Nevertheless, our research showed that an

A Pebble that Creates Great Waves?

79

April-only entry point would have made student recruitment very difficult so we changed this to an autumn (October) entry. However, future graduates from the program hoping to continue their studies or join the workforce in Japan will face some problems graduating in the summer rather than spring. The lack of alignment between the Japanese higher education academic calendar and that of many other countries in the world is a structural dilemma that English-taught program providers face. We decided to create the option of early graduation, in March, three-and-half years after joining the program, to help ease the transition for future graduates who might want to work or continue on to graduate level in Japan. International College gained the necessary authorization from MEXT to allow for early graduation for the two G30 programs. We then designed our programs with early graduation in mind, frontloading the first two years. This in turn created some tensions as students have felt overloaded.

Curriculum design and implementation Coming from the UK higher education system, I wanted the HUS program to set clear and measurable benchmarks and learning outcomes. I wanted students to gain a strong disciplinary perspective, while also gaining transferable skills and competencies. As a result, we made use of subject benchmarks developed by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education in the UK to anchor the program. Along with Dr Don Bysouth, we created a full Curriculum Document that outlined the program’s mission, graduate attributes and benchmarks for the two majors, Contemporary Japan and Global Citizenship, along with year-by-year student learning outcomes (see Yamamoto & Bysouth, 2015). This was relatively easy to achieve, but we did not have the option of creating our own desired list of courses to achieve these indicators. Instead we had to work with what we had been given. I was given a list of courses offered by various regular faculty members and had to incorporate this into the design of the program. A typical Japanese program prioritizes breadth over depth of course content. An undergraduate degree program offers 124 credits. One course is generally worth two credits, which means that students are required to complete at least 62 courses in their four-year degree program. A wide range of electives are offered to students. This created challenges for us as many of our students come from learning settings where depth is emphasized over breadth, and they are not used to handling a course load of 10 or more classes per week. Those of us involved in the program who had been educated outside Japan were not always able to fully appreciate the heavy numerical course load of our students, and ended up giving many more assignments and readings than would be usual in a Japanese university. As a result, our students have complained that they spend many more hours in the library than other students. The SERU (Student Experience in Research University) study

80

Sec t ion 2: The Implement at ion of English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japan

carried out at Osaka University showed that our students are indeed spending more hours studying outside the classroom than other undergraduate cohorts (Institute for Academic Initiatives, 2015: 9–12). Japanese university students generally choose to engage in an extracurricular club or circle. Clubs are authorized and supported by the university and usually require a high level of commitment with frequent and demanding practice sessions. When our students want to get involved in club activities they struggle with course work. Their seniors (senpai) in the clubs apparently cannot understand why the G30 students are unable to devote as many hours to extracurricular activities as other students. Circles are unofficial groups run by students and are generally more relaxed in terms of the demands made on their members. We advise students to join circles rather than clubs owing to their more demanding academic load. The core team on the HUS program would all prefer students to have fewer classes and more contact time for the classes that are offered. The challenge is to work within the system we have, but to ensure the quality of the teaching and learning. One strategy is to engage in assessment mapping to ensure we are not overloading students. We also discuss assessment at Core Group meetings and make adjustments to course load when necessary.

Japanese national universities can deliver quality English-taught programs Despite the serious challenges noted above, our G30 program appears to be a success story to date. We received an A grade in the MEXT independent program-level evaluation. We receive largely positive feedback in course and program evaluations, from both G30 and non-G30 students taking our classes. Perhaps the biggest vote of confidence is that we are getting an increasing number of students from the same secondary schools as current students applying to the program, and even one or two siblings of students. Indeed, the HUS program has exceeded the expectations of many. Probably the same can be said of the G30 initiative generally. G30 has emerged as a brand of ETP in the Japanese university system and it is attracting many talented high school students interested in studying overseas from around the world. In Osaka University, we have seen an increase in students applying for the HUS from the United States and Europe, as well as students wanting to study in the English rather than Japanese medium in Japan from China, Korea and Vietnam. We have been able to increase the overall number of students we take each year as the program has become more established. I am not at liberty to give precise numbers, but we receive a low of just over three and a high of eight times as many applicants to places. The quality of applicants is high as measured by university entry certification, such as the International Baccalaureate Diploma and Advanced Placement scores, and English proficiency scores such as IELTS and TOEFL.

A Pebble that Creates Great Waves?

81

Aware that Dejima-ization could be an issue, we built certain features into the HUS program and its delivery that sought to ameliorate this. First, we assigned cohort advisors that would meet students weekly for a homeroom. Initially the homeroom was at a time in the week that the core instructors and I could also attend. In the first couple of years of the program, the homeroom sessions provided an important point of contact between three groups of stakeholders – students, instructors and program leader. By the second semester we had started to open up some of the G30 courses to the wider student community, both domestic and international, who we refer to as ‘non-G30 students,’ in an effort to bring about integration. As mentioned above, we also hold monthly Core Group meetings involving the key teaching and administrative staff in HUS involved with delivering the program. In these meetings we can talk about how students are doing, and any problems that we as instructors may face. We exchange information and I report on anything relevant to the team that has emerged in the Faculty Senate. The Core Group meetings help bring a sense of cohesion to us as a team. As Ishikura has already documented (Ishikura, 2015a, 2015b), we were and continue to be responsive to students’ requests and are grateful for their insights. Early on in the program we made changes according to student feedback that enhanced quality and student satisfaction. Through these exchanges we were also able to highlight any issues that may need a response from one of the core members of the team or myself. One example is that we had complaints that an instructor had given no details of assessments until late in the course and no clear assessment criteria. Connected with this, students reported that they were given little formative or summative feedback on their assignments. I was able to investigate this and offer advice to the instructor. More recently, we have restructured the credit distribution of the program as a result of student feedback over several years and a systematic investigation of course delivery and content. In an effort to communicate our vision for the G30 teaching and learning environment we created Japanese and English versions of a Teaching and Learning Handbook in the first year of the program, which was issued to all instructors on the program and key stakeholders in senior leadership in the university. We found the handbook in considerable demand from outside the university, not only with those expanding ETPs in higher education but also from some high schools looking to introduce criteria-based assessment and benchmarking. As a result, we expanded it into a book (Yamamoto & Bysouth, 2015). We used the original handbook to run professional development workshops which were offered to all instructors working on the program. In order to set some kind of standard in grading, we hold moderation meetings at the end of each semester where instructors bring along samples of their grading of reports. Sadly, we have only ever had the core team attend these sessions. While at first I think some of the instructors felt they were

82

Sec t ion 2: The Implement at ion of English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japan

going to be judged and therefore felt threatened by the exercise, today it is very routine. Over cups of tea and snacks, we ensure that we are being consistent in the way we are grading. Often we bring along a piece of work that is on the borderline of two grades and feel comforted when as a group we make a decision about what the grade should be. We have also introduced, with the same kind of limited success, course leader reports that we ask all instructors to write each semester for each course they have taught as a reflection on their practice. This report is very helpful when somebody new takes over a course and in the future we hope they may be useful in the context of an external evaluation of the program. While a few instructors over and above the core team do submit these reports, they still have not been mainstreamed into the program. Although there are still a number of outstanding issues and challenges, we have managed to create an effective and high-quality teaching and learning environment that is being noticed by colleagues and prospective students.

Implementation of the G30 Human Sciences Program from Additional Key Stakeholder Perspectives This section offers different perspectives on the G30 initiative. I (Ishikura) was a doctoral student from 2012 to 2015 at Osaka University. My research explored the impacts and outcomes of the G30 Project on Osaka University generally and on key stakeholders in particular. Taking an ethnographic approach, I acted as a TA on five to six courses each semester for five semesters. From this standpoint, I was able to observe the program from a close-up position. I engaged in informal conversations with instructors and students, as well as carrying out formal interviews with some. In this final section, I report on my longitudinal observations of the HUS program from just after the program was launched through to the end of the G30 funding cycle in March, 2014. This will show how program leaders created a space for students to offer their own responses to what was happening on the ground, and that any complaints and recommendations were listened to and acted upon, which in turn meant that, as key stakeholders, students were able to shape in some quite important ways program development. I entered the doctoral program in April 2012, six months after the HUS program had enrolled its first cohort of students. At that time, there was only one small cohort of nine students learning together in the program. In order to gather data, I began to assist course instructors as a TA. Students and staff were aware of my positioning as a researcher and not just a TA and were supportive of it.

A Pebble that Creates Great Waves?

83

My first impression of the program was the closeness of students and instructors. The program offers students weekly homeroom sessions and a cohort adviser system. Every Friday, G30 instructors meet students in the same cohort in order to listen to their feedback on individual courses or some aspect of the program. This is also a time for program administrators to ensure that essential information is getting through to the students. In the early days, some students talked about their frustrations with aspects of the program and asked for changes. The homeroom sessions I observed were welcoming and almost familial in terms of the close relationship between students, between students and faculty, and between faculty and faculty. Students felt safe enough to be quite frank in their observations of what was and what was not working. For the first cohort in particular, as they had no senpai, senior students, to rely on, the homeroom was an important part of the week. One student suggested that the homeroom was one of the benefits of being on the G30 program: Having a homeroom was actually a medium for us to communicate with professors and to give feedback, and also they give us feedback. And they try to make the program better. I think it is good for us, because most of the regular students, they do not have much time to communicate directly to the professors, change the program and influence the program. (First cohort student 1, Korean) When students voiced concerns or made recommendations these were discussed in the homeroom, but later I heard that they were followed up on in the Core Group meeting. Efforts were made to improve the program based on these discussions. As a result, students felt that they had a voice, and were able to positively impact the development of the program. Two of the students’ demands were for a larger G30 student intake and to have more opportunities to interact with the non-G30 student community. There were only nine students in the first cohort and these students had no senpai to help them learn the ropes or integrate into the university community. Due partly to Japanese language issues, many did not interact with students other than those on the two G30 programs. Given this situation, it was easy for some students to end up feeling isolated. This has been less of a problem with subsequent cohorts as steps have been taken to bridge the divide between the various student communities (Japanese and international; those on ETP or Japanese taught programs; students who are degreeseeking and those who are on non-degree seeking programs; those on regular and those on exchange programs). The students’ feedback given in the homeroom sessions motivated Yamamoto, with the support of instructors, to open up some of the courses to the wider campus community. From the spring semester in 2012, a number of G30 HUS courses were opened up to students on regular Japanese-medium

84

Sec t ion 2: The Implement at ion of English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japan

programs and to short-term exchange students. Each year more courses have been made available to non-G30 students. Today, both general and advanced courses are open to both G30 and non-G30 students. Some of these courses have become so popular that there is talk of restricting participation. Nevertheless, it means that the G30 classes are acting as a bridge between different learning communities. In addition, as noted above, some regularly appointed (not appointed for G30) professors are now teaching G30 courses and attracting some of their own non-G30 students into G30 classes, which serves as another bridge. Going back to early on in the program, my observations seemed to confirm the perception of EMI classes being dogged by the linguistic, cultural and structural dilemmas emphasized in the literature. With different learning backgrounds, linguistic competencies, and cultural backgrounds, both students and instructors faced many challenges. The courses that were delivered to G30 and non-G30 students experienced high attrition rates, with many of the non-G30 students, primarily domestic students, failing to complete the courses. Many Japanese non-G30 students reported that they could not understand anything nor contribute their opinions to the session. They felt lost and overly challenged. I noticed that there were generally one or two Japanese students crying at the end of the first session each semester. Some expressed their frustration at this first-time experience in an EMI class where they felt themselves to be ‘an incompetent learner,’ whereas they were fully competent learners in Japanese-taught courses. They noted that they could not do what they would usually be able to do in Japanese-taught courses, such as understand what instructors say, take notes and participate in discussions. They perceived their G30 classmates, however, to be entirely competent learners. On the other hand, G30 students started to express their frustration that they were not able to have deeper class discussions with some of the non-G30 students. Some of the instructors also felt the tension between teaching at a regular G30 level and, at the same time, providing an effective learning environment for many of the regular Japanese students who clearly could not always follow the class. The regular homeroom and Core Group meetings meant that the above issues were raised quickly. At the same time, as soon as mixed G30 and non-G30 classes were offered, Yamamoto and Ishikura carried out a survey of the latter group at the beginning and end of each semester to gather key data on student motivations for taking a G30 class, their expectations and sense of preparation, and then at the end of semester the extent to which they felt they had realized their expectations and were able to meet the demands of the learning environment. This provided valuable data for the program leaders, as well as course instructors, who were very open to suggestions and willing to try different ways of facilitating the classes.

A Pebble that Creates Great Waves?

85

When I was assisting classes, instructors frequently asked for my feedback and we discussed how to improve the courses together. I observed that core instructors frequently repeated three steps: (1) evaluation – identifying issues by receiving feedback from cohort advisers, students and TAs; (2) developing and planning – considering how to improve things for the next class with the TA; (3) implementation – trying out a different strategy to achieve new goals. It was clear from the reaction of students that this approach was novel for many of them. They were clearly more used to what Freire has referred to as ‘narrative education’ with the ‘narrating subject (the teacher) and patient listening objects (the students)’ (Freire, 2000: 71). I overheard students whispering as they left the classroom that the instructor had read their feedback and made some changes to the class. They were clearly pleasantly surprised. Students generally were aware when instructors were making changes to class delivery and content as a result of feedback, even if the changes were small. The above process reveals that the classroom was a place of learning for both students and instructor. The instructors were ‘simultaneously teachers and students’ (Freire, 2000: 72), which allowed the students to take the role not only of learners, but also of teachers. This libertarian attitude to teaching and learning that was nurtured within the core team delivering the program, including the TAs, allowed the HUS program to address and at least partially resolve some of the dilemmas outlined in the scholarly literature on G30. It took two to three semesters to see some measurably positive outcomes of the process of fine-tuning the G30 and non-G30 mixed classes. The student attrition rate decreased markedly over the first three semesters after courses were opened to non-G30 students. In 2013, roughly 240 non-G30 students took G30 courses. Some non-G30 students were repeating the G30 class experience and coming back the next semester, a little more confident, to take another course (15–25% depending on the semester). Others used it as a springboard for a student exchange program experience, while others took G30 classes on return from exchange. As the size of these mixed classes has increased, there are additional challenges since it is getting harder to respond to individual feedback. The program providers are now looking for ways to limit participation in some of the more popular classes because there are concerns about the imbalance now between the smaller number of G30 students and many more non-G30 students. Many of the non-G30 students are short-term exchange students, so there is another dynamic that is emerging: regular students, whether G30 or non-G30 are greatly outnumbered by non-regular exchange students. The current challenge is finding ways to resolve the tensions that this new situation produces. The needs of exchange students are different from those of regular students. Although the G30

86

Sec t ion 2: The Implement at ion of English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japan

students are smaller in number, they will be with us for four years and not just six months to a year. The expectations of these two groups regarding their studies are different. As the above, albeit brief, exploration of the G30 program from its early days to the end of its funding cycle suggests, the linguistic, cultural and structural dilemmas identified in the literature were certainly present in the early stages of the program. However, the culture of teaching and learning, with embedded ideas of quality enhancement, helped both instructors and students to ameliorate some of these through a cycle of reflection, development and implementation. The spirit of learning that constituted both instructors and students as teachers and learners made course enhancement a shared endeavor.

Conclusion As with any new program, designing and implementing the G30 HUS program resulted in many challenges and undoubtedly some of these were cultural, structural and linguistic. Nevertheless, those involved in the process (students, academic staff, and administrative staff) have mostly risen to the challenges that presented themselves. Together, we were innovative in how we dealt with these and also created support structures. We are in the process right now of re-evaluating the program as the intake grows and we have security now that it is part of the regular degree programs open to students. Using the metaphor that we offered up in the title of this chapter, we have shown that a small-scale English-taught program can act as a small pebble that creates larger waves of internationalization in the university. Overall, the G30 initiative appears to have been more successful than many expected. The challenge now is one linked to sustainability. With MEXT funding at an end, the continuation of these ETPs relies on mainstream university resources being prioritized to support such programs at a time of cost cutting. At this moment in time, the G30 programs seem secure in many universities and there is a trend toward increasing ETPs that is evident in many of the universities that secured Top Global University funding. As expanding ETPs and increasing international faculty and students are expectations of this funding, the sustainability of EMI courses and ETPs is probably secure in Japan for a while yet. During that time, we can expect to see an increase in students and faculty who are comfortable teaching and learning in EMI.

References Arzubiaga, A.E., Artiles, A.J., King K.A. and Harris-Murri, N. (2008) Beyond research on cultural minorities: Challenges and implementations of research as situated cultural practice. Council for Exceptional Children 74 (3), 309–327.

A Pebble that Creates Great Waves?

87

Bradford, A. (2012) Adopting English-taught degree programs. International Higher Education 69 (Fall), 8–10. Bradford, A. (2013) English-medium degree programs in Japanese universities: Learning from the European experience. Asian Education and Development Studies 2 (3), 225–240. Bradford, A. (2015) Internationalization policy at the genba: Exploring the implementation of social science English-taught undergraduate degree programs in three Japanese universities. EdD dissertation, The George Washington University. Burgess, C., Gibson, I., Klaphake, J. and Selzer, M. (2010) The ‘Global 30’ Project and Japanese higher education reform: An example of a ‘closing in’ or an ‘opening up’? Globalisation, Societies and Education 8 (4), 461–475. Freire, P. (2000) Pedagogy of the Oppressed (2nd edn). New York: Continuum. Institute for Academic Initiatives, Osaka University (2015) SERU gakusei anke-to chōsa dai i-kai hōkokusho [Report on the 1st SERU (Student Experience in Research University) survey in Osaka University]. Osaka: Strategic Planning Office, Institute for Academic Initiatives, Osaka University (publication for internal use), February. Ishikura, Y. (2015a) Developing intercultural competence through internationalizationat-home programs in Japan. SIETAR Japan Journal of Intercultural Communication 18, 71–92. Ishikura, Y. (2015b) Realizing internationalization at home through English-medium courses at a Japanese university: Strategies to maximize student learning. Higher Learning Research Communications 5 (1), 11–28. JASSO (2009) Heisei 21 nen gaikokujin ryūgakusei zaiseki jōkyō chōsa kekka [Results of the survey of the situation of international students enrolled in Japanese universities in academic year 2009]. See http://www.jasso.go.jp/about/statistics/intl_ student_e/2009/index.html (accessed 10 September 2015). JASSO (2015) Ryūgakusei su no suii [Transitions in the number of international students in Japan]. See http://www.jasso.go.jp/about/statistics/intl_student_e/2014/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2015/10/20/data14_1.pdf Jon, J.E. and Kim, E.Y. (2011) What it takes to internationalize higher education in Korea and Japan: English-mediated courses and international students. In J. Palmer, A. Roberts, Y. H. Cho and G. Ching (eds) The Internationalization of East Asian Higher Education (pp. 147–171). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Kuwamura, A. (2009) The challenges of increasing capacity and diversity in Japanese higher education through proactive recruitment strategies. Journal of Studies in International Education 13 (2), 189–202. Lassegard, J.P. (2006) International student quality and Japanese higher education reform. Journal of Studies in International Education 10 (2), 119–140. MEXT (2008) Ryugakusei 30 man nin keikaku no kosshi torimatome kangaekata ni motozuku gutaiteki hōshin [Concrete policies on 30,000 international student plan]. See http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/chukyo4/houkoku/1249702. htm (accessed 10 September 2015). Mori, J. (2011) G30 and its implications for Japan. University of Kyoto International Exchange Center Journal 1, 63–71. Selzer, M.A. and Gibson, I.R. (2009) Preparing Japanese students for English-medium instruction in international studies: Methodology and practice in the IIIS international public service program. Ritsumeikan Annual Review of International Studies 22 (1), 127–140. Tsuneyoshi, R. (2005) Internationalization strategies in Japan: The dilemmas and possibilities of study abroad programs using English. Journal of Research in International Education 4 (1), 65–86. Yamamoto B. and Bysouth D. (eds) (2015) A Handbook for Enhancing English-Medium Program Quality and Practice: Toward Effective Teaching, Learning and Assessment. Osaka: Osaka University Press.

Section 3 Challenges and Solutions for English-Medium Instruction in Japan

6

Administrative Impediments: How Bureaucratic Practices Obstruct the Implementation of English-Taught Programs in Japan Gregory Poole

This chapter is an exploration of how local bureaucratic practices effectively construct an administrative and institutional identity that stands in direct opposition to the intended higher education (HE) policy assumptions of the university management teams implementing English-taught programs (ETPs). As this volume illustrates, recent HE policy in Japan attempts to introduce into the public and private sector ETPs that will enable universities to better compete in a globalized HE market (see Bradford & Brown, introduction to this volume). ETPs are one approach in a multifaceted initiative that the national government has encouraged universities to implement over the past decade. This initiative represents a policy that is arguably a dynamism without risk (see Aspinall, 2015; Newby et al., 2009) intended to encourage higher education institutions (HEIs) in Japan to become more responsive, agile and globally competitive, meaning ‘more highly ranked on the international league tables’ (Newby et al., 2009: 11), while understanding the conservative nature of universities. Others have analyzed this policy in detail and the series of HE ‘internationalization’ and reform initiatives associated with it (e.g. Abe, 2004; Arimoto, 2010; Aspinall, 2012; Goodman, 2005; Huang, 2005; Ishikawa, 2011; Ota, 2011, 2014), the most recent example being the Top Global University Project (Goodman, 2016). This HE policy, which includes the firm establishment of English as the language of instruction in a select number of programs in an otherwise entirely Japanese context (see Brown & Iyobe, 2014), is fraught with implementation challenges that arguably reflect wider issues of language education policy as ‘a perennially contested arena within a nation and one that 91

92

Sec t ion 3: Challenges and Solut ions for EMI in Japan

arouses an array of sentiments and identity conflicts’ (Horiguchi et al., 2015: 1). Indeed, recent critical analysis clearly delineates how two competing discourses that surround national educational policy generally, as stated in Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) documents, are struggling to gain hegemony. Rear and Jones (2013: 387) show how individual-centered neoliberalism, signified by statements such as education cultivating ‘capable human resources full of creativity and individuality,’ competes with a discourse of group-centered moral conservatism, represented by signifiers such as the cultural transmission of ‘traditional social norms of public-mindedness.’ Breaden (2014) also exposes a similar dissonance in national policy that surrounds international students and international graduates, one that limits the flexibility and effectiveness of the Japanese university and workforce. In this chapter, however, my focus is on implementation challenges that are less at the level of national policy discourses and more of a local variety. Much of the empirical data for this paper was collected through extensive participant observation over the past five years as director of an ETP at a comprehensive research university in Kyoto, a program that I established together with four other faculty members. In addition, I spent two years as a core faculty member helping to implement and develop a similar ETP at a private university in Tokyo. Considering this fieldwork data, I argue that the well-intentioned policy of implementing ETPs at Japanese HEIs will have minimal effect as change (‘internationalization’) agents since, in my opinion, and following similar observations of Japanese company organizations (e.g. Rohlen, 1974, 1975), the universities are controlled locally by Weberian legal-rational, ideal-type bureaucratic practices – ‘Weber argued for the legal character of bureaucracy [and his] characterization fits Japan rather well’ (Craig, 1975: 4). Dearden (2014: 2) points out that globally, often ‘educational infrastructures do not support quality EMI provision.’ I take this a step further and argue that the bureaucratic infrastructure itself, the administrative systems, are actually much more central to institutional identity than even the university educational mission statements themselves, let alone government policies and university management aspirations for internationalization through EMI and ETPs. First I briefly outline some of these macro-level processes at the societal and governmental level, policies that are usually glossed as internationalization (rather than reform) and are influencing HEIs in Japan to establish more ETPs. I then contrast these with the micro-level practices at individual universities that are directly opposed to such attempts at change and reform, illustrating this macro-micro dissonance with a series of vignettes. In order to explain these practices, I outline a number of assumptions that surround the management of human resources and the administrative system at many universities in Japan. Then by framing these assumptions within both a recently developed model of English-medium education in multilingual university settings (Dafouz & Smit, 2016), and the larger social theory of bureaucracy,

Administrat ive Impediment s

93

not only are the practices more easily understood, but this case study can then contribute in a comparative way to a global conversation on the administration of ETPs in various local HE contexts worldwide. From an insider–outsider perspective, how is bureaucracy, a utopia of rules (Graeber, 2015), negatively affecting, rather than positively effecting, the ability of HEIs, and individuals in these institutions, to respond to the problems and pressures of globalization, namely the implementation of ETPs? As a way forward I propose we direct our attention to theories on social entrepreneurship as a way to potentially resolve the challenge of embedded administrative practices and static institutional identities.

Macro-level Policies: The G30, G30+, Top Global In reviewing the impetus for the macro-level policies of ETPs and internationalization generally, it is clear that the push for change is from the government through MEXT and their Global 30 (G30), Global 30+ (G30+) and Top Global set of projects, launched initially in 2009 (Ishikawa, 2011). The main thrust of the present Top Global initiative, beginning in 2015 and funded through 2023 (Goodman, 2016), is the government’s stated goal to reform and diversify HEIs in Japan. Tracing the roots a little further back, these initiatives follow on from the move over a decade ago in 2004 to privatize the national universities (dokuritsu hōjinka; Christensen, 2011; Goodman, 2005; Hirowatari, 2000; Poole & Chen, 2009). Consistent with neoliberal policy trends worldwide, the emphasis of the Japanese government HE policy over the past two decades has been on introducing competitiveness and entrepreneurship amongst the top universities (Rappleye et al., 2011: 418). In a 2009 report (Newby et al., 2009) the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) offered an analysis of these reform efforts in Japan which they summarized as follows: There is a widespread demand that the tertiary education system become, via the modernization agenda embedded in the reforms, more responsive, more agile, more globally competitive and accompanied by higher standards and higher quality all round. (Newby et al., 2009: 11) Reflecting on this OECD report, Aspinall (2015: 109) pointedly adds that this ‘list of demands poses serious challenges for the system. The word “agile” for example does not normally spring to mind when one considers the typical national university in Japan.’ He goes on to summarize the four key reservations expressed in the report by the OECD team: (1) the problem of overcoming inertia; (2) the reluctance of MEXT to give up much of its power over the university system; (3) the nature of what

94

Sec t ion 3: Challenges and Solut ions for EMI in Japan

a national ‘steering body’ could be (according to the authors of the report); and (4) the lack of a pool of academic managers of the caliber required to make university autonomy work in practice. (Aspinall, 2015: 109) This last point especially is most pertinent to the discussion here – competent bureaucrats do not necessarily make competent managers.

Micro-level Practices: Challenges of Institutional Identity Whatever ideas university presidents and ministry officials may have to realize an idealistic mission that supports university reform, there is a drive toward ‘de-internationalization’ (Poole, 2016) on campuses in the microlevel practices of administrative systems. These practices, a Weberian bureaucratic ideology, I argue, are fundamental to the identity of institutions. The bureaucracy of large universities works to (re)construct institutional identities and memories that work very clearly against change and sustainable reforms, making the implementation of the numerical goals highly unrealistic. In other words, I question whether it is possible to implement fundamental reforms without a fundamental change in ideology, a change in administrative systems, institutional identity and bureaucratic practices. What are these practices? Before delineating a few of the salient features and assumptions surrounding administrative bureaucracies at Japanese HEIs, let me begin with three vignettes for the purposes of illustration. Although I use examples from one private institution, Doshisha University, my experience at three other institutions and with two other EMI programs, including one at a national university, convinces me that such examples are representative of similar practices at many HEIs in Japan where ETPs and EMI programs are being offered. Interviews and discussions with experts and colleagues involved with these programs at a number of different institutions around Japan also support this view.

‘Imperialism of the Finance Office’ A few months ago, I was having a serious conversation with the Doshisha University president in his office. We were discussing micro-level practices that work toward identity maintenance but against institutional change. I was describing the inefficiency of the rule instituted by our finance office that when traveling on university business we are not allowed to mix administrative business with research business. This is especially a problem for those of us recruiting globally for our ETPs. The topic turned to the finance office rules regarding our hotel allowance which is prorated according to region, no exceptions. On the surface this seems reasonable; however, the

Administrat ive Impediment s

95

implementation of such unbending rules disallows for risk management and general common sense. For instance, my colleague at Doshisha, an anthropologist, was asked to represent the university at a Japanese government HE fair in Delhi, India. The venue for the event was conveniently planned at a large meeting room in a centrally located hotel. Unfortunately for my colleague and the administrative staff accompanying him, with typical bureaucratic illogicality (see Graeber, 2015), the university finance office would not allow them to book a discounted room at the hotel venue since it was 1000 yen (approximately US$10) beyond the finance office-allotted accommodations allowance. The result was that, unbeknownst to my colleague, the international office travel agency booked them into a third-rate hotel nearly an hour away from the venue. On their way to the event in the morning, their hotel taxi broke down in the middle of a very busy highway and the driver had them both stand in their suits in the middle of the highway partition while he tried to get the car started. The anthropologist was merely annoyed, but for the poor administrator who had never traveled to India before, traumatized might be a more appropriate adjective, especially when the wet feeling on his hand turned out to be the tongue of one of the cows roaming the streets of India. Needless to say, the university president was very interested to hear this story, and responded with an interesting term and a story of his own. ‘Imperialism of the Finance Office’ (zaimu teikoku) he announced, as he proceeded to express his frustration with what he labeled the ‘illogical’ accounting rule at the university that, although allowing him as president to take a taxi from Kyoto to Osaka on business, a journey of about 60 kilometers, does not allow him to take a bullet train to save time and money. ‘We all struggle in silence against this imperialism!,’ the president lamented.

‘Domesticated’ enrollment management During the past five years of implementing a four-year ETP at Doshisha, my colleagues and I have found ourselves struggling to adapt to the unbending nature of the university rules and practices surrounding admissions, especially given their irrelevancy for our program, which focuses on enrolling a diversity of students. Although there does exist a university ‘admissions office,’ it is not staffed by professional admissions officers. Furthermore, the organizational role and bureaucratic purpose of this admissions office is restricted to overseeing a university-wide budget for advertising – general Doshisha pamphlets and open campus days – and the administering of admissions tests. The academic and administrative staff at individual faculties and departments are largely responsible for both recruiting and admissions. Within each faculty office, administrative staff are assigned to work on helping the academic staff to visit local high schools, staff the open campus events and administer the admissions interviews. Again none of these staff

96

Sec t ion 3: Challenges and Solut ions for EMI in Japan

members are admissions specialists. As of 2016, there is still no online application process at Doshisha; all admissions applications are paper-based, submitted either in person or through the postal mail. Although admissions practices at Japanese universities have been criticized for years (see, for example, Amano, 1990; Kinmonth, 2005; Poole, 2003), in terms of domestic, Japanese students in Japanese-taught programs (JTPs), the process does manage to enroll a sufficient number of students for Doshisha University as a whole. As such, the administrators feel it is sufficient and, like at many better-known universities in Japan, even when questions of methodology, utility or results of the admissions process are raised, there is not much incentive for change. As the sole undergraduate ETP on campus, our program is expected to follow these established enrollment management norms and rules set out for the local JTP faculties, even though we are competing for and enrolling students from 30 different countries on six continents. Part of the strategy in the competition for domestic students is to have numerous entrance pathways, up to eight or nine in some JTP faculties. Unfortunately, ETPs recruiting international students are also expected to employ the same domestic admissions practices and pathways. One of these is the school designation system, where an applicant is guaranteed a place on a course if they are recommended by the head of a designated secondary school (shiteikō), pre-approved by the university. Even though the applicant cannot fail, they are still expected to sit for an interview ‘examination.’ In the context of a diverse, international ETP, implementing such a strategy is problematic; at least three international students admitted through this pathway have had to drop out of our program. Although they had been highly recommended by the head of their high school, in fact they were totally unsuited for an ETP such as ours (where many of the incoming students are either native English speakers or have extremely high, near-native language proficiency). A student in China applied to our program through this pathway, assuming that with the recommendation of her high school principal she had secured a place on the course. Unfortunately, when two of my colleagues began to interview the applicant at her high school in Tianjin, they quickly realized that she could not speak English. Although the purpose of the interview was purely a formality and the rules of the school designation system indicated that we must accept this applicant into our program, to do so would have been unethical since she would have failed to pass any of the courses on offer. After making this argument forcibly to the head administrators, the student was not admitted, which resulted in a loss of face for the high school principal and an eventual withdrawal of this secondary school from the school designation system. This case precipitated a long battle with the university administration to remove the recommendation system from the admissions policy of our ETP.

Administrat ive Impediment s

97

After five years we are finally the only program at Doshisha, ETP or JTP, with one admissions process and pathway – the standard admissions (ippan nyūshi). Although this is a small victory of sorts, it is at the cost of a huge expenditure of time and energy on part of the academic staff, time that might have been more constructively used for teaching and research. I would also argue that this battle is not being won in general. Interviews and conversations with academic staff at other institutions reveal that many ETPs are forced by the university bureaucrats to accept unqualified applicants that have been recommended by associated school principals. Such local understandings of admissions practices and norms disallow undergraduate ETPs in Japan from full participation in the global competition for university students through open, equitable, online systems such as The Common Application, the Washington, DC clearing house now being used by institutions worldwide.

Fitting the ‘round peg of liberal arts’ into the ‘square hole of gakubu’ Unlike liberal arts HEIs in the United States, most Japanese universities are modeled around an undergraduate education based in one faculty (gakubu). High school applicants apply to, enroll in and graduate from one specific university faculty. Rarely is there room for changing one’s major area of study. Prestige is not only associated with the university brand, but certain faculties within the same university are assigned a rank based on competitive entrance requirements – hensachi, or the abstract notion of a national norm-referenced score. How does such a gakubu HE system accommodate a four-year, interdisciplinary, liberal arts ETP? Not very well. To compensate, the faculty members who designed the Doshisha undergraduate ETP in 2009 and 2010 did their best to devise an innovative strategy when they conceived of a liberal arts ETP. Instead of creating yet another faculty (there are at present 14 undergraduate faculties and 38 departments at Doshisha), the ETP was located as an interdisciplinary institute between six faculties of humanities and social sciences. This actually helps to fulfill the mission of the ETP, which is not only to attract top international students, but also to attract top domestic JTP students, since undergraduates from these six faculties have the option of enrolling in the liberal arts ETP as part of a second major (fuku senkō; for discussions of global jinzai, or global human resources, see Breaden, 2014; Brown, 2014). Unfortunately, this interdisciplinary, programmatic innovation for degree-seeking ETP students was not supported by bureaucratic innovation. Because the academic affairs office refuses to allow our institute independence from the six gakubu, at point of application for admissions to the ETP, all students are assigned an enrollment place (shozoku) in a JTP at a gakubu

98

Sec t ion 3: Challenges and Solut ions for EMI in Japan

outside the liberal arts institute. This is irrespective of the fact that all of their undergraduate education takes place and is administered through the ETP institute, not the JTP gakubu. Because of this rule, when the first cohort of ETP students approached graduation, the academic affairs office insisted that the degree certificate must not bear the name of the ETP (institute) but rather only the name of the JTP (gakubu, e.g. Faculty of Law, Department of Political Science), even though none of the students’ classes would have been in the JTP program. Again, this issue resulted in a long battle between the academic staff (deans of the faculties and the institute) and the university bureaucrats that ended with the ETP institute constructing a separate degree certificate with the actual name of the liberal arts ETP inscribed, issued alongside the official one that falsely implies that the graduate completed the JTP gakubu curriculum.

University Bureaucracy and Maintenance of Status Quo I would argue that these finance, enrollment management and academic affairs rules, although implemented with good intentions, are indicative of practices within many HEI administrative systems in Japan that literally drive a stake through the heart of innovating ETPs at universities and actually prevent these programs from attracting and serving the types of students for which they have been designed. These examples represent the disconnect between the macro-level processes as described above and the discourses of internationalization that are a driving factor behind ETPs (see Brown, 2014 for other factors) on the one hand, and the micro-level activities and practices of de-internationalization on the other. These practices effectively work to re-embed national boundaries and identities, re-entrenching embedded but often illogical and even costly practices, working to further peripheralize the more integrative voices on campus, those of both transnational students and transnational faculty. The locus of many of these practices falls squarely with what we might label the uchimuki actors (inwardly oriented administrative and academic staff; Poole, 2009, 2010) that wield authority through the administrative system, which is at the center of the university. These actors, and the practices that they enforce, appear on the surface to be dedicated to increasing a crossover between flows of students and researchers. Many of the actors, both administrative and academic staff, are themselves ostensibly part of internationalization or globalization offices or programs at the university campus and may not personally oppose the implementation of ETPs. However, close-up observation of, and intense engagement with, the actual processes of reform reveals how university structures are embedded in domesticated assumptions (jōshiki), tacit understandings (anmoku no ryōkai) and laws of precedent (zenrei) that

Administrat ive Impediment s

99

work to maintain a status quo that then impedes the very internationalization (read innovation) that the university professes to be enacting. Even university presidents are helpless in the face of such a Weberian bureaucracy that works to maintain a familiar institutional identity.

Assumptions surrounding hiring and HR practices Interviews with key figures at a number of institutions in Japan, and my own personal observations over the past 10 years point to a set of such administrative practices/assumptions that effect this de-internationalization, or the re-embedding (Giddens, 1991) of the university campus. Underlying these practices and assumptions are institutional incentives for maintaining the status quo and supporting vested interests. Entrepreneur William Saito (2012) has observed such work habits at many institutions and labeled them ‘groupwork,’ a tendency to be driven by fear (dekinai riyū wo sagasu) rather than being open to solutions (dekiru michi wo tsukuru). These practices make implementing innovative ETPs at Japanese HEIs challenging at best. I focus on two dimensions of these embedded beliefs and norms (jōshiki) surrounding administrative work: assumptions surrounding skills and hiring practices and the nature of the university system of administration itself.

Permanent staff are hired directly from university Although nearly a third of all new hires in industry change jobs after three years in Japan (MEXT, 2015), universities rarely hire administrative staff mid-career, and in the cases when this does happen, the maximum age of the potential hire is often stated on the job advertisement. This usually disqualifies senior managers. Career changes and headhunting from other industries must be made early. This practice prohibits hiring permanent staff that might be helpful in developing and implementing innovative ETPs, those with advanced degrees in higher educational administration, for example, or individuals with extensive experience in international admissions offices or international recruiting.

Permanent staff are generalists One of the ubiquitous assumptions of administrative work at universities is that none of the permanent staff can be hired for specialized skills, but rather as generalists that are expected to rotate every few years between the various administrative offices around the campus. Job mobility is intra-institutional, based on various factors that do not always correlate to the personal skill set or interests of the individual administrative employee. The result is that a senior manager will be familiar with many of the different offices, having worked at a dozen or so different departments over the course of their career – from academic affairs to personnel, finance, library services, student services, career center and numerous undergraduate or graduate faculty offices. Every spring the university personnel office makes decisions on the next job

100

Sec t ion 3: Challenges and Solut ions for EMI in Japan

placement for the administrative employees, with little or no input from the various heads of academic departments. Individual administrators themselves occasionally have some choice in their own job placement, although more senior staffers rarely have any say, occasionally resulting in severe dissonance. A colleague recently related to me that, at the international student office at his institution, a national university, a disgruntled incoming office manager announced to his office staff that he had a strong dislike for foreigners and English, so ‘please do not forward any English emails to my inbox.’ Conversely, those administrators skillful at working with international students in ETPs must rotate to another post in, for example, the finance office, after a few years. Job mobility is intra-institutional but not inter-institutional.

Permanent staff are Japanese nationals There is a hiring assumption that administrators hired as permanent members of staff will have Japanese nationality and have gone through the Japanese educational system, including graduating from a local university. Across the campus, non-Japanese with bilingual skills, or more commonly, Japanese returnees with transnational experience, are hired on a part-time basis or with limited-term contracts. These multilingual administrators, a large percentage of whom are women (Breaden, 2012), do most of the international work at ETPs on the campus, although they are rarely given decision-making roles since their status is impermanent and peripheral. After a few years of intensive training in international admissions or job placement for international students in ETPs, these contract workers then must move on to a new position at a different university or embark on a new career. The permanent administrators who become the senior managers are rarely hired from the growing pool of international students completing undergraduate and postgraduate degrees in ETPs at Japanese universities.

Contract workers are never hired permanently The reason for this mobility of contract workers is because the promotional escalator system (nenkōjōretsu seido) does not allow contract workers to ever move into permanent jobs. Although institutions invest considerably in the training of contract staff, the administrative hiring system does not allow the permanent hiring of proven staffers. The limited-term contracts are normally not renewable, or only renewable for a limited number of years. This creates a migrant workforce of highly talented female administrators, moving from one university to another in part-time, contract employment often in ETP offices.

We Japanese administrators lack ‘global skills’ At a conference on administrative staff development sponsored by the government, a senior administrator related a story about how when he was a young administrator 30 years previously the senior managers around

Administrat ive Impediment s

101

the university campus refused to embrace word processors and computers in the office, knowing that there was little incentive to invest in a new skill if they were set to retire in a few years. This senior administrator compared this attitude with the one he observes today with respect to globalized skills – there is very little incentive, especially for senior members of administrative staff, to invest in working in an international environment. Best to let the young, enthusiastic administrators handle those tasks, since they are better prepared and able. Those with globalized skills are, like the ETPs themselves, at the university periphery, far from the center of power. There is a general resistance to change in administrative systems, adaptations in course registration processes or admissions procedures that are imperative for the effective administration of ETPs. Permanently employed, Japanese administrators quickly profess, self-deprecatingly, that ‘we lack global skills.’ For all the talk of reform of Japanese HEIs, internationalization efforts such as establishing ETPs on Japanese university campuses are highly peripheralized in their approach to change, very rarely effecting change in the centralized bureaucracy.

Administrative assumptions and dichotomies In addition to beliefs surrounding staffing practices at universities, a set of assumptions guides the overall system of administration and effectively results in a dichotomization of the university campus at a number of levels. This impedes the way forward for effective implementation and administration of ETPs. The first and most pronounced level of dichotomization is that between administrators and academics. The assumption is that administrators represent ‘the university position’ (daigaku gawa), acting as a brake to change and a balance of power to the academic staff and faculties. The language used by administrators reinforces this position. As the dean of an ETP faculty, when my administrative staff members have expressed a difference of opinion with me, more than once this disagreement has been explained as representative of the ‘university position,’ not as an individual opinion, clearly placing themselves on the side of the institution in opposition to a tenured professor and dean, also a fully embedded member of the institution. Subsequently, an invocation of ‘the MEXT position’ is an administrative mantra that adds further stratification to the university position, invoking the Ministry of Education as an omnipotent ally for resisting the change necessary for supporting ETPs, which is ironic since officials in MEXT are themselves pushing for just such change at universities. The institutional security offered by administrators’ ideology of bureaucratic rules directly contrasts, and often conflicts, with the institutional integrity (Guajardo, 2015) offered by the faculty’s ideology of university mission.

102

Sec t ion 3: Challenges and Solut ions for EMI in Japan

The second powerful administrative dichotomy occurs between regular and temporary employees. Not only is much of the teaching on a university campus done by temporary, adjunct academic staff, but also much of the office work for ETPs is performed by temporary, contract administrative staff (Poole, 2010). The assumption is that these part-time and term-contract workers are not full members of the university. Unlike the generalist, permanent members of the administration, non-permanent workers are hired for specific job descriptions with specialized knowledge and skills suited for those positions. Although they are therefore largely responsible for much of the day-to-day operations of the university, and may even offer unofficial advice to their less knowledgeable generalist superiors, they have no official say in decision making. It is the generalists who are responsible for guarding the institutional identity and bureaucratic rules of the university, a position that is also reflected in the language used to describe their own roles (stating, for example, that permanent members of staff ‘bear more responsibility’ [sekinin aru] than non-permanent employees). Because it is assumed that the non-permanent staff members are not therefore ‘responsible’ members of the university community, they are not afforded roles where they may be in a position to represent the university position. The result is such as the anecdote mentioned above, where a permanent member of staff with limited English skills and no international travel experience is sent on a trip to India for ETP recruiting, whereas the non-permanent member of staff with bilingual skills, and perhaps even experience living in Delhi, is left behind in the university office. A third distinguishable dichotomy in the campus bureaucratic system is the local/global divide. This is a division that is less discernible on the surface but reveals itself in a number of ways (see Poole, 2010) and is a powerful discourse for institutional identity maintenance and protection of the status quo. Those professing a local ideology rationalize bureaucratic rules by statements of identity – ‘This is the XYZ way’ (Breaden, 2012) – or even the invocation, ‘This is Japan,’ elevating the discussion to the level of a nationalistic discourse, effecting a strategy of de-internationalization. In this way loyalist, insider credentials of longevity (including years of employment at the university and/or alumni status as not only graduates of the university but even the attached primary and secondary schools as well) is contrasted to a heretical, outsider (gaijin, ‘outside person’) status of assumed transience. The result of these assumptions is the maintenance of these institutional values that I have glossed as ‘identity.’ At the center of the HEI power structure that maintains this institutional identity are Weberian ideal-type bureaucrats. These generalist administrators often have limited specialized knowledge or skills, not to mention global work experience outside the university campus, but possess a highly valued cultural capital of Japanese nationality, job permanence and a broad, tacit, embedded understanding of the XYZ University way, reinforced with a concomitant network of personal

Administrat ive Impediment s

103

relations across the campus(es). These bureaucratic administrators are empowered with a deep sense of responsibility and institutional loyalty to the upholding of an ideology of bureaucratic rules, a discourse and value system that is at the core of the university operations and which is often in direct opposition to the ideology of university mission. I would argue that the value at the heart of university governance, despite the recent top-down decision to legally change the role of university presidents (Sawa, 2014), is the hegemony of rules, an aggrandizement of bureaucratic legal-rational values (Weber, 1946). Even though now university presidents are ostensibly responsible for all faculty-related decisions across all campuses in Japan, they are themselves controlled by the ‘imperialism of the finance department (read bureaucracy).’ Innovators of ETPs are at the mercy of the maintainers of the status quo.

Conclusions Dafouz and Smit (2016) helpfully outline a conceptual framework for understanding the various and dynamic dimensions of English-medium instruction in multilingual university settings (see Bradford & Brown, Chapter 1). For the purposes of discussing the challenge of implementing, within the confines of a bureaucratic institutional ideology, such a HEI language policy and concomitant ETPs, two of the dimensions Dafouz and Smit discuss in their framework are particularly salient – the Agents and International and Glocalization components, as they refer to them. In the case of universities, or at least Japanese institutions, the individual agency of the administrators affects directly the ‘complex interplay of global and local drives’ (Dafouz & Smit, 2016: 408), the negotiation between the competing international and local forces when developing and implementing ETPs. In this way, the Dafouz and Smit (2016: 408) model begs a few questions, ‘which should go beyond the most noticeable (and sometimes only) criterion applied with regards to internationalization, namely, student and teacher mobility.’ First, they elaborate that ‘[h]igher education institutions need to design systematic and institutionally supported implementation measures and guidelines that will deal with increasingly multicultural and multilingual university scenarios’ (Dafouz & Smit, 2016: 408). For example, in the Japanese context, is the present model of university bureaucracy staffed by local administrative agents sufficient to administer ETPs of the sort that might give HEIs in Japan the ability to compete globally? Is it possible to build global human resources (global jinzai) with university ETPs and systems controlled by local administrators following an ideology of a Weberian rational-legal bureaucracy? In the cases at Japanese institutions with which I am intimately familiar, instead of being a means to an end, or supporting a more fundamental value,

104

Sec t ion 3: Challenges and Solut ions for EMI in Japan

the agency of rationalizing a very glocal bureaucratic system itself becomes the end, the core value and institutional identity idealized by those wielding authority within a university community. Anthropologist David Graeber in his essay, ‘The iron law of liberalism and the era of total bureaucratization,’ clearly identifies an important social law that is directly relevant to my argument that the university as a Weberian bureaucratic institution is the perfect example of a ‘utopia of rules’: [I]f one gives sufficient social power to a class of people holding even the most outlandish ideas, they will, consciously or not, eventually contrive to produce a world organized in such a way that living in it will, in a thousand subtle ways, reinforce the impression that those ideas are selfevidently true … [T]he legacy of the dominance of bureaucratic forms of organization … has made this intuitive division between rational, technical means and the ultimately irrational ends to which they are put seem like common sense. (Graeber, 2015: 37–40, my emphasis) If EMI is a stated policy and successful ETPs the intended outcome, then we may ask, when is common sense not common sensical? One praise I hear expressed of ‘good’ administrative staff in Japanese universities is that s/he is a ‘serious’ (majime) worker. The cultural translation is that the person works hard, through their agency, to uphold the bureaucratic norms of reliability and stability that the job entails and understands well the administrative system of rules, both formal and informal (in other words, possessing common sense [jōshiki]). This serious bureaucrat is loyal to the university bureaucracy, helping to construct an institutional identity that embodies both this system of rules along with the myth that these rules ensure efficiency and are applied consistently and meritocratically. I would argue that the buying into this institutional identity by majime university actors is an example of what Merton (1968: 254) describes as a structural source of overconformity, and even a form of complicity, as Graeber (2015: 27) argues: The first criterion of loyalty to the organization becomes complicity … with the fiction that rules and regulations apply to everyone equally, when, in fact, they are often deployed as a means for entirely arbitrary personal power. Not only does it assume this sort of complicity, but referring to a university administrator as majime, or serious, also glosses a serious resistance to other forms of ‘common sense,’ opposition to alternative understandings if they do not immediately symbolize to the bureaucrat the Weberian rational ideal of established bureaucratic rules. Such resistance is a form of goal displacement in which the ‘[f]ull realization of the inadequacy is seldom attained by members of the group who have not divorced themselves from the meanings

Administrat ive Impediment s

105

which the rules have for them. These rules in time become symbolic in cast, rather than strictly utilitarian’ (Merton, 1968: 254). In other words, the ideology of a majime administrator brings about ‘a kind of bizarre inversion of ends and means, where creativity is marshalled to the service of administration, rather than the other way around’ (Graeber, 2015: 141). Because of this inversion, or goal displacement, the rule-bound common sense of serious administrators is more often than not at odds with the very mission of the university where they work. Indeed, the founder of the university where I am employed, Joseph Hardy Neesima, the first Japanese citizen to graduate from a university (foreign or domestic), receiving both an undergraduate and an honorary doctoral degree, himself defied the rules of the Tokugawa era bureaucrats, broke the law and in doing so risked his life to flee Japan for the United States. He lacked common sense (hijōshiki-teki). Although Neesima became a leading progressive educator of the times, today he would be labeled as ‘not serious’ (fu-majime) by these same loyalist, Weberian administrators who ironically edify Niijima-sensei as the beloved idealist behind the university liberal arts mission. Needless to say that for these majime bureaucrats the hypocrisy of their complicit goal displacement is not apparent. This is because, generally speaking, the bureaucratic systems in place at HEIs prioritize protocol over education and the resulting administrative process consumes precious creative energy that could better be used to implement actual innovation and pedagogy for ETPs.

Acknowledgments This is a revised version of a paper previously published in the journal Comparative Education: Poole, G. (2016) Administrative practices as institutional identity: Bureaucratic impediments to HE ‘internationalisation’ policy in Japan. Comparative Education 52 (1), 62–77.

References Abe, K. (2004) Daigaku to nihon no kokusaika: Chiteki kokusai kōken no kokoromi [Universities and the Internationalisation of Japan: An Attempt at International Intellectual Contribution]. Tokyo: Jiāsu Kyōiku Shinsha. Amano, I. (1990) Education and Examination in Modern Japan. Tokyo: Tokyo University Press. Arimoto, A. (2010) Japan’s internationalization of higher education: A response to the pressures of globalization. In D.W. Chapman, W. K. Cummings and G.A. Postiglione (eds) Crossing Borders in East Asian Higher Education (p. 27). Hong Kong: CERC Studies in Comparative Education. Aspinall, R.W. (2012) International Education Policy in Japan in an Age of Globalisation and Risk. Leiden: Global Oriental. Aspinall, R.W. (2015) Is “dynamism without risk” possible in the Japanese university sector? A critique of the 2009 OECD report on higher education in Japan. In J. Mock, H. Kawamura and N. Naganuma (eds) The Impact of Internationalization on Japanese

106

Sec t ion 3: Challenges and Solut ions for EMI in Japan

Higher Education: Is Japanese Education Really Changing? (pp. 107–119). Rotterdam: Sense. Breaden, J. (2012) The Organisational Dynamics of University Reform in Japan: International Inside Out. London: Routledge. Breaden, J. (2014) Global attributes or local literacy? International students in Japan’s graduate employment system. Japan Forum 26 (4), 417–440. Brown, H. (2014) Contextual factors driving the growth of undergraduate Englishmedium instruction programmes at universities in Japan. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics 1 (1), 50–63. Brown, H. and Iyobe, B. (2014) The growth of English medium instruction in Japan. In N. Sonda and A. Krause (eds) JALT2013 Conference Proceedings (pp. 9–19). Tokyo: JALT. Christensen, T. (2011) Japanese university reform: Hybridity in governance and management. Higher Education Policy 24, 127–142. Craig, A. (1975) Functional and dysfunctional aspects of government bureaucracy. In E. Vogel (ed.) Modern Japanese Organization and Decision-Making (pp. 3–33). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Dafouz, E. and Smit, U. (2016) Towards a dynamic conceptual framework for Englishmedium education in multilingual university settings. Applied Linguistics 37 (3), 397–415. Dearden, J. (2014) English as a Medium of Instruction – A Growing Global Phenomenon. London: British Council. Giddens, A. (1991) The Consequences of Modernity. Oxford: Polity Press. Goodman, R. (2005) W(h)ither the Japanese university? An introduction to the 2004 higher education reforms in Japan. In J.S. Eades, R. Goodman and Y. Hada (eds) The ‘Big Bang’ in Japanese Higher Education: The 2004 Reforms and the Dynamics of Change (pp. 1–31). Melbourne: Trans Pacific Press. Goodman, R. (2016) Foreword. In J. Mock, H. Kawamura and N. Naganuma (eds) The Impact of Internationalization on Japanese Higher Education: Is Japanese Education Really Changing? (pp. vii–ix). Rotterdam: Sense. Graeber, D. (2015) The Utopia of Rules: On Technology, Stupidity, and the Secret Joys of Bureaucracy. New York: Melville House. Guajardo, M. (2015) Leadership to advance global higher education. Paper presented at the Second Annual Conference on Global Higher Education, Lakeland College Japan, Tokyo, June. Hirowatari, S. (2000) Japan’s national universities and dokuritsu gyōsei hōjinka. Social Science Japan 19, 3–7. Horiguchi, S., Imoto, Y. and Poole, G.S. (2015) Introduction. In S. Horiguchi, Y. Imoto and G.S. Poole (eds) Foreign Language Education in Japan: Exploring Qualitative Approaches (pp. 1–18). Rotterdam: Sense. Huang, F. (2005) Kōtō kyōiku no kokusaika ni kansuru kenkyū no kaiko to tenbō [A review and perspective of research on the internationalization of higher education]. Daigaku Ronshū [Research in Higher Education] 36, 211–20. Ishikawa, M. (2011) Redefining internationalization in higher education: Global 30 and the making of global universities in Japan. In D.B. Willis and J. Rappleye (eds) Reimagining Japanese Education: Borders, Transfers, Circulations and the Comparative (pp. 193–223). Oxford: Symposium Books. Kinmonth, E.H. (2005) From selection to seduction: The impact of demographic change on private higher education in Japan. In J.S. Eades, R. Goodman and Y. Hada (eds) The ‘Big Bang’ in Japanese Higher Education: The 2004 Reforms and the Dynamics of Change (pp. 106–135). Melbourne: Trans Pacific Press. Merton, R.K. (1968) Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press.

Administrat ive Impediment s

107

MEXT (2015) The current situation and challenges faced in education and employment. See www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/html/hpab201001/detail/1326857.htm (accessed 1 October 2015). Newby, H., Weko, T., Breneman, D., Johanneson, T. and Maassen, P. (2009) OECD Reviews of Tertiary Education: Japan. Paris: OECD. Ota, H. (2011) Daigaku kokusaika no dōkō oyobi nihon no genjō to kadai: Higashi ajia to no hikaku kara [The trend toward the internationalization of universities: Present issues in Japan from an East Asian comparative perspective]. Media Kyōiku Kenkyū [Research in Media Education] 8 (1), 1–12. Ota, H. (2014) Japanese universities’ strategic approach to internationalization: Accomplishments and challenges. In A. Yonezawa, Y. Kitamura, A. Meerman and K. Kuroda (eds) Emerging International Dimensions in East Asian Higher Education (pp. 227–252). Dordrecht: Springer. Poole, G.S. (2003) Assessing Japan’s institutional entrance requirements. Asian EFL Journal 5 (1), 1–11. Poole, G. (2009) Faculty members at a Japanese private university: Professors as conservative actors in an era of reform. In G. Poole and Y. Chen (eds) Higher Education in East Asia: Neoliberalism and the Professoriate (pp. 49–56). Rotterdam: Sense. Poole, G. (2010) The Japanese Professor: An Ethnography of a University Faculty. Rotterdam: Sense. Poole, G. (2016) ‘International’ higher education in Japan: Expanding intracultural knowledge or (re)defining intercultural boundaries. In J. Mock, H. Kawamura and N. Naganuma (eds) The Impact of Internationalization on Universities in Japan: Is Japanese Higher Education Really Changing? (pp. 207–222). Rotterdam: Sense. Poole, G. and Chen, Y. (eds) (2009) Higher Education in East Asia: Neoliberalism and the Professoriate. Rotterdam: Sense. Rappleye, J., Imoto, Y. and Horiguchi, S. (2011) Towards ‘thick description’ of educational transfer: Understanding a Japanese institution's ‘import’ of European language policy. Comparative Education 47 (4), 411–432. Rear, D. and Jones, A. (2013) Discursive struggle and contested signifiers in the arenas of education policy and work skills in Japan. Critical Policy Studies 7 (4), 375–394. Rohlen, T. (1974) For Harmony and Strength: Japanese White-Collar Organization in Anthropological Perspective. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Rohlen, T. (1975) The company work group. In E. Vogel (ed.) Modern Japanese Organization and Decision-Making (pp. 185–210). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Saito, W. (2012) An Unprogrammed Life: Adventures of an Incurable Entrepreneur. Singapore: Wiley. Sawa, T. (2014) University is not a business. The Japan Times, 22 June. See http://www. japantimes.co.jp (accessed 15 March 2016). Weber, M. (1946) Bureaucracy. In H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (eds) Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (pp. 196–244). New York: Oxford University Press.

7

How Accessible are English-Taught Programs? Exploring International Admissions Procedures Hiroshi Ota and Kiyomi Horiuchi

In 2008, the Japanese government launched its 300,000 International Students Plan, which aimed to double the number of overseas students in Japan to 300,000 by 2020. As well as being driven by the need to make Japanese universities more globally competitive, the policy was designed to compensate for the shrinking domestic population of 18-year-olds, the result of a falling birthrate, by recruiting overseas students. Five core policy elements were laid out: (a) attracting international students to Japan; (b) improving access – admissions, enrollment, and immigration procedures; (c) internationalizing universities; (d) developing the student environment; and (e) opening up society to international graduates (Prime Minister of Japan and his Cabinet, 2008). Elements (b) and (c) included calls to expand the provision of programs enabling students to graduate by taking only classes taught in English, a policy that would remove the Japanese-language barrier, one of the main factors limiting access to study in Japan, and open up a route to attract exceptional overseas students who had not formerly shown an interest in Japan (Ashizawa, 2013). Since the plan to attract more international students was launched, the number of universities offering English-medium instruction (EMI) has expanded dramatically and 35% of universities now offer EMI courses (MEXT, 2015a). The number of universities with full degree English-taught programs (ETPs) has also grown. Estimates developed based on several different sources show that the number of universities offering ETPs in Japan rose from 6 to 28 at the undergraduate level and from 47 to 76 at graduate schools in the seven years from 2008 to 2015 (JASSO, 2008, 2015; MEXT, 2015a, 2015b). The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) has called this expansion a major success of the Project 108

How Accessible are English-Taught Programs?

109

for Establishing a University Network for Internationalization (Global 30) (MEXT, 2015b). However, to what extent have these new ETPs really contributed to the overall internationalization of Japan’s higher education sector? Drawing on an examination of admissions procedures for undergraduate ETPs, this chapter argues that issues with accessibility to these programs limit their influence.

Japanese as a Barrier to International Recruitment and EMI as a Possible Solution The Japanese higher education sector has several issues in terms of recruiting international students. It has a reputation for insufficient scholarship provision and problems with accommodations and other services for international students are well known (see Heigham, this volume). In addition, the Japanese language itself has repeatedly been cited as a factor limiting access to study in Japan. A survey of student exchange commissioned by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA, 2004) pointed out that the greatest study- and research-related issue for students from ASEAN countries was the Japanese language, mentioning also that there were many comments from students in Japan at that time that they would like more classes taught in English. In particular, it is hard for students from countries where Chinese characters are not used to acquire a sufficient level of Japanese-language competency to allow them to follow university-level classes by the end of their secondary education. As a result, a distinctive Japan study model has emerged in which international students first enter a Japanese-language school in Japan, studying there for one to two years before continuing on to university. This requirement for one or two years of prior Japanese study, in addition to the minimum study period required to obtain a degree, imposes an even greater burden on international students in terms of both time and money, making Japan comparatively less attractive as a study destination (Ota, 2011). As the global higher education market becomes ever flatter through the adoption of English as a universal medium, Japan, which has long clung to Japanese as the sole language of instruction, is fast becoming isolated from the global mainstream. In other countries as well, a local language which is not commonly studied abroad has been a barrier to internationalization of higher education. However, the establishment of ETPs at higher education institutions in non-English-speaking countries has become part of the solution (Dearden, 2014). In Europe, the number of ETPs has increased, mainly at the graduate level, in line with the growth of the Erasmus Program, which aims to foster student exchange within the European region. Malaysia, China and other Asian countries have made it a national strategy to invite overseas universities to establish offshore programs taught in English, and in response higher education institutions from English-speaking countries such as the

110

Sec t ion 3: Challenges and Solut ions for EMI in Japan

United States, the UK and Australia have developed offshore ETPs in those countries. In South Korea, Japan’s neighbor, the teaching of approximately 30% of all university specialized courses in English has become recognized as an indication of internationalization, leading many universities to strive toward this goal in order to meet society’s expectations (Bradford, 2012). Initiatives to break down the substantial language barrier are an urgent priority for higher education in Japan. Under the Global 30, a grant program implemented by MEXT as part of the 300,000 International Students Plan, 13 selected universities were required to introduce ETPs over a five-year period beginning in 2009, allowing students to obtain a degree solely via courses taught in English. Each university was to establish at least one such program at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. This, in turn, prompted the increasingly widespread introduction of similar programs at other universities. Shimauchi (2012) classified ETPs at Japanese universities according to their curriculum structure and the composition of the student body. According to this research, there are three types of ETP: (a) the virtual study abroad for Japanese students type, which focuses mainly on the development of graduates equipped to work globally and enrolls almost entirely Japanese students; (b) the intermingled and interactive study type, in which Japanese and international students learn together; and the (c) study in Japan in English type, which is aimed exclusively at international students. The virtual study abroad for Japanese students type, aimed primarily at Japanese students, is the most prevalent of the three. Given the increasingly widespread acceptance of English as the de facto international language of higher education, establishing ETPs means gaining access to the global student market. However, in Japan, many ETPs, even the intermingled and interactive study type described above, effectively exclude many international students by requiring a certain level of Japanese-language proficiency in order to apply, suggesting a disconnect between the Japanese government’s much-touted policies of internationalization and openness to overseas students, and the situation on the ground at universities (Brown & Iyobe, 2014). On the other hand, many of the newly established ETPs at national universities under the Global 30 are, in principle, only open to international students. It has been pointed out that teaching international students who study in English completely apart from their Japanese peers leads to the erection of a new wall within universities (Burgess et al., 2010).

Students’ Path to Entry for ETPs The entrance examinations used in Japan for international students hoping to study in Japanese-medium programs thus far have generally required them to come to each university in person in order to take that university’s

How Accessible are English-Taught Programs?

111

own written examination and undergo an interview. This is based on the assumption that international students have already arrived in Japan and are studying at Japanese language schools; it is extremely inconvenient for those living outside the country. In order to secure overseas applicants for ETPs, it is necessary to make application and selection procedures more convenient from the point of view of international students, which is to say, more accessible. If study in Japan is relatively inaccessible to those living overseas at the initial point of entry, the admissions stage, then applicant numbers cannot be expected to grow even if the language of instruction for many courses is switched from Japanese to English. Since ETPs are relatively new in Japan, a universally accepted standard for entrance procedures has not yet evolved. Looking at the admissions procedures of each university with ETPs can give indices of accessibility. The following study identifies the elements which make it easy to apply from overseas, such as the existence of Fall enrollment or an online application system. The relationship between the above elements and the ratio of the admissions quota allocated to international students to the overall admissions quota for the faculty or department running ETPs was also investigated. The admissions quota allocated to international students is the quota for international students who can apply with application instructions solely in English. Even if all the programs in a faculty or department use English as their language of instruction, a large number of places reserved exclusively for Japanese students will make this ratio low. Each university’s application procedures were obtained online or in printed format from individual universities.

Comparison and Examination of Applications Procedures: Structure and Framework Of universities identified by JASSO (2015) to have ETPs, 20 were sampled for this study, as shown in Table 7.1. Those universities whose ETPs do not provide an application packet in English for admissions (i.e. programs aimed primarily at Japanese students) were excluded. There are a total of 39 ETPs at the 20 universities: five universities which already had ETPs before the Global 30 (Pre-G30); all the 13 universities selected for the Global 30 (G30 universities); and four universities which were not selected for the Global 30 but which introduced ETPs at the same stage or later (Post-G30). Two of the private universities selected for the Global 30 have been classified in both the Pre-G30 category for the ETPs which they had implemented before their selection (University B and University D) and the G30 Universities category for the programs implemented afterwards (University B* and University D*). Admissions quotas shown in Table 7.1 are for the academic year 2014–2015. At first glance, two interesting findings can be seen from Table 7.1. First, it is apparent that larger universities have established more ETPs. This survey

G30

Pre-G30

G

H I

N N

E

P

N

C D

P P

F

B

P

N

A

University

L

Type

10,000–20,000 5000–10,000

5000–10,000

5000–10,000

5000–10,000

5000 or less 20,000 or more

10,000–20,000

5000 or less

University size (undergraduate enrollment capacity)

Natural Science Engineering Natural Science Natural Science Social Science Natural Science Interdisciplinary Humanities Social Science Social Science

Social Science (two programs)

Interdisciplinary Social Science

Social Science

Social Science

Study field of ETP

2012 2011

2010

2011

2000

1953 2004

1949

2004

Establishment year of ETP

Table 7.1 Universities covered by this research and admissions quota for ETPs

385 Approx. 10 Approx. 10 Approx. 10 Approx. 15 Approx. 10 Approx. 3 Approx. 30 Limited† Limited† Limited†

Fall Fall

Fall Fall

Fall

Variable† 5 64§ 82§ 90§ 100§ 125§ 205

(a) Admissions quota international students can apply in ETP

Spring Fall Spring Fall Fall Spring Fall Spring

Admissions term

324 810 150 250 160 37 140 125 150 205

1200

620 600

186

175

(b) Overall admissions quota for faculty or department

3.1% 1.2% 6.7% 6.0% 6.3% 8.1% 21.4% 8.0% 6.7% 4.9%

49.2%

14.5% 37.5%

78.5%

8.6%

(a)/(b)

112 Sec t ion 3: Challenges and Solut ions for EMI in Japan

J K

L

D*

M B*

N

N N

N

P

P P

P

20,000 or more

20,000 or more 10,000–20,000

20,000 or more

10,000–20,000

10,000–20,000 10,000–20,000

Social Science Social Science Science/ Engineering Science/ Engineering Science/ Engineering Interdisciplinary Science/ Engineering Social Science 2011

2011 2012

2010

2010

Natural Science Engineering Natural Science

2011 2010

Natural Science Engineering Natural Science Engineering Social Science

Spring Fall

Fall Fall

Fall

Fall

Fall Fall

595 540 850 250

25 15 30§ 30 10 10

900 630 535

350

228

255 798

270 740 170 955 137

Limited† Limited† Limited† Maximum of 30 a small number† small† Only a limited number† Only a limited number† 85 20 35

(Continued)

5.7%

3.5% 12.0%

2.8%

4.2%

9.4% 3.2% 6.5%

4.4%

3.9% 1.3%

3.7% 1.4% 5.9% 3.1% 7.3%

How Accessible are English-Taught Programs? 113

Q R S

T

P

P

P

N N P

O

P

20,000 or more

10,000–20,000 5000–10,000 10,000–20,000

20,000 or more

20,000 or more

University size (undergraduate enrollment capacity)

2011

2015 2013 2011

Social Science Social Science Interdisciplinary Social Science Social Science

2011

2011

Establishment year of ETP

Social Science

Social Science

Study field of ETP

Spring Fall Spring Fall Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring

Admissions term

300

360 525 380 50

305

4035

50§ 7 13 15 20 Approx. 10 Approx. 4§ Approx. 4§ 15

(b) Overall admissions quota for faculty or department

(a) Admissions quota international students can apply in ETP

5.0%

4.2% 3.8% 2.6% 16.0%

6.6%

1.2%

(a)/(b)

Note: compiled by the authors on the basis of each university‘s admissions guidelines or information on their website. Type: N, national; L, local public; P, private. Two universities are classified in both the Pre-G30, for the ETPs which they implemented before their selection (Universities B and D), and the G30, for the programs implemented afterwards (Universities B* and D*). Admissions quotas indicated by § include places available for Japanese students (these universities recruit students using the same requirements, without differentiating by nationality). In consideration of the fact that the admissions quotas for ETPs are stated in English in the admissions guidelines, they have been listed here using the original English expressions. The interdisciplinary programs listed under the study fields of ETP offer a curriculum including courses from both the arts and sciences fields, or integrating the two fields. English expressions for admissions quotas indicated by † were considered to be equivalent to the Japanese for some/a few; a figure of 10 was used for (a) admissions quota in order to calculate (a)/(b).

Post-G30

University

Type

Table 7.1 (Continued)

114 Sec t ion 3: Challenges and Solut ions for EMI in Japan

How Accessible are English-Taught Programs?

115

included six universities with 20,000 undergraduates or more; seven with between 10,000 and 20,000 undergraduates; five with between 5000 and 10,000 undergraduates; and only two with fewer than 5000 undergraduates. Another finding of note was that, while private universities tended to develop ETPs in social science departments with the word ‘international’ in their names, at national universities, ETPs were much more prevalent in natural science and engineering departments.

Structural models of ETPs ETPs can be classified into four models according to the structure of their establishment. The distinguishing features of each, along with the universities assigned to each category are shown in Table 7.2. The four models are: (a) universities which have implemented ETPs as a matter of institutional policy, Institutional focus model; (b) universities with multiple faculties which have introduced ETPs involving two or more different faculties, Cross-faculty model; (c) universities at which all the classes offered by a whole faculty, or department, including to Japanese students, are taught in English alone, Whole faculty model; and (d) universities at which ETPs aimed at international students (or at international students and Japanese returnee students) have been added to an existing faculty, Faculty add-on model. Of the 20 universities surveyed for this research, three followed the Institutional focus model, three the Cross-faculty model, three the Whole faculty model, and 13 the Faculty add-on model. All three universities of the Institutional focus model incorporated ETPs into their institutional design at the time of the university’s establishment. Most of the ETPs newly established under the Global 30 are of the Faculty add-on model. Table 7.2 Structural models of ETPs Model

Universities

Distinguishing features

Institutional focus model Cross-faculty model

A, C, E

ETPs are established as an institutional policy

M, O, Q

Whole faculty model

B, D, S

Faculty add-on model

F, G, H, I, J, K, L, D*, B*, N, P, R, T

Two or more different faculties jointly put together ETPs. Multiple faculties collaborate to set up the implementing body for each program Almost all the courses offered by a whole faculty (or department) are taught in English. In some cases, the majority of places are reserved for Japanese students Programs aimed at international students are added to existing faculties

Note: compiled by the authors based on information from each university’s website, etc. B and D (PreG30), ETP programs implemented before G30 selection. B* and D* (G30), ETP programs implemented after G30 selection.

116

Sec t ion 3: Challenges and Solut ions for EMI in Japan

These structural models of establishment show that the high degree of autonomy of faculties, which is a characteristic of Japanese university organization in general, is also reflected in ETPs; of the 20 universities surveyed, 16 follow either the Whole faculty model or the Faculty add-on model. Since student application and selection procedures are traditionally administered separately by each faculty or department, several different admissions procedures exist at the same university. This is highly inconvenient for applicants. In contrast, it is the norm for universities in the United States and other foreign countries to have one university-wide admissions process for international applicants to undergraduate programs. The shared use of a single online application system by several universities, The Common Application, is also becoming widespread but it is not yet in use in Japan.

Admissions quotas As can be seen in Table 7.1, the number of places allocated to international students at each university is limited. Excluding the four private universities which were offering ETPs before the start of the Global 30, the majority of universities have quotas of approximately 10–20 places. There are also some universities, mainly national, which use expressions such as ‘limited,’ ‘a small number,’ or ‘only a limited number’ to indicate their quotas. These are presumably translations of the Japanese expression Jyakkan-mei, which encompasses ‘some/a few people’ ambiguously, but stating that the number of places available is extremely low surely creates a psychological hurdle for international students. Furthermore, it will be difficult for such universities to gain a reputation as internationalized and open to overseas students. This kind of admissions quota was particularly notable among Global 30 universities. A total of 29 new ETPs were established at the 13 universities chosen for the Global 30, yet only one of these programs had an admissions quota corresponding to 10% or more of the departmental total at the undergraduate level. The majority of ETPs had quotas representing between 3% and 6% of the total size of the department, while four of the programs had quotas of just 1%. The financial burden after the Global 30 and MEXT’s bureaucratic control over the enrollment quota are two main reasons behind such a small portion of the admissions quota being allocated to ETPs (international students) in Global 30 institutions. First, the Global 30 was a five-year fixedterm funding project, but it was a condition of the grant that all of the ETPs created under this project had to be operated, with selected universities using their own resources, beyond the funding term. As such, universities may have been reluctant to create large, costly programs. Moreover, in 2010, the second year of the project, the Global 30’s budget was reduced by 30% from its original plan as a result of the budget screening process introduced by the

How Accessible are English-Taught Programs?

117

Democratic Party of Japan government that took power in 2009. This left universities even more unsure of the long term financial viability of their new ETPs. Second, all of the ETPs created under the Global 30 are affiliated with existing faculties, as seen in Table 7.2, either in the Cross-faculty model or in the Faculty add-on model. This means that the admissions quota for the ETP must be part of, as opposed to in addition to, the quota for the faculty. So, every seat allocated to the ETP for international students represents a seat no longer available to domestic students. Universities could have increased the enrollment quota of the affiliated faculty when creating the new ETP. However, that would have been a costly and difficult process involving restructuring the faculty and applying for MEXT approval for the expanded quota and, as a result, the Global 30 institutions did not take this approach. Therefore, for Global 30 ETPs, faculties had to decide how much of the existing faculty’s admissions quota would be reallocated to the ETP for incoming international students. Not wanting to disadvantage domestic students, universities set low ETP admissions quotas. In addition, EMI programs are not necessarily completely welcome in the campus community of Japanese universities, despite MEXT’s support. After interviewing staff involved in running EMI programs, both degree-awarding and non-degree-awarding, at eight universities which were not selected for the Global 30, Brown (2014: 56–57) concluded that ‘there is a sense among EMI (English as a medium of instruction) stakeholders that if an EMI program were to grow too much or become too successful, it could be seen as a threat to the Japanese identity of the university,’ implying that growth in the provision of EMI programs was unlikely to lead directly to a significant increase in overseas students.

Application fees Compared with the major host countries of international students, application fees at Japanese universities, particularly private ones, are generally expensive. This is regarded as one of the obstacles for Japanese universities in recruiting international students directly from their home countries. For the 20 universities studied here, application fee levels for the ETPs were divided into three categories: (1) universities using their standard application fee: around 17,000 yen (US$140) at Japanese national universities and 35,000 yen (US$290) at private universities (US$1 = 121 yen); (2) universities charging different fees to those applying from within Japan and from overseas, or to Japanese students and international students; (3) universities that introduced a completely different fee for ETPs.

118

Sec t ion 3: Challenges and Solut ions for EMI in Japan

Category (1) included six universities, category (2) included five and category (3) included nine (see Table 7.3). The six universities in category (1) consist of three national, one local public and two private institutions. While the application fees in this category are taken for granted among Japanese applicants, they would be too expensive for prospective students from underdeveloped countries and would be an application barrier. All of the universities in category (2) were private: three of them charged the standard application fee of 35,000 yen (US$290) to those applying from within Japan, but charged 5000 yen (US$41) to those applying from overseas. According to the Sakae Institute of Study Abroad (2015), the average application fee for international students in undergraduate programs at American universities, which receive the largest global share of international students, is approximately US$30–50 (3600–6050 yen), and so it can be thought that the application fees for overseas applicants were based on these. In category (3), where six national and three private universities are positioned, a completely different fee was established for the ETPs. One university charged no application fee, while five charged 5000 yen (US$41) to all applicants, making application more accessible to students from less developed countries.

Comparison and Examination of Applications Procedures: Selection Methods All of the universities surveyed in this study base their selection procedures for ETPs on the screening of documents, in order to implement predeparture admissions. Broadly speaking, there are six documents required of applicants by all universities: (a) a certificate of completion of 12 years of school-level education, for example, a high school graduation certificate; (b) a high school transcript; (c) an official English-language test score such as TOEFL; (d) scores from standardized university entrance tests conducted in the student’s home country; (e) an essay in English stating the candidate’s motives for applying; and (f) references. The selection methods used by each university are outlined in Table 7.4.

Interviews and written examinations Although document screening is the principal basis for the selection of applicants, 13 universities, more than half of the 20 surveyed, also required an interview. Those 13 universities consist of 10 Global 30 institutions, including all the national ones, and three non-Global 30 private institutions. Candidates living within Japan are interviewed on the university campus; candidates living overseas are interviewed at in-country test centers; and where it is difficult for candidates to reach any of these venues, interviews are carried out via the internet. It is noteworthy that all the national

How Accessible are English-Taught Programs?

119

Table 7.3 Application fees Type Pre-G30

G30

Post-G30

University

Application fees (yen)

Category

Local public

A

17,000

(1)

Private

B

35,000

(1)

Private

C

22,000

(1)

Private

D

From overseas: 5000/from within Japan: 35,000

(2)

Private

E

From overseas: 5000/from within Japan: 35,000

(2)

National

F

Free of charge

(3)

National

G

First Screening: 4000/second screening: 13,000

(1)

National

H

5000

(3)

National

I

5000

(3)

National

J

17,000

(1)

National

K

17,000

(1)

National

L

10,000

(3)

Private

D*

From overseas: 5000/From within Japan: 35,000

(2)

Private

M

From overseas: 5000/from within Japan: 35,000

(2)

Private

B*

30,000

(1)

Private

N

15,000

(3)

Private

O

15,000

(3)

Private

P

5000

(3)

National

Q

5000

(3)

National

R

5000

(3)

Private

S

From overseas – international students: 22,500/Japanese students: 37,500 From within Japan: 35,000

(2)

Private

T

From overseas: 25,000/From within Japan: 35,000

(2)

Note: compiled by the authors on the basis of each university’s admissions guidelines. Categories are defined as follows: (1) Universities using the standard application fee charged to applicants for other programs (2) Universities charging different fees depending on the applicant’s location (within Japan or overseas), etc. (3) Universities charging a completely different fee for ETPs.

G30

Pre-G30

A B C D E F

G H I J K L

N N N N N N

University

L P P P P N

Type

Table 7.4 Selection methods

Documents Documents Documents Documents Documents, interview Documents, interview, written exam Documents, interview Documents, interview Documents, interview Documents, interview Documents, interview Documents, interview, written exam

Selection procedures

Tests and conditions Designated 7 countries’ test/IB SAT/ACT/IB Designated 9 countries’ test/IB Designated 21 countries’ test/IB Submit if taken any SAT/GCE-A Level/IB Submit if taken any Designated 13 countries’ test/IB Designated 16 countries’ standardized test/IB Strongly recommend to submit designated 17 countries’ test/IB Strongly recommend to submit

Test results ♥ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♣ ♠ ♣ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♣

Standardized university entrance tests

X

X X

X

X

X

EJU

1 3 2 0 1 to 2 0

1 2 2 0 1 0

Number of references

120 Sec t ion 3: Challenges and Solut ions for EMI in Japan

Q

R S T

N

N P P

D* M B* N O P

Documents Documents Documents, interview‡

Documents, interview

Documents, interview† Documents Documents Documents Documents, interview Documents, interview Designated 18 countries’ test/IB Strongly recommend to submit SAT/ACT/IB Designated 19 countries’ test/IB Mandatory if high school diploma is not issued Mandatory if high school diploma is not issued Strongly recommend to submit Not required SAT/ACT/GCE-A Level/IB etc. Strongly recommend to submit

♠ ♣ ♠ ♠ ♥ ♥ ♣ ♦ ♠ ♣

X X X X

1 2 1

1

1 to 2 2 2 1 1 1

Note: compiled by the authors on the basis of each university’s admissions guidelines. Type: N, national; L, local public; P, private. Selection methods: † four out of the five faculties use interviews; ‡ interviews are used only for applicants from within Japan. Submission of the results of standardized university entrance tests: ♠, required; ♣, recommended, or to be submitted where such a test was taken; ♥, to be submitted only by applicants from certain countries; ♦, submission not required. Abbreviation of tests: IB, International Baccalaureate (IB Organization); SAT, Scholastic Assessment Tests (USA); ACT, American College Testing (USA); GCE-A level, the General Certificate of Education Advanced Level (UK); EJU, Examination for Japanese University Admission for International Students (Japan). X, EJU is acceptable as a standardized university entrance test.

Post-G30

P P P P P P

How Accessible are English-Taught Programs? 121

122

Sec t ion 3: Challenges and Solut ions for EMI in Japan

universities chosen for the Global 30 call the document screening the firststage examination and the interview the second-stage examination. Two of these universities require applicants to take a written examination either at the overseas test center or on the university campus in addition to the interview at the second-stage, making their requirements equivalent to those of conventional entrance examinations for international students entering Japanese-medium programs.

High school grades Universities in the United States and Europe accord great importance to applicants’ high school grades, with highly competitive institutions requiring a specific grade point average (GPA) score or the study of particular subjects as part of their entry qualifications. Other universities simply require the submission of a transcript. In the conventional selection process at Japanese universities, the high school transcript is viewed primarily as a means of confirming that the candidate meets the basic application requirement of having graduated from, or being expected to graduate from, senior high school, with acceptance or rejection being entirely dependent on the score obtained in the entrance examination. However, in recent years, other selection procedures which do not rely solely on written examinations have become more common, such as admissions office selection, in which candidates are assessed on a variety of criteria determined by the individual university, or admission based on recommendation. Even with these newer selection procedures, the results of interviews and essays written by the applicants are emphasized and high school grades have little influence over admissions decisions. In other words, the practice of scrutinizing and evaluating the high school transcripts of university applicants has not yet been adopted in Japan. For ETPs, too, the survey results show a tendency to treat these grades as evidence that applicants meet basic application requirements for the program, rather than to use them for screening. Under these circumstances, only one institution among the 20 included in this study, a national university, went so far as to specify a particular grade, giving their recommended GPA as 3.0 or above.

Results of standardized university entrance tests The greatest variation between the practices of each university was observed in their handling of standardized university entrance tests (see Table 7.4). These are academic ability tests required of applicants by universities in many countries (see for example, the Scholastic Assessment Test [SAT] in the United States, the General Certificate of Education Advanced Level [GCE A-Level] in the UK, or the College Scholastic Ability Test [CSAT] in Korea). As shown in Table 7.4, 12 programs at 10 universities required the submission of such results as a general rule; six universities did not require them, but stated that they were recommended or should be submitted where

How Accessible are English-Taught Programs?

123

applicants had taken such a test; one university did not require their submission at all; and three universities required their submission only from applicants in certain countries where high school transcripts were not issued. Even among those universities which generally required their submission, some universities required applicants from countries in which standardized tests were not held to take the American SAT, while others asked applicants who had difficulty in submitting such results to instead send a written explanation of the reasons for this. In this context, it is interesting that 10 out of the 20 universities include the Examination for Japanese University Admission for International Students (EJU) among acceptable standardized tests. Since there are restrictions on EJU test venues and dates, it would be difficult for this examination to be used universally; however, it allows applicants to be examined on various subject areas in English, and these results are suggestive of its potential for even more widespread use by ETPs in the future.

Letters of reference In many countries, such as the United States, where university selection procedures are based primarily upon written documents, it is common to submit letters of reference; however, there was a wide range of practices among the 20 universities surveyed, with some faculties or departments (programs) within a single university requiring their submission and others not. Table 7.4 indicates that 32 programs at 17 universities required the submission of between one and three letters of reference. Of the seven programs which did not require any, six were found at three of the national universities selected for the Global 30. As well as guaranteeing an applicant’s identity, letters of reference play a role in revealing the applicant’s character. However, it would appear that they do not necessarily conform well to the traditional selection procedures at Japanese universities, which emphasize the results of evaluations, such as written examinations and interviews, carried out by the university itself. Almost all of the universities specified that letters of reference should be written by teachers or other staff of the high school most recently attended. Only three universities, two national and one private, none of which were chosen for the Global 30, added that letters of reference may also be written by workplace supervisors, showing a readiness to widen their admissions to encompass international students who have already started their careers.

Examination of Accessibility In order to attempt to give each ETP surveyed an accessibility score, we extracted nine items from the admissions procedures. The nine items used for evaluating accessibility were: (a) admissions procedures take place using the document screening method alone; (b) fall entry (intake) is available; (c) application fees are set at around 5000 yen (US$41) or less; (d) application

124

Sec t ion 3: Challenges and Solut ions for EMI in Japan

fees can be paid by credit card; (e) online application is available; (f) multiple application deadlines (terms) are available; (g) information about scholarships is included; (h) information about accommodation is included; and (i) transfer students are admitted. Where a measure was in place, one point was awarded, whereas where a measure had not been implemented, zero points were awarded. Of the nine items, (g) Information about scholarship is included and (h) Information about accommodation is included are not directly related to the selection of applicants, but they are issues of particular concern for students who are hoping to come directly from their home countries to study at a Japanese university. They were added to the evaluation criteria based on the understanding that including information about them in the admissions procedures improves accessibility. Item (i) Transfer students are admitted was included in order to evaluate a university’s willingness to admit a wide variety of students, emphasizing its degree of connection with other higher education institutions around the world. Universities with eight points or more were judged to have high accessibility, those with five to seven points, medium, and those with four points or fewer, low. The results show four universities in the high category, nine in the medium category and seven in the low category, as can be seen in Table 7.5. Also, the correlation between these accessibility scores (mean = 5.68, SD = 1.66) and the ratio of the number of places available for international students in the ETPs to the overall admissions quota for the faculty or department at each university (mean = 0.126, SD = 0.184) was tested. The correlation was statistically significant between the admission quota ratio and accessibility score at the 0.01 level, r(22) = 0.572, meaning that universities with a higher accessibility rating tended to have a higher proportion of seats available for international ETP students. It is interesting to note that all of the universities with a high degree of accessibility are private and had introduced ETPs before the start of the Global 30. A distinguishing characteristic was that, with the exception of one additional ETP established as part of the Global 30, places for which international students were eligible to apply comprised between 12% and 78% of the total available, a relatively high proportion in comparison with other universities (see Table 7.5). The involvement of the institution as a whole is essential in order to create a recruitment system and study environment which will attract sufficient international students to make up more than one-tenth of the total intake of the faculty or department, and to run an ETP on that scale. There is a link between the scale of these admissions quotas and each university’s firm resolution and commitment to attract international students. From their publications, it can be seen that pre-Global 30 universities established their ETPs as a means of internationalizing their institutions under their own plans and with their own resources. This is reflected in the categorization of these pre-Global 30 universities as either the Institutional focus model (C and E) or the Whole faculty model (B and D) in our earlier

How Accessible are English-Taught Programs?

125

Table 7.5 Accessibility scores of ETPs Accessibility

Accessibility score

University

Type

Relation to G30

Admission quota for ETP (%)

High

8 8 8 8 8 8 7 6 5 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3

B C D E B* D* F H I M N O P Q S A G J K L R T

P P P P P P N N N P P P P N P L N N N N N P

Pre-G30 Pre-G30 Pre-G30 Pre-G30 G30 G30 G30 G30 G30 G30 G30 G30 G30 Post-G30 Post-G30 Pre-G30 G30 G30 G30 G30 Post-G30 Post-G30

78.5 14.5 37.5 49.2 12.0 5.6 2.3 6.4 3.6 3.5 5.7 1.2 5.3 3.8 16.0 14.5 6.3 3.1 5.1 1.9 2.6 5.0

Medium

Low

Note: compiled by the authors. Type: N, national; L, local public; P, private. Admissions quota for ETP is the ratio of quota international students that are eligible to apply to the overall quota for the faculty or department.

discussion (see Table 7.2). It also highlights the effects of MEXT’s control over a university’s enrollment quota. MEXT’s quality assurance system (i.e. its Standards for Establishment of Universities followed by Certified Evaluation and Accreditation, in addition to its budget and subsidy allocation to universities) makes it difficult for universities to allocate a high enrollment quota to international students unless an ETP is incorporated into the institutional design at the time of the university’s establishment or an ETP is established as a new faculty with the specification of a quota for international students. Thus, this kind of ETP with many international students is a bold effort which needs an institutional-wide long-term plan and commitment to its creation and sustainability.

126

Sec t ion 3: Challenges and Solut ions for EMI in Japan

Nine universities, including seven of the 13 chosen for the Global 30, fell into the category of medium accessibility. The universities chosen for the Global 30 received government grants, and created an environment that facilitated moving forward with the various measures needed in order to recruit international students. Nevertheless, there was wide disparity between the items implemented at each university. The proportion of places available for international students was low, leading one to infer that the establishment of ETPs has been unable to propel the universities as a whole in the direction of further internationalization. It seems that Global 30 universities created their ETPs as an objective to fulfill Global 30 requirements in order to receive external funding from MEXT. These programs tended to be designed to meet the minimum requirement of the Global 30 funding scheme, that is, creating an ETP per se became a goal. However, to minimize the impact of an ETP on an existing (affiliated) faculty, ETPs were designed to be a small ETP island inside the faculty. Among the universities chosen for the Global 30, four national universities were found to have a low degree of accessibility. Many of the universities in this category made 5% or fewer of their places available to international students, and even where all the programs offered by a department were taught in English, almost all of the places available were for Japanese students. At universities with a medium or low degree of accessibility, some online course registration systems and syllabus search systems were unable to cope with English at all. In this category, it was found that the accessibility of the ETPs was correlated to the number of places available to international students in the ETPs. All of the universities with a high degree of accessibility are private and had experience with operating ETPs before the beginning of the Global 30.

Conclusion ETPs in Japan can appeal not only to those who have already studied the Japanese language, hitherto the main target group for study in Japan, but also to the much broader group of prospective students who have not had an opportunity to study Japanese. In this way, they have the potential to act as a trump card, providing access to new student markets. However, for the universities studied here, this appears not to be the case. Rather than acting as a tool to recruit a significant number of international students, it appears that ETPs are more important as a means of branding or window-dressing in the competition among Japanese universities, and that the most important aim is not to recruit more international students but to gain a competitive edge over domestic rivals. The number of ETPs goes on increasing year after year in Japan, and some ETPs examined in this study have raised their admissions quotas since the data was collected in early 2015. Nonetheless, they are

How Accessible are English-Taught Programs?

127

still peripheral in most cases. These circumstances are surely helping to distort the responses of the nation’s universities to internationalization. ETPs are being created with international student admissions procedures which are, in fact, not open to the world. They fail to consider the viewpoints of international students applying from overseas, and the degree of convenience and user-friendliness for the applicant. As EMI grows in Japan and ETPs take on a more important role, understanding the leading role which ETPs have to play in promoting internationalization at each university, clarifying the strategies for doing so before investing resources in them and putting in place solid student admissions and support systems are likely to lead to improved accessibility for international students. However, the current circumstances do not encourage universities to make these changes. At present, the operating cost of an ETP significantly increases as the admissions quota of the ETP increases and the ratio of its quota allocated to international students becomes higher. Owing to their deep pool of academically-able applicants and great domestic demand, highly selective universities, such as Global 30 institutions, do not worry about attracting domestic students for their undergraduate programs. Those domestic students are less costly compared with international students who need assistance services for their special needs. Therefore, from a costeffectiveness viewpoint, there is not much motivation for establishing largescale ETPs in Japanese universities in order to attract a large number of English-based international students. As such, universities tend to create small-scale ETPs with a small portion of international students in order to obtain competitive government funds and gain a competitive advantage in the domestic student market. This chapter has examined the accessibility of ETPs for international students at Japanese universities through their admissions procedures. It showed that private universities that had established ETPs before the Global 30 demonstrated a high degree of accessibility. On the other hand, the accessibility of ETPs at Global 30 universities, particularly national ones, was low despite MEXT’s large-scale financial support. Also, it was found that the higher the proportion of places allocated to international students within the admissions quota was, the higher the accessibility rating of the ETP was. Overall, it can be said that ETPs’ contribution to the internationalization of Japanese universities is still limited, although ETPs are supposed to gain access to the global student market and increase the number and diversity of international students. The establishment of ETPs is a global trend but Japan has been late to enter the field. Therefore, a study of the relationship between the establishment of ETPs and international student admissions practices in countries whose higher education systems have grown to maturity teaching in a single language other than English, such as South Korea, where international students are enrolled outside the authorized enrollment quota, Taiwan or parts

128

Sec t ion 3: Challenges and Solut ions for EMI in Japan

of Europe, is particularly likely to yield some useful lessons for the ongoing development of ETPs in Japan.

Acknowledgments This is a revised version of a paper previously published in the journal Higher Education Forum; Ota, H. and Horiuchi, K. (2016) Measuring the accessibility of study in Japan utilizing international admissions procedures of English-taught degree programs. Higher Education Forum 13, 91–107.

References Ashizawa, S. (2013) Nihon no gakusei kokusai koryu seisaku: Senryakuteki ryugakusei recruit to global jinzai ikusei [Japanese student exchange policies: Strategic international student recruitment and the development of global personnel]. In M. Yokota and A. Kobayashi (eds) Daigaku no kokusaika to nihonjin gakusei no kokusaishikousei [The Internationalization of Universities and the Global Orientation of Japanese Students] (pp. 13–38). Tokyo: Gakubunsha. Bradford, A. (2012) Adopting English-taught degree programs. International Higher Education 69 (fall), 8–10. Brown, H. (2014) Contextual factors driving the growth of undergraduate Englishmedium instruction programmes at universities in Japan. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics 1 (1), 50–63. Brown, H. and Iyobe, B. (2014) The growth of English medium instruction in Japan. In N. Sonda and A. Krause (eds) JALT2013 Conference Proceedings (pp. 9–19). Tokyo: JALT. Burgess, C., Gibson, I., Klaphake, J. and Selzer, M. (2010) The ‘Global 30’ Project and Japanese higher education reform: An example of a ‘closing in’ or an ‘opening up’? Globalisation, Societies and Education 8 (4), 461–475. Dearden, J. (2014) English as a Medium of Instruction – A Growing Global Phenomenon. London: British Council. JASSO (2008) University Degree Courses Offered in English. Tokyo: Information Center for International Education, JASSO. JASSO (2015) University Degree Courses Offered in English. Tokyo: Information Services Division, Student Exchange Department, JASSO. MEXT (2015a) Daigaku ni-okeru kyouiku naiyou-tou no kaikaku jyoukyou ni-tsuite [Survey on the educational reform in higher education 2013]. See http://www.mext. go.jp/a_menu/koutou/daigaku/04052801/_icsFiles/afieldfile/2015/10/21/1361916_1. pdf MEXT (2015b) Daigaku no Kokusaika no-tameno Network-keisei Suishin-jigyo: Jigo hyoka kekka no sokatsu [Project for Establishing a University Network for Internationalization: Outline of post-project evaluation results]. See http://www. mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/kaikaku/1355917.htm (accessed 5 October 2015). MOFA (2004) Wagakuni to ASEAN no ryugakusei koryu no arikata ni kansuru kenkyu [Report on research into the state of student exchange between Japan and ASEAN countries]. See http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/culture/hito/ryu/asean_ kenkyu_z.html (accessed 20 September 2015). Ota, H. (2011) Daigaku kokusaika no doko oyobi Nihon no genjo to kadai: Higashi Asia tono hikaku kara [University internationalization trends and Japan’s challenges and prospects: An East Asian comparative study]. Media Kyoiku Kenkyu [ Journal of Multimedia Education Research] 8 (1), 1–12.

How Accessible are English-Taught Programs?

129

Prime Minister of Japan and his Cabinet (2008) ‘Ryugakusei 300,000 nin Keikaku’ Kosshi [Outline of the ‘300,000 International Students Plan’]. See http://www.kantei.go.jp/ jp/tyoukanpress/rireki/2008/07/29kossi.pdf (accessed 5 October 2015). Sakae Institute of Study Abroad (2015) Ryugaku hiyo [Expenses to study abroad]. See http://www.ryugaku.com/ugrad/basis/expenses.html (accessed 11 January 2016). Shimauchi, S. (2012) Nihon ni okeru kotokyoiku no kokusaika to eigo program ni kansuru kenkyu [Research on internationalization of higher education and EMIDP (English medium instruction degree programs) in Japan]. Kokusai Kyoiku [ Journal of International Education] 18, 1–15.

8

A Marketing Perspective on English-Medium Instruction at Universities in Japan Sarah Louisa Birchley

This chapter explores English-medium instruction (EMI) in Japan from a marketing perspective, arguing that by making marketing more central to the program development process, EMI programs can become a more integral part of the university in terms of its sense of direction and identity. The field of higher education branding and marketing ‘is still at a relatively pioneer stage with much research still to be carried out both from an exploratory and strategic perspective’ (Hemsley-Brown & Goonawardana, 2007: 7) and literature from Japan in this field is extremely limited, thus this assessment is grounded in research available in the field of marketing and higher education management in addition to the author’s personal experience teaching in, administrating and managing EMI programs in Japan for the last 10 years. With the declining birthrate in Japan, universities are facing stiff competition to attract students and, whether one praises or fears the marketization of universities, as a strategic tool in higher education affairs it is present, and on the increase, at various levels of university practice (Askehave, 2007). The promotion of new and innovative EMI programs is necessary not only for attracting prospective domestic and international students, but also for satisfying the needs of current students who may not have expected to engage with EMI at enrollment but who later chose to do so. Advertising these programs can be part of the overall brand image of the university; coincidentally, brand image has become an important performance indicator in recent years. The increased government policy focus on global jinzai (the development of global human resources) in Japan has resulted in higher education institutions (HEIs) placing greater emphasis on the development and promotion of their EMI programs and the global image of the university as a whole. The development of academic management in colleges and universities goes hand in hand with the rise of academic consumerism. The expansion and diversification of institutions coupled with an overcrowded marketplace 130

A Market ing Perspec t ive on EMI at Universit ies in Japan

131

has resulted in the student as consumer metaphor gaining momentum. This indicates that exploring course development in higher education (HE) from a business perspective can be beneficial (Birchley, 2014a). The use of market terminology and awareness of the commodification of HE highlight the idea of ‘production’ (Gumport, 2000: 70) – as in the treatment of HE as a product – in higher education worldwide. In Japan, as Fujita (1999: 1) recognizes, the ‘commodification’ of education is ‘lurking in the background’ of debates on standardized education. There is a tendency ‘to accept as a guiding principle of reform, a way of thinking that treats education as a commodity.’ Is it helpful to think of EMI as a commodity? Can we better develop EMI in HE using a marketing approach? When developing new programs within HE, marketing should be a key component in the success of the program. Marketing takes numerous forms internally and externally, domestically and internationally, all of which should be carefully integrated with academic practice at the HE level. This chapter argues that, for EMI to be successfully implemented in a university, programs should be developed with a marketing perspective, using interdisciplinary, cross-functional teams. The field of higher education is not a level playing field. As Naidoo and Jamieson (2005: 271) observed, ‘universities that are in the upper levels of the hierarchy with high levels of academic reputation and financial capital are likely to [maintain] their dominant position.’ In Japan, such elite universities find that their students (consumers) are less likely to demand a range of new or innovative products from their university, as they perceive the value of graduating from that particular university as the final product. In contrast, the final product of a degree from a second-tier university does not necessarily guarantee students a job with a prestigious company. In such cases, student consumers at less prestigious universities are more likely to drive the concept of consumerism in their education. Therefore, students’ satisfaction while at university is highly scrutinized by university leaders, and demands for changes are met. In the case of less prestigious universities, it is argued that the concept of student as consumer is much more significant. These universities are under more pressure to adapt to the needs of their customers and to compete with rival universities by developing new courses over a short period of time. The negative side of this is that these universities risk the dilution of the university brand by making changes that alter or cloud the overall identity and reputation of the institution. Therefore, exploring the marketing of higher education in a Japanese context is fraught with complexities.

EMI and the Marketing Mix Looking at the development of courses through a marketing lens can help academics and other stakeholders to observe aspects of course development

132

Sec t ion 3: Challenges and Solut ions for EMI in Japan

they may not be able to see by only looking from an educational standpoint. As EMI courses are new and are an integral part of attracting not just domestic but also international students, they deserve particular focus. In universities, the marketing mix can be considered a ‘set of controllable marketing tools that an institution uses to produce the response it wants from its various target markets’ (Ivy, 2008: 288). When marketing a tangible product, a 4P approach, product, price, place, promotion is most commonly used, yet as EMI and education are viewed more from a service perspective, the addition of people, physical facilities and processes is called for and a 7P approach is needed. The following section outlines these perspectives and how they should be approached in respect to EMI in Japan.

The product in EMI Debates on the commodification of education (Ball, 2004; Doti, 2004; Nentwich, 2001), the impact of the knowledge economy (Brown, 2001; Nowotny et al., 2001) and the idea of ‘mode 2 knowledge’ (Gibbons et al., 1994) – which is the blurred line between knowledge creators and consumers – have made it extremely difficult to ascertain what the product actually is in HE. When considering EMI, is an EMI program the product itself or is a student that has graduated from the program a product? Or perhaps, the final application of knowledge and skills acquired from the EMI program is the product being commodified? In some instances, we can consider the EMI program itself a product. If outside stakeholders push to develop and increase the number of EMI programs and if the universities use EMI programs as a marketing tool for attracting domestic and international students, the very existence of the program may have value to the university and such programs take on the characteristics of a product. On the other hand, we may consider the student, who graduates with new knowledge and skills via the EMI program, as the product. In this case, the EMI program is a process or platform for the development of the final product. Or perhaps, the knowledge and skills themselves are the product and the EMI program is a platform for delivery of the product to the students. In both of these cases, it is vital to understand how students think of themselves, their ownership of learning and their view of their experience. Are students learning for themselves or for others? How can we tangibly measure the success of the product? Given these complexities, it is difficult to ascertain what the product in EMI is (Birchley, 2014a), but it appears that in Japan, the establishment of an EMI program is a means to an end. The government is calling for the development of EMI programs as part of the internationalization of HE and has set targets to increase the number of non-Japanese students on Japanese campuses. It is also seeking to increase Japanese student mobility (MEXT, 2015;

A Market ing Perspec t ive on EMI at Universit ies in Japan

133

METI, 2011). These numerical goals have resulted in the ad hoc development of EMI programs in many universities, and one could argue that the lack of a long-term vision has resulted in an inability to see students, both domestic and international, as the product. The EMI program itself has become the product in Japan and as many programs are still in their infancy, we have little information about the students as products. In the course of the next few years, as EMI practitioners move beyond the initial stages of EMI implementation and begin to fine tune their programs, the student as product metaphor may be realized.

The price in EMI The price element of the services marketing mix focuses on what is being charged for tuition and other fees (Ivy, 2015). Prices, particularly from a private university perspective, are directly connected to the bottom line and the financial sustainability and stability of the institution. In addition, the price of academic programs is increasingly used as a discriminator in higher education worldwide (Ivy, 2015), consequently, if a university can offer an EMI program or course it may be seen as good value for money if a student is able to study in two languages or in a country outside their own. However, price is not simply a financial consideration. For as long as fees have been associated with higher education, they have been tied to expectations and perceptions of quality. Tuition fees and possible additional costs associated with EMI courses can have an impact on enrollment in these new programs. Currently, EMI courses and programs at Japanese universities appear to fall within the regular course fee structure, that is, domestic students are not usually required to pay additional fees to take an EMI course. When international students come to Japan, their fees are often calculated on a per term or per credit basis. Academic fees for Japanese university are not considered expensive when compared with studying in the United States or the UK; they are usually between US$7000 and 10,000 per year (JASSO, 2016). Additional scholarships and fee exemption waivers are also favorable when compared with other countries. From an administrative perspective, however, the costs involved in developing an EMI program can be extremely high. Faculty development and staff training sessions are crucial to teach and administer EMI programs, both of which are associated with significant outgoings. There may be a need to hire new faculty and modify classroom facilities and equipment to meet the demands of a new type of course. As a result, there may be tensions between administrators and faculty as to how best to balance the costs of embarking on EMI. Specifically, in Japan, the costs incurred in setting up EMI programs are focused in two main areas: human resource management and marketing. In

134

Sec t ion 3: Challenges and Solut ions for EMI in Japan

terms of human resource management, costs include the training and development of faculty members and administrative staff. Administrative staff must be bilingual; ideally, they should have had some experience in an international education context. If there are no staff with these skills and abilities, hiring committees must be formed and suitable personnel should be found. Similarly, classroom teachers ideally need both subject knowledge and English ability; therefore, the recruitment of such employees may result in the need to source academics from outside Japan, incurring extra costs. Once the faculty and staff have been selected, continual professional development is necessary in order to maintain standards. Some universities have called in EMI experts from overseas to lead development sessions, while others have used budgets to send their faculty and administrators overseas. In both instances, the costs incurred are high and the cost–benefit performance may not be immediately obvious. In regard to marketing in Japanese universities, funds are spent on the translation of internal and external documents such as university webpages and brochures and in contracts with outside agencies. In addition, when targeting international students, it is vital for the university to have a presence at international education recruitment fairs around the world. Increasing numbers of Japanese universities are sending faculty and staff overseas to recruit for their EMI programs. The university must have the appropriate budget to cover these costs and a long-term vision to assess their effectiveness. Many universities in Japan are funding these EMI-related expenses internally; however, for some, strong support is available from the government. In 2009, the five-year development project, Global 30 Project, offered 13 universities between 200 and 400 million yen per year. This was followed by the Top Global University Project from 2014 to 2023. Many universities who received such funding funneled it toward attracting international students and increasing Japanese student mobility as well as the establishment of not just EMI programs but also full-degree English-taught programs (ETPs). The funding aspect is exceptional, although the long-term sustainability of the programs without such financial incentives may be in question, resulting in changes to the pricing structure of programs and the ability to maintain similar levels of service.

The place in EMI When we consider place in educational marketing, we explore the method of distribution of the educational service (Ivy, 2015). Around the world, an increasing number of courses are being delivered online. Virtual systems such as Blackboard, Moodle and distance learning options are allowing students to study anywhere, anytime. Moreover, EMI courses have the potential to be a huge part of MOOCS (Massive Open Online Courses) and could expand access to education for students in underserviced areas.

A Market ing Perspec t ive on EMI at Universit ies in Japan

135

In Japan, it appears that some EMI programs are taking advantage of these developments owing to the growth of the association for Japan Massive Open Online Courses (JMOOC), the platform gacco and collaborations between Japanese and overseas institutions (JMOOC, 2016). JMOOC was started in response to the vast number of courses available in English via MOOCS set up overseas (Aoki, 2013). Their mission was to develop materials in Japanese, yet this is slowly being expanded to include English-language MOOCS developed in Japan. In 2013, the University of Tokyo began providing two courses in English via the platform Coursera and now gacco has a selection of courses in English, and a small selection available in Japanese with English subtitles. However, even with such potential for an online presence, EMI courses in Japan are taught primarily face-to-face, in traditional classroom settings with technology playing a peripheral role. Additionally, not only are students being taught in English on campus or online in Japan, but universities in Japan are providing study abroad options, either integrated into the EMI programs at their institution or as an optional extra. This provides students with the option of studying in English at an overseas institution. Specifically, students who study overseas take subject courses for credit in an academic faculty and thus the EMI classes they take in Japan should be preparation for this environment, or an extension of the overseas experience on their return to Japan. The place in EMI in Japan is fluid and development of the delivery of programs is an area in need of significantly more research.

The promotion of EMI Promotion of academic programs comprises all of the strategies a university devises to attract students to these programs (Ivy, 2015). This includes advertising, publicity, public relations and promotional efforts. In any country, a university must appeal to both domestic and international students, both traditional and non-traditional. General research on college and program choice highlights a large number of influencers – people who influence a student’s choice (Gibbs & Knapp, 2002). Yet there are differences in the ways universities and programs are promoted domestically and internationally. In each situation, there are different strategies to consider that are based on culture and context.

Domestic promotion of EMI Marketing EMI programs in Japan to domestic students requires internal and external promotion. In terms of internal promotion, a student may have already joined the university and later decided to opt into an EMI program after enrollment. The student will obtain information about EMI via homeroom teachers, class teachers, academic guidance counselors and through word-of-mouth from other students. This face-to-face promotion is effective for students who may not have prior knowledge of EMI before enrollment.

136

Sec t ion 3: Challenges and Solut ions for EMI in Japan

On the other hand, a student may have chosen a particular university because it offers an EMI program. In this situation, there are three main promotional strategies used to attract domestic students: view-books, open campus events and visits to high schools. View-books In Japan, view-books are the most prominent means of marketing higher education (Birchley, 2015a). View-books are the glossy magazine-type brochures that market a lifestyle. They show what it is like to take part in the culture of the university. According to Hartley and Morphew (2008), a viewbook provides a snapshot of a moment in the institution’s ever-changing history. It provides the face of the university and, at times, a somewhat romanticized view of what it is like to study at that institution. The visual images show a promise and the ideal of social efficiency. These books are distributed to high schools directly or via outside agencies that promote universities. If a prospective student is on the university mailing list, the viewbook is sent directly to the student via the mail. Additionally, the view-book can often be downloaded from the university homepage. EMI programs in Japan can be promoted inside the university view-book, or as part of a particular faculty’s view-book, or as a stand-alone view-book that only promotes the particular EMI course or program. The structure of the EMI promotion usually includes a description of what EMI is, an explanation of why it is deemed beneficial for the student in today’s changing society, comments from peers currently taking EMI classes, evidence from alumni of how EMI helped them to become successful and photos of a typical EMI class, with teachers and students. Open campus events Open campus events in Japan are generally an integral part of university promotion. From June into early October, universities hold multiple events to attract students to their campuses. High school students are often asked by their teachers to attend a number of open campus events during the summer months as part of their homework. These events attract students, high school teachers, parents and guardians. Each section of the day is carefully choreographed in order to provide as much information as possible in a short amount of time. To promote EMI programs, universities may provide prospective students and their parents with a model lesson and opportunities to interact with current students taking EMI courses. Model lessons are an opportunity to experience EMI first hand and can often be the prospective student’s first encounter with EMI. As such, promotion of EMI in such a way can be risky, as the prospective students must be shown the rigors of such a lesson but not in a way that is overwhelming. The model lessons should create a supportive and encouraging classroom environment and a realistic demonstration of the demands of the class. After the class, there is often an opportunity for one-on-one interactions between parents, students

A Market ing Perspec t ive on EMI at Universit ies in Japan

137

and university professors or administrators. It is during these sessions that the benefits of EMI are explained and the expectations of all parties are discussed in detail. The presence of current students who are enrolled on EMI courses provides the prospective student with role models. Additionally, having knowledgeable faculty and administrative staff able to outline the rationale of EMI to parents is immensely important. High school visits A high school visit is when a university administrator, academic or external agency specialist visits a high school to promote a particular university. In the past, university administrators focused on targeting high schools that had been attended by alumni in order to maintain close relationships with their classroom teachers and high school principles. As mentioned in the previous section, influencers, such as previous classroom teachers, are an important factor to consider in the college choice process. However, in recent years the expansion of external support agencies, which are paid commercial agencies used primarily by private schools, have allowed universities to widen their target market. These representatives make high school visits either with or on behalf of certain universities and coordinate events to provide useful information to high school students. Such events include inviting lecturers to conduct model lessons and building bridges between high schools and universities through joint events (Birchley, 2015b). As is the case with open campus events, the people providing information to students and their parents about EMI opportunities at the university should be highly knowledgeable about EMI and the debates surrounding it. This means that time must be spent on faculty and staff training through joint meetings between agents and university faculty and administrative staff.

International promotion of EMI Conversely, when marketing EMI in Japan to international students, there are three main methods: international education fairs, partner school programs and web-based promotion. International education fairs Top-tier Japanese universities, particularly those selected by the Japanese government as Global 30 or Top Global institutions, use overseas international education fairs as their primary means of promoting EMI courses to international students. Unlike universities in the UK or United States, Japanese universities do not tend to have dedicated PR offices. Responsibility for recruitment usually lies with the admissions office that is in charge of all aspects of promotion. Additionally, program directors and faculty members teaching on newly established EMI programs are often required to travel as part of their job and promote their programs themselves. In some cases, an organization such as the Japan Student Services Organization (JASSO) may represent Japanese HE institutions and EMI programs at a Japan Education

138

Sec t ion 3: Challenges and Solut ions for EMI in Japan

booth at international conferences. In other cases, Japan-specific international education fairs are held in locations around the world and individual Japanese universities take part. These fairs are aimed at high school students and university students who wish to pursue study in Japan. It is at these fairs that the benefits of EMI in Japan can be outlined to international students. Partner school programs For universities that may not have the financial means, or for universities that are much smaller in size, promotion on such a large scale at international education fairs may not be feasible. These institutions rely on the promotion of their programs through their partner school contracts. Even small Japanese universities have one or more kyoutei-ko, universities overseas with whom the Japanese university has a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for international exchange between two institutions. Some contracts are vague and loose while others are highly specific and call on each institution to collaborate on international projects or exchange students on a regular basis. EMI courses in smaller institutions are opening opportunities to increase international exchange efforts, as overseas students may be able to take one or more EMI class on the Japanese campus, even if they lack Japanese language proficiency. For universities that have had long-held MOUs but have been frustrated by the one-way relationship of international exchange (e.g. the Japanese institution sends students overseas but does not receive any), EMI program development is assisting in the enhancement of international exchange initiatives. Recently, a number of universities have been auditing their MOUs and reaching out to develop international exchange contracts with new partner institutions as a way to promote and enhance EMI. Web-based promotion Advances in technology have also had a huge impact on the way that universities are marketed. When appealing to international students, university websites are used as the face of the university and the face of the EMI program. They contain promotional language and promotional images, and in general they work toward the enhancement of the university brand as a whole. According to Poock and Leford (2001) the content needs to be extremely well organized and easy to navigate. Websites should be visually intuitive, with highly identifiable links. One of the most important aspects of a university website is the visual images of the environment. These help students to assess whether they ‘fit’ the culture of the institution. When marketing EMI courses via the web, Japanese universities are developing their English-language websites. In some instances, the English page may be a general translation of the Japanese page, in others, the language and content have been altered to fit the needs of an international audience (Birchley, 2015b). Research by the author on web-based marketing of EMI and ETPs to international students found two noteworthy points. Firstly, the research

A Market ing Perspec t ive on EMI at Universit ies in Japan

139

uncovered gaps between language and social practice, identity issues and issues of exclusion. There was clearly a heavy focus on marketing toward a typically Western, Caucasian student and a lack of symbolism and representation of students from other Asian countries who may be interested in joining an EMI program or ETP in Japan (Birchley, 2015a). Secondly, there was a case of institutional legitimacy occurring between institutions (Birchley, 2015a). All the institutions were promoting themselves in a similar way. The institutions seemed to be camouflaging their distinctiveness via the use of ambiguous and ubiquitous terms (Taylor & Morphew, 2010). The universities in the study appeared to be marketing a sameness that legitimized them as an institution. It is akin to the department store syndrome – the universities appear generic and there are no boutiques standing out from the crowd. In this case, it is extremely difficult for a potential international student to differentiate between the universities and their EMI programs just from these web communications. More research that specifically targets these potential international students and their motivations is necessary. Essentially, any EMI program needs a clear promotional strategy, yet most EMI programs in Japan do not seem to have one. As new programs often go on to enhance name recognition by providing exposure for the whole university (Rudd & Mills, 2008), the potential for an EMI program to support the whole university appears to be missed. In Japan, there needs to be greater collaboration and communication between all those working in EMI, from classroom teachers through to admissions office staff, outside agencies and public relations professionals.

The people in EMI The people element of the marketing mix in education includes all the faculty and administrative staff of the university who interact with students. In terms of the teaching staff, student perceptions of their reputations can play an important role when deciding whether or not to take an EMI class. Additionally, it is important that the right teachers are teaching the right EMI courses. Teachers in EMI in Japan come from various backgrounds; some have a background in teaching English as a second or other language (TESOL) while others major in a content subject, such as economics, science or engineering and have the language ability to teach in English. Research conducted by the author on teacher roles within EMI contexts found that there were different ways that teachers described themselves when teaching in English (Birchley, 2014b). Teachers navigated between different identities during the development and implementation of the course, which included being administrators, external advisors, facilitators, negotiators, specialists, pastoral advisors, students, teaching assistants, team teachers and promoters. It is a challenge to work in so many differing roles, especially when so much responsibility for promoting the EMI courses lies with program

140

Sec t ion 3: Challenges and Solut ions for EMI in Japan

directors and classroom teachers. This highlights the challenging nature of teaching in an EMI context and the importance of finding teachers qualified and enthused about working with EMI. Administrators of EMI programs must be accessible to students, and they should be knowledgeable about what they are supporting and promoting. The way administrators communicate with students, their parents and high school teachers is extremely important. With any new program, but particularly with EMI, there are many questions from various stakeholders that need to be answered with confidence. Domestic students are able to access information in both English and Japanese, but international students may experience gaps in communication as not all information is available in English or in the student’s native language (see Heigham, this volume). In the Japanese context, the responsibility of administrators is to deal with not only the academic side but also the pastoral and practical aspects of supporting international students. Administrative staff members need to be familiar with procedures for finding accommodation and processes for signing-up for necessary utilities. Some universities are struggling in this regard owing to the human resource management structure of Japanese organizations. Like many Japanese companies, administrators work on a rotating basis. Particularly in public universities, the employees are classified as civil servants who work within the public sector. Thus, they may work both in a university and in a city office context over the course of their career. This results in administrative staff being placed in different sections of the university during their career, even if they have no background knowledge or special skills in that particular sector. This develops generalist employees as opposed to specialists. Yet, in international education and in order to internationalize campuses in Japan, there is a need to have specialist administrative staff working in EMI programs. The development of EMI programs is slowly changing the human resource management practices at some institutions as they work to ensure that qualified, bilingual, highly skilled staff can support domestic and international students. The training and development of all people involved in the delivery of EMI is paramount. Exploring the administrative side of EMI program development is an interesting area for future research.

The physical evidence in EMI Physical evidence is the tangible component of the service that is offered (Ivy, 2015). Prospective students for an EMI class will evaluate various physical aspects ranging from the teaching materials to the facilities. As EMI is relatively new in Japan and as the writing of teaching materials is developing in tandem with the programs, evaluating teaching materials can be quite problematic. Teachers tend to develop their own materials, which are either entirely original or contain sections that are adapted from overseas

A Market ing Perspec t ive on EMI at Universit ies in Japan

141

textbooks, or content and language integrated learning (CLIL) textbooks (of which there is only a small variety of suitable, level-appropriate texts), or they use textbooks designed for regular courses at overseas institutions, without adapting the content. If, as is often the case when a teacher teaches a course for the first time, a teacher develops their own materials on a weekby-week basis, it is difficult for a student to clearly see what is expected of them. Established web-based study materials, supplements to course books and/or stand-alone materials are proving useful for promotion in the Japanese context, as they allow students to preview the contents before they enroll on a course. In doing this students and other stakeholders can get a feel for the type of study expected in an EMI class. The layout of EMI classrooms is often different from the layout of traditional Japanese lecture-style classes. Often EMI classes involve group work, project work and cooperative and collaborative learning and, as such, desks are placed in islands or in a horseshoe shape. When a student enters a classroom that appears different in this way, it can influence their expectations and image of EMI. Communication between academics and administrators regarding the physical elements should not be neglected. If administrators are more knowledgeable about these elements they can help better prepare the students as to what they can expect when they take an EMI class, as administrators are sometimes the first person a student, whether domestic or international, interacts with. In the future in Japan, the physical evidence of EMI in institutions will become more tangible. However, at this point in time, it is difficult to ascertain and is an area open for future study.

The processes in EMI While a student is at university various processes are necessary to ensure that students are correctly registered for their classes, that certain grades are achieved and that they reach the correct global standards (Ivy, 2015). EMI courses and programs are often drawn up quickly, for example, Toyo Gakuen University developed an EMI program in approximately 10 months. This means that essential processes are sometimes created on an ad hoc basis or through a system of trial and error. Different sections of the university administration need to communicate smoothly and closely with regard to processes. In particular, procedures for enrolling in an EMI course need to be clear and easy to navigate for the student in order to ensure the highest level of student satisfaction. The simple process of how a grade or an assessment enquiry is handled may also have a tremendous impact on how a student perceives the EMI course. These are especially important for international students in EMI programs as they may lack even basic skills in the home language of the university. The administrative and bureaucratic functions of the university need to support all aspects of the EMI program and student experience from beginning to end,

142

Sec t ion 3: Challenges and Solut ions for EMI in Japan

particularly as they are often the face of the program. The inter-institutional nature of developing an EMI course at universities in Japan is an area in need of more focused research, particularly in relation to knowledge management and aspects of organizational behavior.

Market Segmentation and Positioning in EMI in Japan As well as exploring the marketing mix – the 7Ps of EMI – looking at the strategy of segmentation and the positioning of EMI can also help to develop better, more comprehensive programs. Market segmentation is an important strategy to help position an institution or particular program correctly so that it maximizes competitive advantage. EMI programs can be seen as new and innovative programs that may help raise the entire reputation of the university. Top-tier universities in Japan tend to rely on behavioral segmentation; that is, they recruit students who are seeking the social networks, job opportunities and status that only that particular university can provide. Secondtier universities, however, focus on a geographic or geo-demographic segmentation strategy; that is, they tend to target students living in close proximity to their campus. If we take the definition of positioning as ‘the process of designing an image and value so that customers within the target segment understand what the brand stands for in relation to its competitors’ (Wilson & Gilligan, 2002: 302), we can better understand that EMI could be positioned in such a way that it can raise the entire reputation of the university. In doing so, the whole university is able to get more exposure in various media outlets, thus providing an opportunity to increase brand awareness and recognition of the institution as a whole rather than just the EMI program itself. Yet I argue that Japanese universities are not taking full advantage of positioning. As mentioned in the previous section with regard to promotion, many Japanese universities and EMI programs appear to be positioning themselves in the same way, resulting in brand harmonization; there is no distinction between brands (Hemsley-Brown & Goonawardana, 2007). Part of the brand harmonization issue is that senior management often sets the institutional or program vision. As such, faculties and departments lack academic freedom to develop their ideas and create their own culture. Not everyone within an institution buys into the discourse and rhetoric of internationalization. Those who resist such changes or who oppose them should be communicated with prior to the launch of a new program. In an ideal situation, new EMI programs should be sold to all administrators and faculty members within the institution before promoting them outside the institution. In order to do this, there must be trust and communication within the organization. According to George (1990), internal marketing is the act of using marketing techniques within an institution to enhance

A Market ing Perspec t ive on EMI at Universit ies in Japan

143

relationships between people within that organization. The idea behind internal marketing is that, if a plan receives positive reactions within an organization, these positive reactions will be communicated via members of the institution to external audiences. As Anctil (2008: 97) concludes, ‘successful marketing in higher education begins internally.’ When developing an EMI program, goals should be discussed, strategies developed and messages communicated from the outset. It is only then that the institution and program can be correctly positioned. Establishing the position of a program within the university is part of the brand architecture. The brand architecture is the framework that helps the university to manage its market and services. At some point all programs should be able to align with the missions and strategies of the university. According to Hemsley-Brown and Goonawaedana (2007), there are two types of brand architecture systems in organizations: (a) monolithic (or corporate), when a corporate name is used in all programs and services and sub-brands are linked to the corporate brand; and (b) free-standing (or a house-of-brands approach), where the corporate brand is likened to a holding company. EMI in Japan is marketed via both monolithic and free-standing systems. Two examples follow. Toyo Gakuen University, a small private university, based in central Tokyo, established their International Career Program (ICP) in 2014. The program utilizes EMI and is a clear example of the university taking a monolithic, corporate approach. The ICP program receives extensive visual and verbal endorsement across the whole Toyo Gakuen University brand. The university is utilizing the ICP to help raise the entire profile of the university, increasing brand awareness and reputation. The logo for the ICP program incorporates part of the official school branding – the official logo and color scheme. Information about the EMI program is dominant on the university homepage and in the view-book. Additionally, the program is cross-faculty, meaning that integration between faculty and inter-faculty cooperation is essential. The ICP steering committee is composed of representatives of both administrative staff and faculty members from each department in addition to senior managers. On the other hand, Fukushima University, which is a large, national university in a regional context, is an example of a university that positions its EMI course in a free-standing system. In the faculty of Economics and Business Administration, the Japan Studies Program is an EMI course designed and taught by professors from that faculty. The Japan Studies Program is one component of the English minor degree program. It is marketed internally, meaning there is little information about the program communicated in English on the main university homepage and the impact of the program is confined to one faculty. These two universities display examples of the monolithic and freestanding approach. It could be argued that the monolithic approach is in

144

Sec t ion 3: Challenges and Solut ions for EMI in Japan

some ways difficult to achieve in a larger organization as there are more competing factors at play, such as in terms of budgets and sheer scale of the organization. It could also be suggested that universities may fall into the freestanding system when the program is ad hoc, as there is little time for collaboration and cooperation between parts of the organization. Research needs to be conducted on the development of each type of brand architecture in EMI contexts in order to ascertain if one approach is more effective than the other.

Final Thoughts Setting up EMI programs can be fraught with difficulties. Without the full collaboration and cooperation of faculty members and administrators, the goals of the program may be lost, poorly communicated and inadequately marketed both internally and externally. When developing EMI at an institution in Japan, taking a marketing perspective is beneficial for its successful development and implementation. Academic and administrative staff working together in highly coordinated, interdisciplinary teams giving thought to the 7Ps of their program can potentially develop high-quality EMI courses that are professionally delivered, resulting in high levels of student satisfaction. In research on higher education in Europe, academics are quickly moving away from the metaphor of student as consumer to student as producer (Neary & Winn, 2009), with the student as producer metaphor indicating a high degree of student involvement in the creation of course content. In the context of EMI in Japan, in the future, we may be looking at students, not institutions, to set the educational agenda. Although this is not a feature of Japanese HE yet, university managers and educators need to be savvy about the market and aware of the direction education may take in the foreseeable future. The development of EMI will probably be the source for explorations in the development of the concept of student as producers. The Japanese Ministry of Education’s recent drive toward promoting active learning, which can be seen in their 2014 report on the improvement and enhancement of English education (MEXT, 2014), is relevant if Japan wants to keep pace with developments in higher education systems overseas. Developing well-structured EMI programs could be a key to hitting many of the Ministry’s goals as these programs would surely involve active learning. Developers of EMI at universities in Japan would benefit from asking themselves how EMI fits within the brand architecture of their university. What does the EMI course look like in terms of the 7Ps? Most specifically, what is the product in EMI? Finally, how can we ensure we are really satisfying the needs and expectations of our students?

A Market ing Perspec t ive on EMI at Universit ies in Japan

145

References Anctil, E.J. (2008) Selling higher education: Marketing and advertising America’s colleges and universities. ASHE Higher Education Report 34 (2), 1–121. Aoki, M. (2013) Online courses: Collegiate equalizer? The Japan Times, 28 October. See http://www.japantimes.co.jp (accessed 9 February 2016). Askehave, I. (2007) The impact of marketization on higher education genres – The international student prospectus as a case in point. Discourse Studies 9 (6), 723–742. Ball, S.J. (2004) Education for Sale! Commodification of everything? King’s Annual Education Lecture 2004, University of London. See http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/CERU-0410253-OWI.pdf Birchley, S.L. (2014a) An overview of higher education management. Toyo Gakuen University Faculty of Business Administration, Journal of Business and Economic Research 3 (3), 26–48. Birchley, S.L. (2014b) Figured world of CLIL. Paper presented at the international conference of the Association of Comparative Education, Bath, September. Birchley, S.L. (2015a) The marketization of Japanese higher education. Paper presented at IAFOR international conference on Education, Dubai, March. Birchley, S.L. (2015b) Marketing communications of university business and economics departments in Tokyo, Japan. Paper presented at IAFOR European conference on Business and Management, Brighton, July. Brown, S. (2001) Marketing: The Retro Revolution. London: Sage. Doti, J. (2004) Is higher education becoming a commodity? Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 26 (3), 363–369. Fujita, H. (1999) Japanese education at the crossroads (IX) – The distorted perspectives of educational reform. Child Research Net. See http://www.childresearch.net/papers/ school/1999_01_09.html (accessed 5 March 2015). George, W.R. (1990) Internal marketing and organisational behaviour: A partnership in developing customer conscious employees at every level. Journal of Business Research 20, 63–70. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994) The New Production of Scientific Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage. Gibbs, P. and Knapp, M. (2002) Marketing Higher and Further Education. London: Kogan Page. Gumport, P.J. (2000) Academic restructuring: Organizational change and institutional imperatives. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning 39 (1), 67–91. Hartley, M. and Morphew, C. (2008) What’s being sold and to what end? A content analysis of college viewbooks. Journal of Higher Education 79 (6), 671–691. Hemsley-Brown, J.V. and Goonawardana, S. (2007) Brand harmonisation in the international higher education market. Journal of Business Research 60 (9), 942–948. Ivy, J. (2015) A new higher education marketing mix: The 7Ps for MBA marketing. International Journal of Educational Management 22 (4), 288–299. JASSO (2016) Japan Student Services Organization student guide to Japan. Chapter 3. Knowing life in Japan. See http://www.jasso.go.jp/en/study_j/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2015/11/29/sgtj_2015chap3_e.pdf JMOOC (2016) About JMOOC. Japan Open Online Education Promotion Council. See http://www.jmooc.jp/en/about/ (accessed 10 February 2016). METI (2011) Mid-term report from the council on the promotion of global human resources. See http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/economy/jinzai/san_gaku_kyodo/ sanko1-1.pdf

146

Sec t ion 3: Challenges and Solut ions for EMI in Japan

MEXT (2014) The report about policies to improve and enhance English education in the future − Five recommendations of reformation for English education corresponded globalization. See http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chousa/shotou/102/ houkoku/attach/1352463.htm MEXT (2015) The number of Japanese nationals studying overseas and the annual survey of international students in Japan. See http://www.mext.go.jp/english/ topics/1357495.htm Naidoo, R. and Jamieson, I.M. (2005) Knowledge in the marketplace: The global commodification of teaching and learning in higher education. In P. Ninnes and M. Hellsten (eds) Internationalizing Higher Education: Critical Explorations of Pedagogy and Policy (pp. 37–51). Dordrecht: Springer. Neary, M. and Winn, J. (2009) The Student as Producer: Reinventing the student experience in higher education. In L. Bell, H. Stevenson and M. Neary (eds) The Future of Higher Education – Policy, Pedagogy and the Student Experience. (pp. 126–138). London: Continuum. Nentwich, M. (2001) (Re-)de-commoditization in academic knowledge distribution? Science Studies 14 (2), 21–42. Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. (2001) Rethinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press. Poock, M.C. and Leford, D. (2001) How college-bound prospects perceive university web sites: Findings, implications, and turning browsers into applicants. College and University 77 (1), 15–21. Rudd, D. and Mills, R, (2008) Expanding marketing principles for the sale of higher education. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 1 (3), 41–52. Taylor, B.J. and Morphew, C. (2010) An analysis of baccalaureate college mission statements. Research in Higher Education 51 (5), 483–503. Wilson, R. and Gilligan, C. (2002) Strategic Marketing Management. New York: Routledge.

Section 4 The Student and Faculty Experience

9

Accepting Neighboring Englishes: Investigating the Attitudes and Preconceptions of English-Medium Instruction Students at an International University in Japan Christopher G. Haswell

The increase in English-medium instruction (EMI) classes in Japanese universities is in line with trends in the use of English worldwide (Yonezawa, 2014), and the acceptance of English as the de facto language of internationalization in academia is now, to all intents and purposes, de jure. Japanese education policies set by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) now envision a mixed population of domestic and international students who have sufficient ability in the English language to undertake a significant proportion of their for-credit classes in English. As the language most closely tied to internationalization, English acts as a gatekeeper language to the wider world; international communication, whether between countries or between individuals, is facilitated by the use of this common language. For this reason, the use of English as a part of tertiary education, particularly for universities that are internationally focused, is of increasing importance. An internationally focused university is one where ‘the level of progress and achievement in internationalization is strong in many dimensions, and where cultural change within the university has been transformational’ (Foskett, 2010: 45). This chapter addresses the issue of the internationalization of university programs through the increased use of English from the 149

150

Section 4: The Student and Facult y E xper ience

perspective of students attending one such university in Japan, hereafter referred to as University A. From the early days of the university, its internationally minded founding principles, and all subsequent internationalization efforts, have allowed University A to grow into one of the most internationally focused universities in Japan. The university recruits 45% of its student population from outside Japan, a remarkable number in a country where the national average is 3.1% (Shimomura, 2013). This has led to an on-campus environment with students from more than 80 countries. While the student body is much more diverse than at many Japanese universities, more than half of the students remain Japanese. Among the international students, those from Asian countries such as China, Korea, Vietnam, Thailand and Taiwan predominate. As such, the English used on campus, including in EMI classes, is usually of an Asian variety or Asian accented. The term neighboring in the title of this chapter refers to the geographically proximate English varieties that exist in Asia. While the majority of mass media English in Japan is from the United States, and secondary school English classes tend to be based on North American varieties of the language, the most common varieties of English experienced in Japanese universities are those from Asia. This is due to the demographic profile of the students enrolling in Japanese universities from overseas. As of 2014, more than 92% of all international students in universities come from other Asian countries, with 55.9% coming from China, 14.4% coming from Vietnam and 8.6% coming from the Republic of Korea (JASSO, 2015). Other significant minorities are Nepalese students (3.8%) and Taiwanese students (3.6%). To put these numbers into further perspective, only 1.9% of international students attending university full-time in Japan come from the United States, the UK, Canada and Australia combined. For short-term students, those who are attending Japanese universities for language study or a cultural experience, the demographics are somewhat more diverse with students from the United States, the UK, Canada and Australia making up 18.4% of the numbers (JASSO, 2015), but this is still much less than the 31.7% who come from China. The majority of the neighbors that Japanese and other students have in their classes where English is used will, therefore, be from other Asian countries. The issue of non-native Asian varieties of English in Japanese university classrooms does not concern only students, as the teacher in the EMI class in Japan is also very often a non-native user of English. Given the dominance of Asian varieties of English in EMI in Japan, this chapter looks at students’ preconceptions or opinions developed from exposure to Asian varieties of English on campus at an internationally focused university. The findings of this study demonstrate how student experiences can lead to, or cement, pejorative opinions about Asian Englishes. If present, such opinions have the potential to negatively affect all programs that rely on students’ use of English. These opinions will be especially relevant in EMI

Accept ing Neighbor ing Englishes

151

classes, as these classes cover the subjects the students selected for their university major, and therefore have a significant impact on students’ ability to graduate. In order to maximize student achievement, students, teachers, the administrators of universities and the policy-makers above them need to be aware of the sociolinguistic realties that should be taken into account when decisions are being made regarding EMI classes.

Attitudes Towards Non-Native Varieties of English in Asia The use of English in Asia has a long and complicated history. From a language of the invaders to one of the colonists, to a medium of communication with the wider world, English has an international footprint like no other language. However, within this paradigm, and because it is used as a first, second and foreign language throughout Asia, there is a range of abilities and performance styles among its users across the continent. Therefore, the English that is experienced in communication among users from Asian countries is not always of a variety that is expected by either interlocutor. When looked at through the lens of Schneider’s (2007: 36) dynamic model of linguistic development, very few of the developing varieties of English that are present in Japan or among Japan’s largest populations of international students could be considered anything other than ‘exonormatively stabilized.’ That is to say that they take the vast majority of their lexis, grammatical formation and pronunciation cues from non-Asian varieties of English, specifically those of the United States and the UK, but are performed with idiosyncrasies specific to their context. In the parlance of Kachru’s (1985) Three Circles model, the majority of the varieties of English performed in Japan are ‘norm-dependent’ varieties of the language (Kachru, 1985: 17). Studies in Japan and other Asian countries over the past 15 years have found that native-speakers of English are favored over non-native speakers of English by students of the language (e.g. Ahn, 2014; Jenkins, 2007; Matsuda, 2003), and native English varieties are favored over Asian varieties of English (e.g. Kirkpatrick & Zhichang, 2002; You, 2008). The personal English ability of students, relative to the users of English around them, is therefore of consequence on a highly internationalized campus. It may be that speakers of non-native varieties themselves are the biggest critics of the language they are using for communication. Seargeant (2005) reported that the seemingly negative impressions of Japanese students’ own ability in the English language were related to how their English studies were sold to them, specifically by eikaiwa (private language schools) and other agents for English language education in Japan. Tokumoto and Shibata’s 2011 study of Japanese, Korean and Malaysian students’ attitudes toward their own and other students’ use of English found that Malaysian students had the highest

152

Section 4: The Student and Facult y E xper ience

confidence in their accented variety of English, with Japanese students having the most negative opinions regarding their own variety of English. With Malaysia having had much longer contact with English, and being a multilingual country, unlike Japan and Korea, the researchers concluded that this affected the respondents’ impressions of their own level of English performance relative to their first, and predominant, language. However, it is not only students who prefer ‘norm-providing’ (Kachru, 1985: 16) varieties of English to those that have developed or are developing within Asia. Bolton (2008: 9) observed that ‘despite the patient explanations of many linguists, the use of such terms as ‘Hong Kong English,’ ‘Indian English,’ ‘Malaysian English,’ ‘Philippine English’ and ‘Singapore English’ have typically evoked negative reactions from business and political leaders.’ The published research supports the conclusion that native speakers of English are considered to be superior users of the language by Asian users. Given these negative perceptions of Asian Englishes among Asian students of the language, what is the result of bringing predominantly Asian students together in an environment like an EMI class?

Research Location – A Case of Accelerated Internationalization When considering what international and internationalization mean with regard to university education, researchers have looked at the beliefs underlying the terms. Jane Knight (2011: 14) presented five ‘myths of internationalization,’ the first of which questioned whether international students were in fact ‘international agents’ who could affect the impressions the domestic student population had regarding internationalization. Similarly, among Hans de Wit’s (2011: 5) ‘misconceptions of internationalization’ was the suggestion that institutions feel that there is ‘no need to test intercultural and international competencies’ if the students ‘take part in an international class.’ Both Knight and de Wit draw attention to the complications involved in the development of internationalized universities, specifically increased international recruitment of university students and increased use of English, especially when such policies are adopted without careful consideration of connected concerns. The investigation reported in this chapter was undertaken at a university that can be considered an accelerated microcosm of the changes that are being encouraged by MEXT to be implemented by universities with an international focus. Although MEXT does not set standards by which a university can be considered international, the 37 universities selected for the current Top Global University Project can be viewed as central to MEXT’s internationalization efforts – University A is part of this group (MEXT, 2014).

Accept ing Neighbor ing Englishes

153

This study was conducted with students in their EFL classes, with the majority in their first two years of study. For students at University A, this means they were also taking EMI classes concurrently. Since its establishment, University A has had a requirement for students to take a certain number of their major course credits in the student’s alternative language, meaning that students studying their major courses in Japanese have to take EMI classes, and those taking their major courses in English have to take compulsory credits in Japanese-medium classes. Currently, they must take at least 20 of the 124 credits necessary to graduate in their alternative language. Such a requirement demonstrates that EMI is an integral part of the students’ experience at University A.

Research Findings My overarching research question was ‘What are Asian students’ opinions of other Asian students’ performance of English?’ Student volunteers representing the three largest nationalities at University A, Japanese, Korean and Chinese, were invited to join single-nationality focus groups of three participants. The groups were organized so only students from the same country were in the interview room together. In total, 21 Japanese, nine Korean and six Chinese students participated in the interviews. Participants were asked to discuss propositions that related to their experiences of Asian Englishes and their perceptions of these varieties. One of the first propositions the focus groups were given to discuss was ‘In my experience, people from different places speak different varieties of English.’ Speaking about their experiences of English, the Japanese students gave reports of their time on campus at University A, with comments such as: It was the first time to speak with Vietnamese friends. [Their English] doesn’t sound like English. It was funny for me. (Japanese Student 1) In [University A] there are a lot of Asian people so [it] is nice to communicate with Asian people in English. (Japanese student 19) Some Japanese students also reported that their experience had helped to get them accustomed to differences in English varieties, saying: Now my roommate is from Vietnam. The first time I couldn’t understand her English well because her accent or pronunciation was like Vietnam so it was really hard. Now is okay. (Japanese student 3) In [University A] it is good for me because my classmate is Thai and when I talk with him I get used to Thailand English, [and] of course there are Thailand professors and when I take this class I get used to talking with my friends. (Japanese student 19)

154

Section 4: The Student and Facult y E xper ience

In comments about their experiences of different English varieties, the Korean students, much like the Japanese students, directly referenced their time at University A, saying: There are so many students from China or Thailand or Japanese … but sometimes I can’t understand their English … their pronunciation is so different and difficult. (Korean student 7) Philippine English is very different. In [University A] many international students’ pronunciation is not good I think. Sometimes I can’t understand what they said. (Korean student 8) The Chinese students had similar comments, with one student saying: I studied English with Vietnam and Thai TAs [teaching assistants]. Pronunciation depends who teaches them. Other Asian students’ pronunciation is not very strong. I can’t understand them. (Chinese student 1) All the University A students had experiences of different varieties of English, almost always from their time at the university, and these comments initially had somewhat negative connotations. In responses to this proposition, and unlike their Japanese counterparts, the Korean and Chinese students at the university did not append their negative comments with a suggestion that their time at the university was helping them deal with these differences. Linguistic difficulties relating to the University A students’ reported experience on campus became more obvious when the focus groups discussed the proposition ‘Having different varieties of English is confusing.’ The majority of Japanese students agreed with the proposition, and supported their agreement with an anecdote from their time at University A, for example: I have a friend from Bangladesh and his English is more than 90% I can’t understand … also, Korean students’ English is very [good] and Taiwan students speak very fast … Indonesian pronunciation has ‘r’ so [it is] very confusing. (Japanese student 7) Sometimes I couldn’t understand the English from my friend from Asia, like from Vietnam or Thai. (Japanese student 1) Another Japanese student asked other group members a question in connection to their experiences at University A: Have you ever talked with someone from India? Their way of speaking is very strange, right? … I finally got used listening to the Indian English accent and I could talk finally but I was confused. (Japanese student 14)

Accept ing Neighbor ing Englishes

155

When given this proposition to discuss, Korean students had similar opinions. One commented: I am taking English class and almost all classmates are Japanese and sometimes she or he speaks English and sometimes I don’t understand what they say. (Korean student 7) When I met an Indian person their pronunciation is too difficult to understand. I think they speak well but their speaking [pronunciation] is bad. Also, my speaking is bad. We can’t [have a] conversation, we can’t [speak] English. (Korean student 9) The Chinese students also referenced varieties of English used by both students and teachers that had caused them problems, as in this quote: In [University A] we hear Korean pronunciation, Japanese pronunciation sometimes I think it’s cool or interesting, but sometimes you really need to talk about something seriously, for example you take a lecture and the teacher is Japanese, speaking English, most are not good, so I misunderstand and I can’t understand what they are talking about, so it’s difficult. (Chinese student 4) Another student said: Every day in class we have Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese and Japanese … maybe Japanese understand Japanese English; Chinese understand Chinglish, so having different varieties of English is confusing so I think a standard is the best. (Chinese student 3) The repeated naming of different varieties drawn from the university population, generally those of other nationalities but sometimes their own, made it very clear that the students perceived difficulties associated with the multiple Asian varieties of English on campus at University A. Interestingly, no non-Asian varieties were referenced negatively, despite also being represented among the student body and faculty. Most troubling was the suggestion that students could not ‘talk about something seriously’ with English-speaking Japanese professors, which highlights the problem of student expectations of their course professors as well as their fellow students. The preference of a ‘standard’ English expressed by the Chinese student makes it clear that they were focusing their English performance goal away from Asian varieties. The students were then asked to discuss the proposition ‘I think studying about Asian varieties of English is a good idea.’ Among the Japanese students, the responses were split evenly between those who agreed and

156

Section 4: The Student and Facult y E xper ience

those who disagreed. Those who agreed supported their opinion with comments such as: The first time I hear, it is kind of hard to hear Asian students English, but if I study with them I can improve my English. (Japanese student 2) I think that in the future we will meet many Asian students who speak English … for the future it is important. (Japanese student 3) Their pronunciation is hard to understand so I have to become accustomed with them … it is a good idea to [improve] my English listening skill. (Japanese student 7) However, those who disagreed with the proposition did so with a very clear reason, with comments such as: In the future, I want to work in America or Europe so studying about other Asian varieties of English is needless for me. I don’t need Asian varieties of English. (Japanese student 20) Studying other Asian varieties of English sounds good but if I study I will be confused. (Japanese student 16) Disagree. This means pronunciation. (Japanese student 9) Some international students also commented that they saw some advantages in their future from studying Asian Englishes, as in these comments: For my perspective, I prepare myself in [University A] and can understand, I want to prepare myself to understand all styles, from Africans or Asians, so I think this is a good idea for the future. (Korean student 5) Different countries have different ways. Like, Chinese people are good at reading or listening, Koreans are good at speaking so if we can try other ways to speak English we can improve. (Chinese student 2) However, the overall tenor of the comments offered by Korean and Chinese students in response to this proposition was much less positive than that of the Japanese students. Korean students said: Maybe all our language has basic language, but Asian style English has different pronunciation or sometimes grammar, so we should learn about correct pronunciation and grammar … we should not learn some freaky pronunciation. (Korean student 3) It will make you kind of confused about learning English as you might lose the concept of the fundamental English, meaning that you are

Accept ing Neighbor ing Englishes

157

learning so many kinds of English, so you don’t know what is real English. (Korean student 4) In [University A], I’m studying in English class. There are so many students from China or Thailand or Japanese. [There are] many countries but sometimes I can’t understand their English. Their pronunciation is so different and difficult. If we have to learn English we should learn about American English or British English. (Korean student 7) American English is better because it is free to communicate with others. British English is a little bit hard to pronounce … I choose British because it is the most traditional English. (Korean student 9) Similarly, the Chinese students had strong opinions about which varieties of English they were most interested in studying: I’m not very good in English … I think before I can use English well I won’t study Asian varieties because it will make me confused. For example, for the pronunciation: Singapore English is just a little bit [different] and sometimes I will be confused about that. Is that my fault or am I having a mistake or something? Sometimes I could be correct but the others is not correct, so I think that is not very good to study about other Asian varieties of English. (Chinese student 1) The difference is [the pronunciation] of some words because some words are from their country because it is very popular and they change it to English. I am not so interested about that, so I don’t think it’s a good idea. (Chinese student 3) The pronunciation is a problem, especially with Japanese people. Maybe some Japanese people can speak English very well and they can use good pronunciation, but most Japanese are not good at English pronunciation. So compared to that, I want to study English with Europeans or some other countries. But I think that pronunciation is an interesting thing. I think with people with different pronunciation, English is going to crumble. (Chinese student 4) Both international populations at University A were much less interested in studying Asian Englishes than the Japanese students. However, given the university’s interest in improving their students’ intercultural communication abilities, of greater concern than a lack of interest in Asian Englishes were the pejorative comments with regard to other students’ performance of English from the international students, going so far as to call them ‘different,’ ‘difficult’ and ‘freaky.’ The students seemed most concerned with pronunciation difficulties, based on their experiences of not understanding their Asian interlocutors when conversing in English. Some expressed the thought

158

Section 4: The Student and Facult y E xper ience

that it would affect their ability to be understood when communicating in English. The comments regarding ‘fundamental English,’ ‘real English’ and ‘traditional English’ are a cause for concern, as they appear to equate Asian Englishes with being incorrect or unreal, not worthy of the same respect as English varieties from the United States or the UK.

What Can Universities Learn from These Reported Experiences? If the findings from this study are viewed from the perspective of University A, the institution is succeeding in its goal concerning the production of an on-campus environment that requires and can, therefore, encourage and motivate intercultural communication. There does appear to be an appreciation of, if not necessarily interest in studying, Asian varieties of English. From the perspective of the students, when they are together in situations where they are required to use English, the linguistic environment causes them difficulty over and above that which could be reasonably expected on a non-internationally focused university campus. Such an outcome could be considered a valuable learning experience. However, the negative opinions related to the use of English as a shared language or as the medium of instruction appear to be felt more profoundly by the international students. The University A international students’ agreement with the propositions related to experience and confusion, in combination with a concerning number of pejorative comments about non-native and Asian varieties of English in the focus groups, suggests that it was their time at the university that had affected their opinions, and that it is therefore in this environment that these issues should be addressed. The opinions reported here were offered semi-publicly, albeit anonymously, in multi-person, single-nationality focus groups, suggesting that these opinions were not considered to be controversial in this peer group and could, therefore, be shared openly. The varieties they named, those of India, The Philippines, Vietnam and Thailand, along with their own respective countries’ varieties as being less acceptable than native speaker varieties, mean that the opinions of these students regarding Asian varieties of English are in line with previous research findings, particularly those of Matsuda (2003), who found an almost exclusive interest in American or British English among Japanese high school students, and Qiong (2004) who had similar findings in China, despite an awareness of the local vernacular of the language. This is despite the students in my investigation having studied in a highly internationalized environment and therefore having had more experience of Asian varieties of English than students in previous studies. The continued existence of these opinions is a point of learning. The message that should be heeded is that these opinions exist and, rather than being

Accept ing Neighbor ing Englishes

159

mitigated, appear to be intensified by time on an internationally focused campus. Therefore, the discussion should be moved on to what can and should be done. The university has a responsibility to investigate issues of negative linguistic perceptions related to the common foreign language and work together with the students to address them. Methods of mitigating negative opinions, such as university organized peer-to-peer counseling in the form of focus groups and pre-course seminars could be used to reduce the possibility of preconceptions becoming cemented by interactions the students deem negative. Given the complex character of the language being employed, difficulties are understandable. The goal should be that these difficulties do not hinder the academic progress of students and are, in fact, viewed as positive experiences that will benefit them in their future uses of the language. The potential positive outcomes for students of learning to deal with differences in the performance of English among their Asian peers continue beyond their university years. The use of English in businesses has grown and will continue to grow in the coming years. As its use in businesses has grown, English has a growing economic and linguistic impact in Asia. In Japan as well, English is increasingly a language of business, specifically with the adoption of English as an official language for the purposes of more effective international commerce by large retailers Uniqlo and Rakuten (Maeda, 2010), and car manufacturers Nissan and Honda (Nikkei, 2015). If students use English in their future employment, it is reasonable to expect that they will often have interactions with other Asian users of English. Therefore, as students at an internationalized university, their experience will probably be of professional benefit in their future use of English. Such a thought of potential future professional benefit is of little assistance to students who are caused stress by the linguistic performance of their fellow students and teachers during their period of university study. With the continued expansion of EMI classes in conjunction with international recruitment in Japan, curriculum planners will need to address opinions regarding non-native, particularly Asian, varieties of English if and when they occur. The investigation discussed in this chapter highlights the potential for negative opinions to exist, and the experiences of students at highly internationalized universities, such as University A, provide important lessons for current and future programs. Although not necessarily the aim of all universities, for those universities with international students or future aspirations of wider international recruitment, the experiences of other universities are an important source of information upon which to base their future plans. Even absent a large population of international students, the use of English by non-native English-using professors in the teaching of their EMI classes requires the students to accept a different performance of English than they might have expected and therefore positive steps should be taken to ensure this

160

Section 4: The Student and Facult y E xper ience

acceptance is encouraged and does in fact occur. Only then can MEXT policies of internationalization be considered to be on the road to success.

References Ahn, H. (2014) Teachers’ attitudes towards Korean English in South Korea. World Englishes 33 (2), 195–222. Bolton, K. (2008) English in Asia, Asian Englishes, and the issue of proficiency. English Today 94 (2), 3–12. de Wit, H. (2011) Internationalization of higher education: Nine misconceptions. International Higher Education 64, 6–7. Foskett, N. (2010) Global markets, national challenges, local strategies: The challenge of internationalization. In F. Maringe and N. Foskett (eds) Globalization and Internationalization in Higher Education: Theoretical, Strategic and Management Perspectives (pp. 35–50). Abingdon: Taylor and Francis. JASSO (2015) Result of an annual survey of international students in Japan, 2014. See http://www.jasso.go.jp/en/about/statistics/intl_student/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2015/ 11/24/data14_brief_e.pdf Jenkins, J. (2007) English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kachru, B.B. (1985) Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the Outer Circle. In R. Quirk and H.G. Widdowson (eds) English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures (pp. 11–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kirkpatrick, A. and Zhichang, X. (2002) Chinese pragmatic norms and ‘China English.’ World Englishes 21 (2), 269–279. Knight, J. (2011) Five myths about internationalization. International Focus. See http:// www.international.ac.uk/media/1417436/International_Focus_67.pdf Maeda, M. (2010) Uniqlo, Rakuten make official language English, Japan Center for Economic Research. See http://www.jcer.or.jp/eng/research/pdf/maeda20100715e.pdf Matsuda, A. (2003) The ownership of English in Japanese secondary schools. World Englishes 22 (4), 483–496. MEXT (2014) Selection for the FY2014 Top Global University Project. See http://www. mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/26/09/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2014/10/07/1352218_02.pdf Nikkei (2014) English to be Honda’s official language by around 2020. Nikkei Asian Review. See http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/English-to-be-Honda-s-officiallanguage-by-around-2020 (accessed 12 February 2016). Qiong, H.X. (2004) Why China English should stand alongside British, American, and the other ‘World Englishes.’ English Today 20 (2), 26–33. Schneider, E.W. (2007) Postcolonial English: Varieties Around the World. New York: Cambridge University Press. Seargeant, P. (2005) Globalisation and reconfigured English in Japan. World Englishes, 24 (3), 309–319. Shimomura, H. (2013) Making Japanese higher education more international. The Japan Times, 2 September 2013, p. B1. See http://info.japantimes.co.jp/ads/pdf/20130902_ global_30_universities.pdf Tokumoto, M. and Shibata, M. (2011) Asian varieties of English: Attitudes toward pronunciation. World Englishes 30 (3), 392–408. Yonezawa, A. (2014) Japan’s challenge of fostering ‘Global Human Resources’: Policy debates and practices. Japan Labor Review 11 (2), 37–52. You, X. (2008) Rhetorical strategies, electronic media, and China English. World Englishes 27 (2), 233–249.

10 Center Stage but Invisible: International Students in an English-Taught Program Juanita Heigham

In the field of education in Japan today, global and international are pervasive catchwords framing discussions at all levels of education, and they are at the forefront of recent reform initiatives in tertiary education. Owing to these reforms, Japan currently hosts more international students at the university level than ever before. Many of these students are in newly developed fouryear, undergraduate English-taught programs (ETPs) where Japanese language skills are not required. These ETP students are valuable currency in the rush for internationalization, but they are often an overlooked minority. The profile of international students in ETPs in Japan differs from the overall international student population. Currently over 90% of international students are from Asian backgrounds studying in Japanese language programs or in Japanese-medium mainstream programs (JASSO, 2015), but within ETPs, there is a broader mix of backgrounds and Japanese language proficiency levels, with some students having had no previous experience studying Japanese. Research has found that international students frequently struggle with feelings of isolation and marginalization even when they speak the majority language (e.g. Lee & Rice, 2007; Liu, 1998; Sawir et al., 2008; Trice, 2003), and for students who do not, the challenges can be even more profound. For Japan, with its tendency toward a monocultural mindset (Hammer, 2012) and limited experience with large numbers of non-Japanese-speaking international students, noticing the needs of international students and helping manage their social welfare can be challenging. Around the world there has been considerable research conducted on international student satisfaction (Byun et al., 2011; Campbell & Li, 2007; Hendrickson et al., 2011; Petruzzellis et al., 2006; Sam, 2001), and in the last few years, there has been an increase in research on English-medium instruction in Japan. However, as yet, international students’ satisfaction with their experiences in Japan-based ETPs has not received much attention. 161

162

Section 4: The Student and Facult y E xper ience

This chapter reports on the experiences of a group of international students enrolled in a four-year undergraduate ETP and shows how their level of satisfaction with university life is shaped by the degree to which they perceive their non-academic and academic needs have been met by the university. The satisfaction of students like these is key to the success of internationalization, but once on campus, these students can easily be disregarded. To give voice to this minority, I began the two-year critical action research project discussed in this chapter.

Background For several years, I taught developmental English on one campus of a multi-campus university that had received Global 30 funding from the Japanese government. Previous to my employment, the university had been working to increase the international scope of this somewhat rural satellite campus as they built their new undergraduate ETP. The university needed someone who could specifically contribute to this ongoing internationalization, so when I began working there, I immediately set out to build on their existing foundation. As I investigated what was in place, I discovered that, although the university had been working toward internationalization by introducing special entrance exams for international students in Japanesemedium undergraduate programs, recruiting more international students and hiring content teachers with high English language skills, there had been little outreach to the students already enrolled, so it was here that I focused my initial efforts. My first practical step was to create opportunities for domestic and international students to meet. I started a project where every week students held multiple English-related events, and I asked international students to participate in this project as conversation group leaders and to contribute to special cultural events. Through casual discussions with these international students, I began to learn about their feelings of disenfranchisement. They reported feelings of insufficient support settling in to life in Japan, dealing with faculty and administration, and adjusting their academic expectations to the reality of their classroom experiences (Heigham, 2014). I found this surprising since international students are often featured in the university marketing materials and appear to be highly valued by the university because of their essential role in the university’s internationalization. As a long-term foreign resident and university teacher in Japan, the international students’ stories resonated with me, for I too have been a symbol of internationalization in some institutions. In previous work environments, I have been photographed and featured as a representative foreigner, and yet when I, as a native-English-speaking teacher, was asked to recommend curricular or policy innovation, my ideas were often disregarded, with the status

Center St age but Inv isible

163

quo being maintained. At these times, my role was to superficially promote faculty diversity as a selling point, but not to participate in collaborative innovation or internationalization. Although in my experience this has not always been the case, I could relate to the international students’ feelings of marginalization, and I was compelled to help them communicate their feelings to the university. It was from this standpoint that I began this critical action research project. After working with these international students for several months, I developed a relationship with the university’s International Affairs Section. Our first connection was made after I learned that an ETP student with weak English skills was struggling with his classes. Through International Affairs, I offered developmental English help to any ETP student who desired it during the two-month spring holiday, and I helped two students. After that, I began working with International Affairs as an informal liaison between them and the ETP students. From that point, I began researching the experiences of non-Japanese ETP students as they had reported the greatest academic and life challenges. Since then, many positive changes have been implemented for international students at the university, and more are in the process of being made. Nevertheless, since endeavors to internationalize universities are growing across the nation, in order to illuminate potential problems that can arise during the internationalization process, this chapter focuses on students’ concerns prior to subsequent intervention and improvements.

Overview of the Study While working with the international students, it became apparent that the university needed to develop awareness of the international students’ experiences, and it needed to quickly begin making concrete improvements for them. In order to understand the challenges the international ETP students experienced in their university life and to use the students as a resource for finding solutions to their problems, I decided to work together with them. Thus, a critical action research approach seemed appropriate because through it ‘the stakeholders of the research work with the researchers to define the problem and set the research agenda, find new ways of seeing the situation, and work toward solutions’ (Davis, 2008: 139). The primary stakeholders here are the international students and the university itself because the success of the ETP is inextricably linked to the satisfaction of the international students and to the growth of campus internationalization. The initial research question for this project was twofold: What are the challenges faced by the ETP students and how can they be reduced? However, after analysis of early interviews, the question soon evolved to: How and in what ways do ETP students feel the university is underserving them? The goal of the research was to discover students’ perceptions of shortcomings in

164

Section 4: The Student and Facult y E xper ience

services in order to help the university, and other universities working toward internationalization, to better serve this important group of students.

Context and Participants The university where this study took place is a large, prestigious university with multiple campuses mainly in the Tokyo metropolitan area. The campus with the ETP has over 4000 students, and less than 5% of them are international. This small group of students have varied ethnic backgrounds and nationalities including German, Indonesian, Mozambican, South Korean and Uzbek. These international students are in Japanese-medium programs, graduate research programs in Japanese or English, or the ETP. Within the ETP, there are just over 100 students, about half of whom have at least one Japanese parent and hold Japanese passports, so they are not considered international students. This research focuses on the experiences of the nonJapanese set of ETP students, and henceforth, when ETP students are mentioned in this chapter, it is the international ETP students that are being referred to. On the main campus of the university, there is an international center with a dedicated office that offers a wide variety of services for students. On the ETP campus, however, there is only an international affairs section that consists of three permanent staff positions and three temporary contract workers who also have duties outside International Affairs; one of these contract workers is a recently hired multilingual foreigner. This small and busy staff manages all aspects of international affairs for the campus, and they are unable to make student support a priority. In fact, direct support for international students, just like for Japanese students, is provided by the Student Life Section where information for things such as scholarships, insurance, housing and clubs (commonly referred to as circles) is offered mainly in Japanese.

Research Method Data for this study were collected through interviews, group discussions and email correspondence. I worked with students to pass their concerns to the university and provided suggestions for solutions; thus, the interview data are considered ‘co-constructed discourse events’ (Block, 2000: 759). Over a two-year period, I interviewed 23 students representing 13 different cultural backgrounds from Eastern and Western Europe, Northern, Southern and Eastern Asia, and North and Central America. Several students were interviewed more than once. Prior to the interviews, I knew the participants personally after having met them through English events on campus or through other students.

Center St age but Inv isible

165

Fourteen interviewees were male and nine were female, a fairly representative ratio of the current gender division of the ETP program. The interviews were typically highly interactive with participants leading most of the discussion after I posed loosely framed questions such as: Describe how you settled into life here in Japan? What do you think of your classes? These discussions also included substantial joint brainstorming. All but five of the interviews were recorded, transcribed and thematically analyzed (Saldana, 2009); the five that were not recorded happened spontaneously, and I was only able to take notes during the discussions. When participants are quoted in this chapter, pseudonyms are used. The cycles of this research consisted of the following pattern: I interviewed students, analyzed and reflected on the data, talked with university administration and/or faculty, reflected on that discussion and returned to the students to share and start the process again. The administrative representatives I collaborated with included staff from International Affairs and faculty on the ETP sub-committee, the committee in charge of all aspects of the ETP program. I also met representatives from Student Affairs and Student Life and the deans of two departments on the campus, and I helped organize two formal meetings between the ETP students, the deans and various administrative representatives.

Findings and Discussion I identified numerous themes in the data, but this chapter focuses on two broad categories of student concerns: their non-academic life (e.g. life management and social networks), and their academic life (e.g. English language limitations of the faculty and teaching practices). In this section these concerns are examined.

Non-academic issues The non-academic needs of non-Japanese-speaking international students can be quite different from those of local students (Sandhu, 1994) and even from Japanese-speaking international students who can generally manage daily tasks independently. However, because of the university’s longstanding egalitarian approach to serving students regardless of background and circumstances, some administrators may not realize that ETP students, unlike Japanese students or Japanese-speaking international students, often need assistance in setting up their new life, forming social groups and negotiating daily life on campus. It is these topics that will be discussed here.

Starting out According to the participants, settling into life as an ETP student was reportedly stressful, as it is for most people moving into a new environment

166

Section 4: The Student and Facult y E xper ience

(Brown & Holloway, 2008). Like many universities in Japan, this university has few dormitories, and most students, including international students, must find their own housing. Initially, ETP students had to manage all aspects of settling into life in Japan with little formal assistance from the university beyond links to various service providers such as real estate agencies or private dormitory companies, which typically operate in Japanese or in very limited English. Students said that finding places to live, getting cell phones, opening bank accounts and so on were overwhelming. This was because, as recent high school graduates on their own for the first time (sometimes with parents who cannot speak Japanese), they did not have the maturity or the cultural and linguistic resources to manage these procedures. They described these experiences as stressful, horrible and nightmarish. After finishing his personal story, one student remarked, ‘I don’t know how I survived.’ If one considers what has been expected of these international students in comparison with what is generally expected of their counterparts in English-speaking countries, it is prodigious. For example, in English-speaking countries, foreign students have to prove their English ability by achieving a minimum score on examinations such as TOEFL or IELTS, and once they enroll in universities they are normally expected to be able to function independently within the English-speaking society. Students studying in ETPs in Japan are required to have high English language proficiency, generally as measured by standardized tests, but they are not required to have any Japanese language ability. However, English proficiency has no bearing on their ability to manage their lives in Japan. Trying to treat these students as domestic students is unrealistic. After learning about the struggles some students had experienced and receiving further governmental funding (Top Global University Project funding), the International Affairs Section took action. Among a variety of improvements, they hired a multilingual foreign staff member who, along with other duties, assists international students with these settling-in tasks, and her help has been extensively praised by students. This new service is an excellent addition to student support, and it is clearly a necessity for many ETP students.

Social support networks Along with help settling into life in Japan, the participants felt that the university should do more to help them establish friendships and build social support networks, especially with Japanese students. Currently, it seems that most ETP students interact almost exclusively with other ETP students. Although this is common among international students worldwide (Morita, 2012; Sawir et al., 2008), and some staff believe it is good because the students make a tightly knit support group for their unique circumstances, it contradicts the university’s aim of building an international campus environment. Additionally, it is not what most ETP students say that they want;

Center St age but Inv isible

167

they want to connect with Japanese students and experience a sense of belonging in their campus life in Japan. Circles (highly structured, student-run, club-like activities) are the heart of social networks on Japanese university campuses (Warrington, 2006), and although international students are encouraged to join them, gaining entry to them and building and maintaining relationships with circle members can be difficult. The participants believe that these circles are key to developing a rich social life, particularly one that extends beyond their own ETP cohort, and as the following quote highlights, many want to be a part of them: I really hope that we could blend in with the other [circle] members better so that they can welcome us more and think of us as one part of their family. (Harriet) The community that develops in circles is seen as a family-like group, and the ETP students have a strong desire for the sense of belonging that comes with being a part of such groups. However, because there is no circle information available in English, some ETP students cannot find their way into circles. There is a detailed handbook and extensive face-to-face recruitment for circles in Japanese, but it is not English. For the last two years a Japanese returnee has organized a small circle orientation in English that has been promoted through the previously mentioned English event group on campus. Circles were invited to participate but only a few did; sometimes scheduling was a problem, but often there was a lack of English speakers in their groups. The attendance and enthusiasm of ETP students at these events was extremely high, and many joined circles as a result. Nevertheless, international students with limited Japanese skills still hesitate to join circles with few or no English speakers. After joining a circle, participating in them is not always easy, especially for beginning Japanese speakers. For the most basic participation, students must understand when and where events are held, but even this information can be difficult for some to obtain. The following comments exemplify this challenge: […] the main choreographer was like yeah, I will write you a message in English every time. Um, he forgot two times and then all the sudden, they were asking me like hey, why haven’t you come to practice, and I was like what? I don’t understand. I haven’t gotten a message. So apparently he forgot and like from that moment on, um, like they put me all the way in the back of the group and it just felt really weird. Because they were like but you never came to practice, and I mean technically it was not my fault. Then I felt kind of discriminated against a little bit. (Mark) Sometimes I was at the gym and there was just no practice … and then they told me later, oh practice was somewhere else. (Lily)

168

Section 4: The Student and Facult y E xper ience

As seen above, at times it is impossible for ETP students to participate in circles activities, and they feel that they are missing important opportunities. Without these opportunities, the students come to feel like they are outsiders. In addition to this fundamental communication obstacle, international students in circles often face a dilemma. They wish to be treated like regular members of the group, but because of linguistic limitations and cultural differences, this is not always possible. In some circles, students are given such special treatment as foreigners that they feel uncomfortable, but more commonly no allowances are made for them at all, as these quotes demonstrate. My other [ETP] friend and I was kind of left out because we like were both new to the circle, we don’t know their practicing processes. I think I learned helplessness and just stood by the wall, pretending that I was busy eating my bread. Thankfully, a member invited us to practice so my friend and I started practicing some balls but we were practicing ourselves. The members are not that good in English, so they couldn’t really teach us. So my friend and I weren’t able to have fun with the other members. We could only keep practicing by ourselves. (Ramona) A senior asked me afterwards if I’d heard about the Christmas party. I told her yeah, I saw the post but I couldn’t really understand it. Then that member [who had complained to me earlier] spoke up. Even though I couldn’t really understand the Japanese, I could like figure out that she was saying how we’re supposed to get used to Japanese because most of the members are Japanese and they have no obligation of writing their posts in English just for us. (Tiffany) Being unable to assimilate into circles is a disappointment for students, leaving them feeling sidelined and extraneous, and it contributes to their dissatisfaction with their university life. Although it is important to acknowledge that it is difficult for universities to provide English support in social contexts such as these, circles are nonetheless a fundamental part of Japanese university life, and the ETP students do not have equal opportunity to build the social networks they afford. Dunne (2013: 569) emphasizes the ‘vital need for meaningful contact’ between local and international students in order for multicultural benefits to be realized, and it is clear that for ETP students to experience that contact in circles, they need help. Providing this help may be challenging, but taking such measures would serve the students and the long-term international aims of the university. As Gareis (2000) states, interaction of foreign and local students is of great importance to future international relations. Additionally, intercultural literacy gained through reflective cross-cultural experience is essential for individuals to

Center St age but Inv isible

169

form global identities (Heyward, 2002). For successful university internationalization, these global identities need to be constructed by not only the international students, but also the Japanese students. Determining what would make international student participation in circles easier and then establishing basic guidelines for circles about how to support international students could promote this interaction. Through this, Japanese students would understand the priority the university places on internationalization by witnessing it promote the internationalization of non-academic aspects of campus.

Written English Since Japanese language ability is not a requirement for ETP students, communication with the university administrators is generally in English. However, this can be haphazard, especially when it comes to paperwork. For example, some documents are in English, some are only in Japanese and others are bilingual, and the English used on the forms is commonly confusing and sometimes inaccurate. Occasionally there is a laminated, translated form provided as a guide to complete Japanese forms, but often there is not. Additionally, some students are concerned that the English and Japanese on some forms differ. This irregularity causes anxiety, particularly if the forms are related to high-stakes opportunities such as scholarships. Furthermore, poor English on official documents undermines students’ confidence in the school. Some students find this humorous, but it also causes concern: Mary: I think my first impression [of the university] was that nobody speaks English … Juanita: Have you revised that impression at all? Mary: I don’t know. It’s half true because I mean there’s a surprising amount of like English speakers sometimes, but then I read the signs that are translated into ‘Engrish’ and I’m just like, yeah no one speaks English here. The health checkup had … English that you can sort of understand but it’s just Google translate coming out. (Coco) There seems to an offhand acceptance of this inaccurate written English, but nevertheless, it undermines students’ views on the academic integrity of the university, a point discussed further later in this chapter. In an attempt to improve the quality of written English, ETP students compiled a list of forms and signs needing correction, and efforts are being made to correct them. However, not all English forms and signs were created on the ETP campus, making it awkward to request necessary changes. Establishing a standardized, university-wide procedure for checking written English before it is made public could rectify this ongoing problem.

170

Section 4: The Student and Facult y E xper ience

ETP students also desire more information provided in English. An example of this is food labeling because some students must know food ingredients and preparation methods for religious and cultural dietary requirements. For some, without English food labels, they can eat very little food available on campus. This further isolates them from the Japanese student body. Taking steps to meet non-Japanese dietary needs is becoming more commonplace in Japanese universities (‘Beppu campus cafeteria becomes nation’s biggest halal-certified eatery,’ 2015; Jackman, 2014), and this can foster high-profile international sensitivity.

Staff encounters In addition to the language issues discussed above, the ETP students often find it difficult to communicate with the university administrative staff who act as gatekeepers for services that can impact their non-academic and academic lives. They give three main reasons for this: the English ability of the staff, the transitory nature of staffing, and the staffs’ apparent lack of enthusiasm working with them. First, as shown in the excerpts below, participants feel that few staff have the linguistic ability to deal with their questions: […] people … are not really good at English, so if I ask them [something] they don’t really get what I’m trying to ask for. And that’s the problem. That’s why I ask [my ETP friends who can speak Japanese] because they translate stuff better for me … I don’t really like how I have to keep doing that. … I just feel bad because I feel like I’m annoying them. (Nancy) Because there is a chance that [the staff] are just going to give them that look, and then that like very generic, lets-put-English-words-togetherand-try-to-make-a-sentence kind of English … yeah, it’s hard to get by without knowing some Japanese. (Mary) [They need] more English-speaking staff because just looking for one person is not going to cut it … I’m just afraid that when something terrible happens um, that this person is on lunch break or something, like I … um what if we go to the office and the one person you are looking for is currently busy or not there and if there’s something extremely serious, then at that moment, it’s really bad for that international student. (Mark) ETP students cannot avoid periodically interacting with administrative staff, and clearly that interaction causes considerable anxiety for some of the participants. They worry about the accuracy of the information they receive from conversations conducted in faulty English and fear having to deal with the staff in the case of an emergency. In situations where the students have no alternative but to deal with the staff, they can be left feeling uneasy and frustrated.

Center St age but Inv isible

171

In addition to language issues, the common Japanese practice of transferring staff from one administrative section to another unsettles ETP students. Students cannot always count on staff they found helpful in the past to be in the same department on subsequent visits. They find this disconcerting as illustrated below by a participant’s disappointment in learning that an administrative ally had been transferred to another campus: […] he spoke really good English and he was really, really good to the, all the international students, and he was the only person who is really good with English and he got moved to [another campus]. And then everybody was kind of upset. Because we were like, what are we going to do now? (Kari) Because of the challenges in communicating with the administration, familiarity with staff can provide a reassuring stability for the ETP students. Such transfers can be disruptive for them, especially since the new person may or may not speak English. Additionally, intra-university transfers can be somewhat random, and as such, new staff may have little interest in working with international students. Students perceive this as another example of how their needs are misunderstood or how they are disregarded by the university, and it contributes to their perceptions of having insufficient support. Therefore, maintaining capable key staff who want to work with international students is essential. The third reason why the international students feel that it is difficult to obtain administrative support is that they believe the staff sometimes find them troublesome. Some of their comments included the following: Administration I can also see sometimes just does not like us. (Nancy) I think they think we’re kind of a pain. (Stan) They hate to see us coming. (Karl) International students invariably have more questions and different kinds of problems than the domestic students, so they typically require more help. They have come to believe, however, that if the staff considered international students an asset, the extra effort necessary to support them would not be given grudgingly. The students become reluctant to ask for help because they are made to feel that they burden the staff, and this too results in an increased feeling of isolation.

Policies Related to the issues described above, administrative policies caused consternation for ETP students. For example, many of the students interviewed complained about the process for submitting grade contestation forms. These

172

Section 4: The Student and Facult y E xper ience

forms can only be submitted in person during a short period during the summer or spring break; however, international students frequently leave Japan soon after classes finish. Together, two students pushed to have their contestations accepted electronically, arguing that the teacher had admitted making a grading mistake, and that grades play an essential role in future graduate-school applications. After numerous emails and appeals, these students were successful in having their grades changed ‘this time only.’ Nonetheless, the following illustrates the irritation experienced by one of them: [The administrator] said that he understood our ‘condition’ but couldn’t do anything for us because it was ‘no concern’ if we’re international students or not. The deadline was the deadline. And then he said, oh by the way, your department doesn’t use the GPA system, so classes you fail don’t show up on your transcript so don’t worry about it. Like the fact the teacher gave us the wrong grade wasn’t important and we could just flush a semester’s work down the toilet. (Stan) Clearly, as this case highlights, when the unique circumstances of international students are not thoroughly considered, problems unexpectedly arise. As an additional example, on another campus there is an all-English program open to all the university’s students, and to apply for it, applicants must submit standardized English test scores. Some ETP students are native English speakers or are graduates of English-speaking international schools and as such have never taken such exams. Nonetheless, they were told they needed to submit these scores. Such experiences are not uncommon for international students well beyond this campus; nevertheless, they caused feelings of injustice among some students, and further showed how the different circumstances of international students in ETPs are sometimes overlooked.

Academic issues Alongside the issues discussed in the previous section, the international students raised concerns related to the academic quality of their education. These concerns are grouped into two categories: English language limitations of the faculty, and the teaching practices the faculty employ.

English language limitations Based on the marketing material that students had received prior to applying to the university, students believed that they would receive a worldclass education in English. However, not all students have found this to be the case; there were a number of complaints about their professors’ lack of English ability, and they questioned some aspects of the academic standards of the ETP. Looking first at English ability, the following extracts demonstrate the frustration that can result from the teachers’ limited English skills

Center St age but Inv isible

173

and how in some cases the students feel that their own abilities surpass that of the professors: Emma: [During class selection week,] I went to all the classes I could to find teachers who could speak understandable English. Juanita: So you chose classes based on English ability not on class content? Emma: Yes. […] for assignments the quality of our work is not being taking into consideration anymore because like there is not really any point if you write like a really amazing essay because professors aren’t going to really understand what you are trying to say anyway. (Robbie) The course options for ETP students are already limited owing to the small demand for EMI courses, and of the courses offered, students find some unendurable owing to the English level of the teachers. This further reduces their options and leaves students feeling academically cheated. This feeling is exacerbated when students are required to take a course where they believe their classwork cannot be fairly evaluated by their teachers because of the teacher’s English proficiency level. The participants commented that their learning is sometimes adversely affected owing to their professors’ limited English ability because the lecture content can be overly simplified: I think it’s a content problem because of the English problem because it seems that most of the teachers that do struggle with English, they keep their presentation at a basic level … um, I don’t know exactly how to say it but in [one class], most of the things he has to talk about are pretty complicated devices, and by him struggling with English, the content is kept to a basic level, where some of the times you really need those specific words or you really need to get into detail. And the teacher just lacks in doing so because he cannot explain it to you in English. (Mark) Juanita: So you’ve already talked some about your classes and you say that the quality of English is a problem. Mick: Yes, and maybe because of that, they don’t really teach us much content. And our assignments are either really random or too easy … And we even don’t know if we’re doing things right because we don’t really know what’s being asked of us. These comments reveal how students can feel superficial content, unclear lectures or inadequate assignment explanations prohibit them from engaging in in-depth learning, and as a result, some question their decision to attend this university because they believe they could be learning more elsewhere.

174

Section 4: The Student and Facult y E xper ience

While the comments in this section may seem alarming, and the frustration felt by the students is very real, it is not uncommon for teachers in ETPs worldwide to struggle with English language ability (Costa, 2015; Huang & Singh, 2014; Kling & Hjulmand, 2008), and these English language limitations for teachers can have a variety of results, including content simplification as just mentioned, and a reluctance to use English even when it is required. The ETP classes are to be taught in English, and the marketing material for the program states that they will be taught ‘solely’ in English. Despite this, if the majority of the students in an ETP class are Japanese, the teachers tend to teach all or part of the class in Japanese (for their own convenience or for the benefit of the Japanese students who typically have limited English skills as well). Furthermore, some teachers provide class materials only in Japanese or in Japanese with superficial English translations added. These behaviors can exasperate students, as the following comments demonstrate: I thought ‘[ETP] class’ meant ‘English class,’ but it doesn’t always. Like on the first day of class, a couple of teachers asked who can speak Japanese and if everybody did, they’d teach in Japanese. But there’s me. (laughed) One [teacher] even said, English? Mendokusai (troublesome). He was laughing but still … (Robbie) He gave us Japanese explanations for the answers out of the Japanese textbook. I asked him, isn’t there anything in English because obviously I can’t read this, and he is like, nope sorry, I don’t have anything. (Karl) Classroom experiences where students cannot understand the teacher or the teaching materials damage the quality of students’ learning and undermine students’ confidence in the program. This has caused students to feel, at best, second rate for being a minority whose rights are overruled by the convenience of others, and at worst, humiliated and angry. Coupled with these feelings is the impression that some teachers are forced to teach in English and doing so is an unwelcome burden. The following comments illustrate some of the students’ perceptions: And it’s obvious this guy did not want to teach this class. (Jeremy) And I also feel that there are teachers who want to teach in English and there are teachers who are forced to teach in English. (Emma) I don’t want them to hate us for having to teach in English. (Nancy) Teachers may not realize the effect their attitudes and behaviors have on their students, but students dislike sensing that they are a burden and feeling

Center St age but Inv isible

175

that they need to apologize for inconveniencing their teachers. Additionally, they worry about the impact a teacher’s apparent dislike may have on their grades. To alleviate these concerns, universities should make it a priority to clearly inform teachers about what promises have been made to the students in program marketing because, in recruiting the students, the university makes commitments to them that teachers need to uphold.

Teaching style Alongside the linguistic challenges that clearly shape the quality of the lectures, international students often hold different expectations of what they believe to be good classroom practices. They think the teachers tend to lecture too much and give too few assignments. Again, they feel that they are not always being challenged academically. I feel that a lot of classes are passive. We just listen. (Gerald) For classes it wasn’t what I expected, like I thought we’d have more assignments. But actually there was no assignments and it’s just all lectures. I mean once in a while there is an essay, but we have mostly just a final test, but we don’t really know what to study for, for the final test because it just based on the lecture. And some teachers don’t have slides, so we don’t really have anything to study other than what we heard in class. (Abe) These comments reveal a feeling of stagnation within their learning environment that they have found unpleasantly surprising. The students are also concerned by the lack of feedback from teachers and by the absence of transparent grading. A few participants reported receiving isolated feedback, but some claimed that they had received no feedback for any assignment submitted. This may or may not be true, but it is what the students feel is the case. As previously mentioned, some students wished to contest their grades, and the main reason for this is the lack of feedback given during the course. Students cannot understand why they get the grades they receive. The quotes below exemplify these interconnected concerns: Juanita: The assignments that you did, were they graded? Mick: No we didn’t get any grades. We just turn them in and that’s it. We don’t know what happens. We just get the grade at the end of the semester. I think the main concern here is the grading system. I have heard rumors from my seniors that in some classes grades are given by random because of the teacher’s English ability is not good enough thus judging the final report by the word count. I am really unsure if this is true however it has raised some questions of how I got an A in a class where I felt I did not

176

Section 4: The Student and Facult y E xper ience

do much work in and a B in a class where I put a lot of effort in, for my fall grade report. (Daniel) My first two [half semester] classes that ended, they gave out grades. They never gave feedbacks though so I’m not sure why I got Bs. Because it was like [a class where] all we do is draw with crayons and wrote about how we feel about living in Japan. I don’t know how I ended up with a B. (Haley) Without feedback students feel their education is unguided, and they frequently question the grades they receive. These problems suggest that some teachers are not ready to teach in English; they do not yet have high enough English skills, and they are not prepared to teach an international audience which can have different expectations from those found in traditional higher education in Japan (‘Improving teaching at universities,’ 2013; McVeigh, 2002; Stapleton, 2011). Actually, the challenges discussed in this section are not surprising since Japan has so recently introduced ETPs into its universities, and with any new venture of this magnitude, growing pains are unavoidable. Nevertheless, fundamental problems such as these should be addressed with alacrity because they contribute to ETPs students’ feelings of marginalization and dissatisfaction, particularly when they talk with international students in Japanese-medium courses and hear that they are much more satisfied with their educational experiences.

Conclusion Although there are many ways in which the students interviewed for this study feel that their experiences in a Japan-based ETP are unique and satisfying, the aim of this research was to explore how and in what way the ETP students felt the university is underserving them so that further improvements can be made to the program. Throughout the interviews conducted, students confided that they were not completely satisfied with their university life, and they felt that the university ‘wasn’t ready’ to meet their expectations. Challenges in meeting ETP students’ expectations are not unique to this university; they are or have been shared by many other institutions as well (Byun et al., 2011; Mellion, 2006). Twenty years ago Harris (1995: 77) observed that, ‘Unless universities take seriously the implications of having overseas students, which include organisation and staff development issues as well as the proper adaptation of teaching methods and techniques, there is serious potential for things to go wrong.’ Today we are watching universities struggle with things that have, to some degree, gone wrong. What ETPs in Japan have to offer international students is growing richer, but as yet, Japanese tertiary education, including the university

Center St age but Inv isible

177

discussed in this chapter, is not highly competitive in the global market (‘70% of foreign students shun offers from University of Tokyo degree programs in English,’ 2015). The ETP students in this study are only part of the international population on campus, but their experiences no doubt share similarities with those of other international students. However, it is certain that there are substantial differences since the majority of the other international students there are fluent in Japanese. Many of the linguistic challenges that affect the ETP students may not apply to them. Despite this advantage, it would be beneficial to investigate the challenges these students face to find the common ground among all of this international minority group. Additionally, further research investigating obstacles that the administration and faculty face making changes aimed at internationalization would inform the developing understanding in Japan of how best to implement changes to improve international student satisfaction. This chapter has shown that the international ETP students cannot be satisfied with their experiences in this ETP unless their basic social and educational expectations are met, and until they feel that all the members of the institution, including the faculty, administrative staff and domestic students, want them to be a part of it. This can only be achieved by recognizing that international students are in fact different than domestic ones and that they have special needs that must be provided for and that, as hosts, the Japanese university body must learn how to adapt to the needs of the increasingly diverse student population. The university discussed in this chapter, not unlike other universities in Japan with developing ETPs, appears to have an abstract, academic interest in the concept of internationalization, and within the ETP it sees international students as a valuable commodity that it simultaneously places in the spotlight and yet somewhat ignores. One student remarked, ‘The [ETP] was built on buzz words … but it doesn’t deliver.’ At present, this remark may be somewhat true, and while examining student dissatisfaction may be uncomfortable, it is through research like this that the needs of the increasing international student populations can be better understood and then met. All universities with ETPs would benefit from such examination because the world’s top universities did not abruptly materialize, rather they evolved over time. By listening to the voice of international students on Japanese campuses, steps can be taken toward improving the quality of their experiences, and it is this evolutionary process that will lead universities toward their goal of becoming truly global.

References 70% of foreign students shun offers from University of Tokyo degree programs in English (2015) The Japan Times, 29 March. See http://www.japantimes.co.jp (accessed 4 January 2015).

178

Section 4: The Student and Facult y E xper ience

Beppu campus cafeteria becomes nation’s biggest halal-certified eatery (2015). The Japan Times, 9 November. See http://www.japantimes.co.jp (accessed 14 December 2015). Block, D. (2000) Problematizing interview data: Voices in the mind’s machine? TESOL Quarterly 34, 757–63. Brown, L. and Holloway, I. (2008) The initial stage of the international sojourn: Excitement or culture shock? British Journal of Guidance and Counselling 36 (1), 33–49. Byun, K., Chu, H., Kim, M., Park, I., Kim, S. and Jung, J. (2011) English-medium teaching in Korean higher education: Policy debates and reality. Higher Education 62 (4), 431–449. Campbell, J. and Li, M. (2007) Asian students’ voices: An empirical study of Asian students’ learning experiences at a New Zealand university. Journal of Studies in International Education 12, 375–396. Costa, F. (2015) EMI teacher training courses in Europe. RiCOGNIZIONI 2 (4), 119–127. Davis, C. (2008) Critical action research. In L.M. Given (ed.) The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods (pp. 139–142). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dunne, C. (2013) Exploring motivations for intercultural contact among host country university students: An Irish case study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 37, 567–578. Gareis, E. (2000) Intercultural friendships: Five case studies of German students in the USA. Journal of Intercultural Studies 21 (1), 67–91. Hammer, M. (2012) The intercultural development inventory: A new frontier in assessment and development of intercultural competence. In M. Vande Berg, R.M. Paige and K. Lou (eds) Student Learning Abroad: What our Students are Learning, What They’re Not, and What we Can Do About it. (pp. 115–136). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Harris, R. (1995) Overseas students in the United Kingdom university system. Higher Education 29 (1), 77–92. Heigham, J. (2014) Voices on campus: International students in an English-medium instruction degree program in Japan. Journal of the Ochanomizu University English Society 5, 64–74. Hendrickson, B., Rosen, D. and Aune, R.K. (2011) An analysis of friendship networks, social connectedness, homesickness, and satisfaction levels of international students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (3), 281–295. Heyward, M. (2002) From international to intercultural: Redefining the international school for a globalized world. Journal of Research in International Education 1 (1), 9–32. Huang, D. and Singh, M. (2014) Critical perspectives on testing teaching: Reframing teacher education for English medium instruction. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 42 (4), 363–378. Improving teaching at universities (2013) The Japan Times, 13 April. See http://www. japantimes.co.jp (accessed 4 January 2016). Jackman, S. (2014) Campus cafeteria in Chiba serves up halal food for thought. The Japan Times, 22 July. See http://www.japantimes.co.jp (accessed 14 December 2015). JASSO (2015) International Students in Japan 2014. See http://www.jasso.go.jp/en/ about/statistics/intl_student/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2015/11/24/data14_brief_e.pdf Kling, J. and Hjulmand, L.L. (2008) PLATE: Project in language assessment for teaching in English. In R. Wilkinson and V. Zegers (eds) Realizing Content and Language Integration in Higher Education (pp. 191–200). Maastricht: Maastricht University. Lee, J. and Rice, C. (2007) Welcome to America? International student perceptions of discrimination. Higher Education 53 (3), 381–409. Liu, D. (1998) Ethnocentrism in TESOL: Teacher education and the neglected needs of international TESOL students. ELT Journal 52 (1), 3–10. McVeigh, B.J. (2002) Japanese Higher Education as Myth. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Center St age but Inv isible

179

Mellion, M.J. (2006) The challenge of changing tongues in business university education. In R. Wilkinson and V. Zegers (eds) Realizing Content and Language Integration in Higher Education (pp. 212–227). Maastricht: Universitaire Pers Maastricht. Morita, L. (2012) Internationalisation and intercultural interaction at a Japanese university – A continuing inquiry. Electronic Journal of Contemporary Japanese Studies 12 (2). http://www.japanesestudies.org.uk/ejcjs/vol12/iss2/morita.html Petruzzellis, L., D’Uggento, A.M. and Romanazzi, S. (2006) Student satisfaction and quality of service in Italian universities. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal 16 (4), 349–364. Saldana, J. (2009) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. London: Sage. Sam, D.L. (2001) Satisfaction with life among international students: An exploratory study. Social Indicators Research 53 (3), 315–337. Sandhu, D. (1994) An examination of the psychological needs of the international students: Implications for counselling and psychotherapy. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling 17 (4), 229–239. Sawir, E., Marginson, S., Deumert, A., Nyland, C. and Ramia, G. (2008) Loneliness and international students: An Australian study. Journal of Studies in International Education 12 (2), 148–180. Stapleton, P. (2011) Japanese universities: Change or risk marginalization. The Language Teacher 35 (5), 37–41. Trice, A.G. (2003) Faculty perceptions of graduate international students: The benefits and challenges. Journal of Studies in International Education 7 (4), 379–403. Warrington, S.D. (2006) The time in between: Socialization training as a learning priority for Japanese university students. Asian TEFL Journal, Professional Teaching Articles 12, 1–14.

11 Gender in English-Medium Instruction Programs: Differences in International Awareness? Sae Shimauchi

In recent years, internationalization has become a dominant theme in discussions of higher education. This discourse is being driven by the globalization of commerce, social forces, ease in the exchange of ideas and growth in student mobility (Hudzik, 2011). English is considered an essential medium of communication for internationalization activities, including those at the higher education level. English has also become the most important international language of business, science, education and technology (Graddol, 2006), as well as in the academic sphere (Altbach, 2007). In Japan, one interesting feature of this trend toward a greater role for English has been a gender imbalance. For some time now, English-language learning programs have had a demonstrated overrepresentation of female students (Morizumi, 2002), and the same is true for the more recently adopted English-medium instruction (EMI) programs. As the data in this chapter shows, EMI programs adopted as part of Japanese universities’ internationalization strategies tend to attract more female students. This raises some interesting questions. Why do Japanese female students prefer to study in EMI programs? What are the learning outcomes of EMI programs and how do male and female students’ perceptions of international awareness develop through their experience with EMI?

Gender and International Awareness in Japanese Universities In echoes of wider Japanese society, Japanese university communities have some rather striking gendered characteristics. Even though Japan succeeded in 180

Gender in English-Medium Instruc t ion Programs

181

realizing equal access to higher education in the 1980s, the actual education continuance rate for four-year universities is still 10% higher for male high school graduates, and male university students enter graduate school at double the rate that female students do (MEXT, 2015). While the higher education enrollment rate is roughly equal at 55% for both male and female students (Statistics Japan, 2015), female students are more likely to attend two-year junior colleges or less prestigious four-year universities. The more elite or highly competitive universities show an overrepresentation of male students. For instance, the proportion of female undergraduate students in 2015 was only 18.6% in the University of Tokyo, 22.3% in Kyoto University and 33.5% in Meiji University, according to each university’s public information webpage. However, EMI programs with an international focus are increasing in number, and have a different demographic makeup. EMI programs, even those within the elite universities, tend to attract more female Japanese students. For example, the School of International Liberal Arts at Waseda University offers EMI education and its female student ratio is close to 60% while the university’s overall proportion of female students is only 37%. Despite the trend toward a greater role for English and international activities in Japanese higher education institutions, there is no definite consensus about what constitutes the international awareness or international ability which the Japanese government and higher education institutions expect their global-citizen domestic students to have. Lilley et al. (2014) conceptualize the phenomenon of being a global citizen through their interviews with students. They show that identification as a global citizen is explained as having the qualities of ‘openness, tolerance, respect, and responsibility’ toward others (Lilley et al., 2014: 231). However, Morita (2013) reveals that half of the Japanese students in a certain national university which was awarded Global 30 Project (G30) funding to establish EMI programs do not find themselves in an intercultural context in the university and are protective of Japanese culture, although the university curriculum within which they study presupposes that the students will be operating in intercultural contexts after graduation. This chapter will examine the gendered landscape of EMI, focusing on students’ motivation for engaging in EMI and their development of international awareness as an outcome of EMI programs.

The Shape of EMI in Japan EMI programs can have different goals and purposes. They may be designed for any combination of educating domestic students, attracting and educating international students or sharpening the profile of universities in the international market (Doiz et al., 2013). Over the past decade in Japan, the government has implemented several policies to encourage universities

182

Section 4: The Student and Facult y E xper ience

to introduce EMI for just these reasons. However, not all programs are implementing EMI in the same way. Shimauchi’s (2016) study of EMI in Japanese universities demonstrates three models of EMI programs based on the characteristics of the program and profile of the students involved. The vast majority of Japanese EMI programs are categorized as either Dejima models, serving primarily international students, or Global Citizen models, which attract mostly Japanese domestic high school graduates. Crossroad programs, which accommodate a balance of domestic and international students, are fairly rare. The Dejima model takes its name from a small island named Dejima in southern Japan. In the Edo period, interaction between Japan and other countries was forbidden except on Dejima, where a small number of Dutch traders were allowed to operate. The term Dejima now implies being cut off or secluded, and in the Dejima model of EMI, international students are isolated from the vast majority of Japanese students. The majority of full-degree English-taught programs (ETPs) established under the government’s G30 Project are categorized in this model. The programs themselves are somehow secluded on campus and are surrounded by, but do not interact with, the mainstream Japanese-medium environment of the university, and the international students have little contact with the vast majority of Japanese students. In addition, in many cases, the actual ETP degree is granted only to international students, although some domestic students with adequate English ability are allowed to participate in the same classes. Global Citizen EMI programs on the other hand have been developed in response to the ongoing pressure to attract more domestic students amid a shrinking cohort of university-aged young people. Universities see EMI as a way to prepare Japanese students as global human resources with international awareness and global competitiveness. In reality, some EMI programs may be simply the most eye-catching strategy to attract more domestic students in the age of a graying population. In order to explore the possible gender differences in international awareness among domestic students, this chapter focuses on EMI programs categorized as Global Citizen programs. Using the above models to differentiate the characteristics of the EMI programs, the seven Global Citizen model EMI programs shown in Table 11.1 have been chosen from the Japan Student Services Organization’s list of undergraduate EMI programs (JASSO, 2015a) to be examined in the following study. Three universities have been excluded from the study: a women’s university and two universities which do not disclose the number of female students in the university’s public information. All programs, in principle, provide a bachelor’s degree in taught in English, but this does not always assure that all the classes are entirely conducted in English. Owing to the nature of students’ profiles, professors sometimes use the Japanese language to facilitate the students’ understanding. In addition, a heavy proportion of the curriculum in some universities consists of English language learning, not

Gender in English-Medium Instruc t ion Programs

183

Table 11.1 Examples of global citizen model EMI programs and their gender ratios Name of the university and EMI program

Percentage of female students (EMI program)

Percentage of female students (all undergraduate)

Akita International University International Christian University Miyazaki International College, School of International Liberal Arts Kwansai Gakuin University, School of International Studies Meiji Gakuin University, Faculty of International Studies Hosei University, Department of Global and Interdisciplinary Studies Ritsumeikan University, College of International Relations

61.5 64.5 56.3

—a —b 57.6

65.5

48.4

72.9

58.1

60.8

35.8

60.3

36.5

a b

All students at the university study in an EMI program; 17% of the courses throughout the entire university are offered in English.

English-medium learning, since development of the students’ linguistic skills is necessary to pursue academic work. As shown in Table 11.1, EMI programs tend to accommodate more female students than are seen in the general student body, with one notable exception. At Miyazaki International College, a newly established School of Education focusing on early childhood and elementary education skews the gender balance of the entire campus toward female. There are no studies that explain the reason why EMI programs are popular with female students. However, there are several studies which reveal the strong tie between English language learning in general and Japanese females. Morizumi (2002) analyzes data such as the gender composition of university entrance, registration for language learning classes and the results of the TOEFL test to show that Japanese females are more enthusiastic about learning English. Kobayashi (2010) reports that young Japanese womens’ positive attitudes toward English are affected by a composite of Japanese social and educational elements such as the language industry’s presentation of English proficiency as an effective tool for women’s achievement of better lives and women’s marginalization in mainstream society. Similarly, recent quantitative studies by Terasawa (2015) show that the engagement of Japanese females in English learning can be seen in highly educated, upper social class and urban residents. Terasawa (2013) also notes that English learning had been a relatively male-oriented activity until the late 1980s, when it became more popular with women. These gender differences are not only seen in English-language

184

Section 4: The Student and Facult y E xper ience

learning; there is also an overrepresentation of Japanese women taking part other international activities. According to the latest statistics (JASSO, 2015b), the ratio of male to female Japanese students who studied abroad in 2013 was about 35:65. One apparent contradiction is worth noting at this point. Even though female students are more attracted to English-language courses and EMI programs, and are much more likely to study abroad, English does not seem to be of significant tangible value to them in the labor market. Grin (2001) has shown that, around the world, English proficiency does not bring economic value for females to the same extent that it does for males. In Japan, Terasawa (2015) has shown that, even though women tend to have more education in English, their actual use of English in the workplace is much less than that of their male counterparts. After examining previous studies, the author finds that studies which reveal the relationship between English-medium education and gender within the context of the internationalization of higher education in Japan are few and far between. Therefore, this chapter describes the results of an investigation of possible gender-based differences in the motivations and perceptions of international awareness among Japanese students enrolled in a Global Citizen model EMI program.

Method This research collates data from interviews of seven female and five male students who were studying in EMI classes in a metropolitan Japanese university. This university is known as a 1.5 tier public university and has been ranked as one of the world’s best small universities by Times Higher Education. It attracts about 4000 students from various regions in Japan. The university does not offer a degree that can be obtained only by taking EMI credits, but it provides about 30 EMI courses as elective subjects. The three EMI courses examined in this study are electives in Japan studies, comparative education and communications studies. They are open to all students, but are taken by mostly freshmen or sophomores enrolled in an interdisciplinary undergraduate program entitled International College. The students’ majors include economics, business administration, global cooperation, social relations and urban planning and community development. In order to register for EMI courses, students are required to pass a certain level of an English proficiency test (over TOEFL PBT 500 or TOEIC 650) or to complete the university’s English language program offered to all freshmen. In the EMI classes, all the instructions and discussions are conducted entirely in English; therefore, students need a certain level of English skill, especially in speaking, in order to actively participate during the class. Although it is considered more difficult to earn credits in the EMI classes compared with in Japanese-medium instruction (JMI) courses, usually

Gender in English-Medium Instruc t ion Programs

185

students in excess of the classroom limit of 25 attend the first day of the class. The students are screened for enrollment via a short essay that shows their motivation and English proficiency. Because of the nature of the classes and the registration process, students in EMI classes are mostly highly motivated and are confident in English. They are from various regions and socioeconomic backgrounds, but in general, they have a high academic performance. Although students’ gender ratio varies according to the class and semester, an average of 70–80% of the students in the EMI classes are female. This is a notably higher ratio than the number of female students in the department as a whole (48% in 2015). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with students who were recruited on a first-come–first-served basis via an email shared with all students who took any of the three EMI courses from spring 2013 to spring 2015. The interviews lasted between 30 minutes and 1 hour and were carried out in Japanese. They were taped, transcribed and translated into English by the author. All interviewees were given pseudonyms in order to protect their privacy. Table 11.2 provides details of the interviewees’ gender, age and major. The students were asked the following core questions: (1) What are your motivations for taking EMI classes? (2) What did you expect to learn from the EMI classes and what did you get out of the classes? (3) How do you define international awareness based on your experience in EMI classes? Table 11.2 List of interviewees

Yuki Eijiro Rimi Maria Sari Nina Minami Keito Makiko Takashi Kenya Reiji a

Gender

Major

Yeara

Number of EMI classes taken

F M F F F F F M F M M M

Psychology Sociology International Economics International Cooperation Sociology International Politics International Cooperation Education Philosophy International Relations Medical Science Sociology

2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2

4 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 2 3

Student’s academic year at the time of interview.

186

Section 4: The Student and Facult y E xper ience

Findings and Discussion Students’ motivations and experiences in EMI This qualitative study shows a gap between the initial motivation or expectation for taking the EMI classes and the actual experience of the class. As motivation for taking EMI classes, both male and female students expressed clear, practical drives such as ‘to acquire comprehensive English ability as a basic communication skill’ (Maria) and ‘to develop English skills’ (both Kenya and Keito). Yuki described the skills of English ‘as a tangible benefit’ that she could acquire during her college period. Eijiro, Reiji and Minami, who had international backgrounds including studying abroad or a multiethnic family, believed that EMI classes might help them to maintain their English skills, even within the homolinguistic Japanese university. These motivations reflect the students’ pure desire to improve their linguistic skills, especially output skills such as expressing their own opinion and delivering presentations in English in front of an audience. Behind these motivations is a dissatisfaction toward high school English education that attaches much value on ‘input’ (Makiko) and the ‘not practical’ English education that the university offers, which is also ‘English education just for learning English language itself’ (Rimi). Students were also perhaps seeking different perspectives on issues than they would have expected to see in JMI classes. Some students, both male and female, pointed to the presence of a female instructor as one of the motivations for taking the EMI classes. As with the majority of Japanese universities, the vast majority of faculty members at this university are male. Kimura (2009) insists that the unbalanced gender ratio in the faculty conjures images of male superiority and stereotypes of gender adequacy for students. The higher the educational level, the fewer female teachers is the general tendency in the Japanese education system. While the majority of faculty members teaching in the International College program are male, several EMI classes, including those taken by the interviewees, are conducted by female faculty members. Both male and female students saw this as an opportunity. Maria said, ‘There are few classes conducted by female teachers, so I expected that she would lecture me from a woman’s perspective.’ Kenya, a male student, noted that he had had few opportunities to encounter a female teacher pursuing her career. Those students were obviously seeking a variety of perspectives, and the teacher’s gender can be one influence on their perspective. While the students’ motivations and expectations were similar, the actual experiences of students in their EMI classes appeared to be more diverse than their initial expectations supposed. Several students talked about their conflicted feelings and hesitations in expressing their own ideas: I need a great courage to raise my hand and state my opinion … sometimes I had a different opinion from the one who took attention at that

Gender in English-Medium Instruc t ion Programs

187

time, but I always dither over whether I should say my idea or not. I always think ‘what will happen if I say? I guess nothing will happen.’ I do care about classmates’ eyes on me and worry about being a distraction in the class, or if I say something beyond the discussion. (Rimi) One reason for Rimi’s hesitation is the lack of experience of sharing opinions, no matter in what language, because of the cram system of Japanese education, as Minami said, ‘We had not studied about how to have our own opinion.’ Rimi was not the only one who expressed her hesitation toward sharing her own opinion or having different ideas from others. Interestingly, this feeling of hesitation did not appear to be gender-based. As for a gender perspective in classroom participation, previous literature argues that classroom practices in many countries do not respect female students’ participation (Stromquist, 1997). In the Japanese context, I. Kimura (1999) and R. Kimura (2014) point out that male students are more active in getting opportunities to have their say and that male and female students have different ways of interacting in the classroom. However, within the EMI classes in this study, there was no indication of gender difference in terms of students’ participation and activeness. In fact, speaking of both classes taught in Japanese and EMI classes, Reiji pointed out that the students themselves had created a class atmosphere that discouraged participation. My generation and several older generations, the so-called ‘Yutori’ generations, we kind of make up the atmosphere that ‘it’s always better to cooperate.’ In other words, we are too sensitive about making waves. (Reiji) Most of the current university students in Japan belong to the Yutori generation who were born between 1987 and 2004. They received an education free from the pressure of cramming knowledge, which was said to be Yutori, or relaxed. As the student opinions demonstrate, they prefer an atmosphere where students try to avoid conflict and remain peaceful, and where they are not subjected to peer pressure in a negative way. Likewise, McVeigh (2002: 3) describes the Japanese university classroom as ‘the ghost of opinions suppressed, voices lost, self-expressions discouraged, and individuality restrained.’ Students in EMI classes are also afraid of standing out. They are not accustomed to, and not comfortable with, expressing perspectives that might not be in agreement with those of fellow students. This atmosphere rules regardless of the student’s gender. Rather, any differences in students’ attitudes toward, and active behavior in, class depend to a large extent on their English ability, as several students expressed their hesitation to state their opinions because of their low self-evaluation of their English skill. In classes observed by the author, the most or the second most active students

188

Section 4: The Student and Facult y E xper ience

in a group were the relatively high-level English speakers such as returnees [kikokushijo] or so-called Hafu [half-Japanese] children of international couples. After some experience studying in an EMI classroom, students slowly got used to ‘arguing back and forth even if we think what someone thinks is not actually right’ (Reiji). Behind the change in attitude, students explained differences in the nature of English and Japanese as a medium of education. One student said: ‘English doesn’t have euphemistic expressions and language of respect’ (Makiko); another said: ‘It feels easy to use negative words if it’s in English, such as not or disagree’ (Reiji). Maria also pointed out a difference between EMI education and JMI education: ‘In EMI class, the professor tends to ask me how I think, but in JMI class, there is always a right answer.’ According to the students’ discourse, English language in EMI classes has certain impact on students’ attitudes toward the learning experience. In that sense, English seems to liberate students, allowing students to be active in discussion and free to ask questions to others or state their own opinion, even if the opinion is something negative and might make waves. Regardless of their gender, students’ attitudes and learning experiences heavily rely on the medium of instruction and students’ practical ability in the language. To put it another way, sufficient English skills may provide equal opportunities for both male and female students to engage actively and be themselves in class.

Gendered understandings of international awareness Through their studies in EMI classes, students develop a sense of what it means to be internationally aware and they begin to develop a sense of their own international awareness. For the students in this study, some aspects of international awareness seem to be shared while others are more gender specific. In terms of shared elements, one student discussed the importance of acceptance. I have never experienced that my opinion was denied in the EMI class. Nobody, including the professor and other students said ‘you are wrong.’ Even when I express a completely different perspective, they asked me ‘why you think in that way’? That was rare experience for me. (Maria) Maria explained that this was a ‘rare’ experience because, generally, Japanese education consists of one-way lectures by professors and seldom includes academic discussion or interaction with students. Thanks to the experiences in the EMI class, Maria was able to exchange multiple perspectives and realized the importance of these perspectives on a single issue. As a result of her EMI experience, she described international awareness as ‘an ability to make mutual concession.’ She recognized the difference in national

Gender in English-Medium Instruc t ion Programs

189

sentiment over issues and thought about how to overcome these differences in recognition regarding, for example, territorial issues between Japan and Korea. Confronting these political and historical issues which bring tensions between Japan and neighboring countries, she described a way to create a dialogue: When I confront a counterpart, I should not say ‘why’? or ‘what’? but I had better to start with ‘I see.’ I can make a concession on the first step and at the next step, I will start asking ‘what do you think about the problem’? or ‘Can you think in this way’? (Maria) Another student, Keito, also discussed the important of accepting others. ‘Everything will start after understanding the culture and history of your counterpart. We need to see the issue from multiple dimensions.’ Furthermore, Sari added the importance of understanding both others and oneself. ‘In order to establish a relationship with someone from a different background, we need to be open-minded and actually open ourselves to let them know who we are. For that, we need to know ourselves first.’ Takashi also referred to an experience when he was in an international situation during extracurricular activities and described international awareness in the following way: When I was tired, I used to rearrange my expression not to be seen as tired. But when I became honest about my feeling, people start treating me differently. So I realized that being honest to the others should be the first step of the communication. Not only the language skills like English speaking ability, but expressing own feeling is the very important part of communication. (Takashi) Students said that not only understanding others, but also knowing themselves and being open enough to let people understand them, is important. For these students, being international is, therefore, the integrated process of both being understanding and being understood. For them, EMI education facilitates this bidirectional action in the class in a way that most JMI programs do not. However, while expressing the necessity of accepting others, some students still considered some issues related to religion and history as a sort of ‘taboo.’ Rimi, as an example, talked about her experience of asking her friend to eat some meat for dinner, which her friend could not do owing to religious reasons. She said, ‘Because I asked her to go to eat meat, she must think that I didn’t understand her enough and it made a split between us’ (Rimi). In Japan, people generally believe in, or at least follow the customs of, Buddhism or Shinto, but there are almost no religious constraints on a daily basis, so talking about religion was something Rimi felt she could not handle. In the same way, one student also avoided topics regarding history because she ‘doesn’t want to break the relationship with those unsolved and

190

Section 4: The Student and Facult y E xper ience

difficult issues’ (Nina). Although the students were all aware of the importance of mutual understanding, there were still some issues that they felt they could not confront. Here female students expressed their hesitation toward confronting issues in order to avoid making conflicts with others. However, male students described their experience in a different way. For instance, referring to diversity in religions, ideas and notions of gender in the world, Kenya mentioned ‘the necessity’ of filling a gap between ‘us’ and ‘others.’ He said, ‘It’s better to fill the gap when we have a tremendous risk by having that gap, but we don’t have to when there is no such a risk’ (Kenya). Unlike the female students, he saw the potential for conflict as a reason to confront issues. Another male student, Reiji, who had experienced studying abroad, also thought that it is important to hear the ideas of others, but did not feel that tensions need to be resolved. He said, ‘it’s good to have foreign countries as a reference, but if anything doesn’t suit Japan, we don’t need to change ourselves’ (Reiji). In other words, there is more tendency among male students to stick to their opinions, even when they are confrontational, while female students tend to avoid confrontation. In another interesting difference, male students seemed to view Japan itself differently. They seemed to situate Japan as a counterpart with, or in opposition to, international or overseas, and they paid much attention to the balance and relationship between the two concepts. For instance, Keito said, ‘I started thinking about my own identity when I think of international issues,’ defining identity as the axis making who he is. Without it, he said he ‘would be influenced by everything all around me.’ He also critically looked at the public atmosphere in Japan, which seemed to him to ‘make it too easy for people going out overseas.’ He also stated, ‘I just think that we need to be internationalized when it’s needed. Only looking overseas and being accustomed to “international” things is not what I want to do. I do want to think a great deal of my country’ (Keito). When some male students talked about how to cultivate international awareness or how to be international, they put ‘Japan,’ ‘Japanese’ or ‘myself with a Japanese identity’ in the counter-position. This notion of balancing between ‘international’ and ‘national’ and intending to preserve one’s own Japaneseness can be seen only in the discourse of male students. They contrasted themselves with their counterparts in the international context. Female students, on the other hand, described a transformation into ‘international Japanese’ or ‘global citizens.’ This contrastive image of being international as expressed by the male students is consistent with the image of Kokusaika [internationalization] generally seen in the Japanese context. Nearly two decades ago, Koseki (1999) pointed out that internationalization in Japanese society inevitably entailed an essential Japanese culture and a nurturing of Japanese identity. Kubota (1998) explains that Japanese internationalization includes both

Gender in English-Medium Instruc t ion Programs

191

Westernization, which threatens Japanese national identity, and cultural nationalism to protect that identity. This nationalistic tendency of the interpretation of internationalization can be also seen in the internationalization of Japanese higher education. Shimauchi (2016) explains the double-sided nature of the internationalization of Japanese higher education: It is a transformative process of adjusting to a globalized world and struggling to be more internationally competitive; at the same time, it is a process of expanding and promoting national achievements to be recognized internationally. Burgess et al. (2010: 461) also describe the two-sided notion of Kokusaika, noting its contradictory goals combining a nationalistic ‘closing in’ with a cosmopolitan ‘opening up.’ This sort of discourse can also be seen in Japanese government policy discussions regarding cultivating global citizens. The government stresses the necessity to both ‘shift its focus toward overseas once again, and at the same time, reexamine its own identity’ (Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet, 2012: 8). These discourses situate international and national elements in trade-off relationships. Policy discussions about EMI, internationalization of higher education and development of global human resources typically overlap with this trade-off idea. It is interesting that this notion of trade-off appeared only in the discourse of male students. Since gender is a highly socially constructed concept, it is noteworthy that both male and female students have their own tendencies to define the concept of international awareness. It might not be coincidental that these policy discussions are made by powerful male stakeholders in the government and business community.

Conclusion EMI programs in Japan appeal disproportionately to female students. Even though they are underrepresented in the wider campus community, in EMI programs, female students generally outnumber males. Within Japanese society, males still play a central role in most fields in terms of quantity (numbers of males) and quality (their power and position). Considering these facts, male students, as expected stakeholders of the society, might have a tendency to be protective toward their own cultural and social boundaries. On the other hand, Japanese female students may tend to be free of, or excluded from, such expectations. As such, they can be more internationally aware and open to international dimensions of society. Kelsky (1996: 38) depicts internationalization in Japan as a gendered process, where women can be free from ‘the requirements of Japanese womanhood’ including duties such as child-rearing and housework. English and internationalism can be seen as saving female Japanese students from a male-centered society (Kelsky, 2001; Kitamura, 2011). EMI programs might also provide an arena for them to facilitate their international awareness.

192

Section 4: The Student and Facult y E xper ience

In terms of motivations for joining EMI programs, interviews from this study did not reveal significant differences. Both male and female students focused on tangible and practical benefits, especially improved English language proficiency. This is consistent with a government and business community discourse that calls on young people to become more international and outward looking, two characteristics sometimes seen as being semisynonymous with English proficiency (Shimauchi, 2014). However, this is inconsistent with the reality that English is not a requirement for finding stable work, and that most Japanese people do not use English in their daily lives (Seargeant, 2009). For most people, either male or female, the necessity to use English in the workplace is very limited and opportunities for Japanese females to use English in the workplace are far fewer than for males (Terasawa, 2015). While motivations may have been similar, in this study there did seem to be differences in how male and female understandings of international awareness developed during EMI classes. Both groups reported that EMI helped them develop an ability and an inclination to explore ideas and opinions, both their own and others. They also reported that EMI had helped them develop a willingness to engage with and try to understand international others. However, there were interesting differences in how male and female students came to understand the notion of being internationally aware. Female students seemed to define international in terms of adjustment, accommodation and understanding of others. Male students also focused on understanding but were less inclined toward accommodation and adjustment. Instead, for them international was rooted in a strong self-image as Japanese. Their Japanese identity was seen in contrast or opposition to international or overseas ideas. Despite the overrepresentation of female students in EMI education in Japan, this study has illustrated that, rather than differing motivations, the most interesting gendered distinction between students in these programs is in their conceptualization of international awareness.

References Altbach, P.G. (2007) The imperial tongue: English as the dominating academic language. International Higher Education 49 (Fall), 2–4. Burgess, C., Gibson, I., Klaphake, J. and Selzer, M. (2010) The ‘Global 30’ Project and Japanese higher education reform: An example of a ‘closing in’ or an ‘opening up’? Globalisation, Societies and Education 8 (4), 461–475. Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D. and Sierra, J. (eds) (2013) English-Medium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Graddol, D. (2006) English Next: Why Global English May Mean the End of ‘English as a Foreign Language.’ London: British Council. Grin, F. (2001) English as economic value: Facts and fallacies. World Englishes 20 (1), 65–78. Hudzik, J.K. (2011) Comprehensive Internationalization. Washington, DC: NAFSA, The Association of International Educators.

Gender in English-Medium Instruc t ion Programs

193

JASSO (2015a) University degree courses offered in English (Bachelor). See http://www. jasso.go.jp/ryugaku/study_j/search/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2015/12/19/b_degree_english_1.pdf JASSO (2015b) Heisei 25 nendo kyoutei touni motozuku nihonjin gakusei ryugaku jyoukyo chousa kekka [2013 academic year: The result of a survey on Japanese students studying abroad based on universities’ alliance]. See http://www.jasso.go.jp/about/ statistics/intl_student_s/2014/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2016/01/28/short_term13.pdf Kelsky, K. (1996) The gender politics of women’s internationalism in Japan. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 10 (1), 29–50. Kelsky, K. (2001) Women on the Verge: Japanese Women, Western Dreams. Durham, NC: Duke University. Kimura, I. (2014) Gakkou Shakai no Naka no Jendah – Kyoshi tachi no Esunomesodoroji [Gender in School Community: Ethnography of Teachers]. Tokyo: Tokyo Gakugei University Press. Kimura, R. (1999) Gakkoubunka to Jendah [School, Culture and Gender]. Tokyo: Keisho Shobo. Kimura, R. (2009) Kyouiku to Jenda [Education and Gender]. In K. Muta (ed.) Jenda Stadizu – Zyosei gaku, Dansei gaku wo Manabu [Gender Studies: Learning about Women’s Studies and Men’s Studies] (pp. 142–159). Osaka: Osaka University Press. Kitamura, A. (2011) Eigo ha Onna wo Sukuu noka [Does English Save Women?]. Tokyo: Sousho Zero. Kobayashi, Y. (2010) The role of gender in foreign language learning attitudes: Japanese female students’ attitudes towards English learning. Gender and Education 14 (2), 181–197. Koseki, K. (1999) Chikyu Zidai no Aidentiti [Identity in the age of Earth]. Kyoiku [Education] 49, 55–62. Kubota, R. (1998) Ideologies of English in Japan. World Englishes 17 (3), 295–306. Lilley, K., Barker, M. and Harris, N. (2014) Exploring the process of global citizen learning and the student mind-set. Journal of Studies in International Education 19 (3), 225–245. McVeigh, B.J. (2002) Japanese Higher Education as Myth. London: ME Sharpe. MEXT (2015) Gakkou Kihon Chosa (Heisei 27 nendo) [The general survey of schools, as of 2015]. See http://www.mext.go.jp/component/b_menu/other/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2016/01/18/1365622_1_1.pdf Morita, L. (2013) Japanese university students’ attitudes towards globalisation, intercultural contexts and English. World Journal of English Language 3 (4), 31–41. Morizumi, F. (2002) Does gender matter in language learning? International Christian University Educational Studies 44, 223–235. Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet (2012) An Interim Report of the Council on Promotion of Human Resource for Globalization Development. See http://www. kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/global/1206011interim_report.pdf Seargeant, P. (2009) The Idea of English in Japan. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Shimauchi, S. (2014) Gurobaru jinzai ikusei to daigaku no kokusaikanikansuru ichikousatsu [A study about global human resources and internationalization of higher education in Japan]. The Bulletin of Yokohama City University, Humanities 66 (1), 109–126. Shimauchi, S. (2016) Higashi Ajia niokeru Ryugakusei Idou no Paradaimu Shifuto – Daigaku Kokusaika to Eigo Puroguramu no Nikkan Hikaku [Paradigm Shift in International Student Mobility in East Asia: Internationalization of Higher Education and Comparative Analysis of English-medium Degree Programs in Japan and Korea]. Tokyo: Toshindo. Statistics Japan (2015) Nippon no Toukei: Dai 22 Shou [Statistics of Japan: Chapter 22]. See http://www.stat.go.jp/data/nihon/pdf/16nikkatu.pdf

194

Section 4: The Student and Facult y E xper ience

Stromquist, N.P. (1997) Increasing Girls’ and Women’s Participation in Basic Education. Fundamentals of Educational Planning Series 56, Paris: UNESCO. See http://unesdoc. unesco.org/images/0011/001184/118466Eb.pdf Terasawa, T. (2013) Sengo Nihon shaki ni okeru eigo shiko to jenda – yoron chosa no kentou kara [Orientation for English and gender in postwar Japanese society – Analysis from the public opinion survey]. Language and Information Science 11, 159–175. Terasawa, T. (2015) Nihonjin to Eigo no Shakaigaku [Sociology of Japanese People and the English Language]. Tokyo: Kenkyusha.

12 A Tale of Two Classes: From EFL CBI to ELF EMI Bernard Susser

As the number of English-medium instruction (EMI) programs increases at Japanese universities, English as a Foreign Language (EFL) instructors as well as discipline specialists are being asked to offer content courses in English for Japanese and/or international students (Brown & Iyobe, 2014; Carty, 2015; Carty & Susser, 2015). This chapter uses an autoethnographic method to study one EFL teacher’s experience of this change. I compare two courses I taught in English at universities in Japan, one for Japanese students studying English and the other for international and Japanese students studying about Japan. In this chapter I first describe these two courses and the programs that they were part of. I then focus on two issues: (a) the factors informing decisions about classroom language, pedagogy and the teacher’s mindset; and (b) issues relating to qualifications and disciplinary expertise. The conclusion emphasizes that the shift from teaching a content-based instruction (CBI) course designed to promote English language skills to teaching a social science course through the medium of English requires a fundamental shift in the instructor’s mindset. Autoethnography is a research method that ‘uses a researcher’s personal experience to describe and critique cultural beliefs, practices, and experiences’ (Adams et al., 2015: 1), although here I focus on educational ‘beliefs, practices, and experiences.’ In particular, an autoethnography often describes an epiphany, a deeply felt, life-changing experience; further, this method uses reflexivity, an examination of our past to find how it influences what we are doing now. Simon-Maeda (2011: 14) considers reflexivity to be ‘the defining feature of autoethnographic research;’ she describes it as ‘looking inward to our own subjective experiences in order to fully understand the situation being examined’ (Simon-Maeda, 2011: 14). This is a retrospective autoethnography; the research question and the epiphany that stimulated it came long after I first started teaching the courses that are the focus of the research. Given that much of the following relies on my memory, issues such as narrator reliability, the subjectivity of

195

196

Section 4: The Student and Facult y E xper ience

truth and so on are very much present. I do not consider myself a particularly unreliable narrator but perhaps, as the following will demonstrate, I was a little slow to grasp the significance of what I was doing.

The Courses The anthropology of tourism The first course to be studied in this research is the Anthropology of Tourism, which I taught in the Department of International Studies at Doshisha Women’s College (DWC) in the autumn semesters of 2009 and 2010. The focus of this department is on the study of (a) foreign societies and cultures, (b) Japanese society and culture and (c) international relations, with a strong emphasis on developing English language skills (Doshisha Women’s College, 2015a). A key feature of this department is that all students are required to spend a year studying overseas at one of DWC’s affiliated institutions in an Anglophone country. The students leave in the middle of their second year and return in the middle of their third. Concerning the curriculum, the first three semesters are dominated by language skills courses with some content courses; many more content courses, including the Anthropology of Tourism course, are available after the students return from overseas study (Doshisha Women’s College, 2015b). Most of these content courses are taught in English; the Japanese instructors are all highly proficient in English but I have no way of knowing how much, if any, codeswitching takes place. Of the 15 courses in the same curriculum group as the tourism course in 2015, 12 had a syllabus written in English but only three stated specifically that one purpose of the course was to improve the students’ English language skills. When the Department of International Studies was in the planning stages I was asked to teach a content course for the returning students. I had been teaching Tourism, Culture and Technology in another department (described in Susser, 2006) and thought that I could just convert this computer- and internet-based CBI course to something suitable for the new department. However, when told that I would have too many students to use a computer room, I had to come up with something different. Searching tourism courses on the internet soon brought me to the anthropology of tourism, which overlapped to some extent with my previous course. Being no expert on this subject, I could not offer a ‘sage on the stage’-type lecture course. As an EFL teacher I was familiar with the effectiveness of groups for language learning (Long & Porter, 1985), so it was natural for me to design the course around group work. Further, as I read more on this topic, I noticed that this field was somewhat contentious, with a diversity of opinions about each topic. This allowed me to adapt the well-known ESL reading task of

A Tale of Two Cl asses

197

jigsaw reading to have the students engage in active learning by forming groups to discuss readings with different points of view. I saw this as a standard content-based language instruction course; my syllabus emphasized language and study skills rather than content. The course had three main purposes: (a) to provide students with an introduction to this field of study; (b) to help maintain the high level of English that students will bring to the course through regular reading and writing assignments; and (c) to develop students’ ability to analyze academic prose and think critically about cultural topics. This reflected both my lack of expertise in the field of the anthropology of tourism and also my sense of myself as primarily an EFL instructor and my sense of the students as English language learners. The students in this course were all Japanese nationals with Japanese as their first language. There were several returnees [kikokushijo] among them, students who had lived overseas for a considerable length of time before entering the university. As noted above, all students in the class had just returned from a year’s study at a higher education institution in an Englishspeaking country. Their experiences varied greatly; some spent most of the year abroad in ESL classes while others were able to take regular courses. On the whole their English level was high and most were able to do the course work satisfactorily. The course format was designed to provide a good learning experience for the students while compensating for my lack of expertise in the field. The students were divided into two groups, A and B. Each week students had to read for homework an academic monograph on the topic to be studied in the following week’s class; groups A and B were assigned different readings. In each class, students worked in groups made up of two or three students from each of the homework groups. Their task was to describe the main points of their assigned reading to those who had done the other reading, and then to work together to answer questions on a discussion worksheet. The discussion group questions were designed to develop reading and critical thinking skills; the answers had to be negotiated through discussion. This discussion was conducted in Japanese although the answers to the questions had to be written on the worksheet in English. I saw the discussions in Japanese as a form of translanguaging, ‘a creative improvisation according to the needs of the context and local situation’ (Canagarajah, 2011: 5). I circulated among the groups, offering help as needed. Even though all of the students were Japanese nationals and the discussions were conducted in Japanese, the membership of the discussion groups was reshuffled every week. Given that each discussion group submitted just one worksheet and all members of that group got the same grade, it seemed fair to vary the membership each week because there were considerable differences among the students not only in English ability but also in their ability to grasp abstract concepts and manipulate ideas.

198

Section 4: The Student and Facult y E xper ience

Japanese Society I taught the Japanese Society course in the Study in Kyoto Program at Ritsumeikan University for four years, from 2011 until 2014. This was a non-degree study abroad program; most students were from Ritsumeikan’s affiliated institutions overseas and they stayed in Japan for one semester or one year (Ritsumeikan, 2015). The program focused on learning about Japan through both academic and cultural studies. Japanese Society was in the Japan and World Perspectives track, and was taught in the autumn semester with 90-minute classes once a week for 15 weeks. Although not an expert on the academic field of sociology, I felt that I was familiar enough with the literature on contemporary Japanese society to teach the course, especially since I planned to use the same format as I did in the tourism course. Although the methodology and format of this course were the same as that described above, in this class all discussions took place in English, the lingua franca. I chose this format for the same reasons as above: I did not have the expertise to conduct a lecture course on this topic, and I was never keen on the pedagogical value of lectures anyway. I did not know at that time that discussion rather than lecture is recommended for classes with students of diverse cultural backgrounds (see below), that discussions with mixed-nationality groups create ‘troublesome spaces … [that] can lead to a transition or development in learning’ (Montgomery, 2011: 65) or that ‘research indicates that formation of multicultural/heterogeneous groups leads ultimately to better group performance than that enjoyed by culturally homogeneous groups’ (Strauss & Young, 2011: 815). Unlike the tourism class, the syllabus for this course did not include anything about English language study. The objectives of the course were: (a) to gain an understanding of some basic issues confronting Japanese society today; and (b) to develop the ability to analyze the arguments and evaluate the evidence used by scholars making claims about the nature of that society. The syllabus did contain warnings about the required level of English language ability: ‘The course is conducted entirely in English,’ ‘sufficient English language ability,’ etc. Further, the membership of the discussion groups was reshuffled each week according to a printed schedule. One reason for this was the same as for the tourism class: all students in each group got the same grade so reshuffling compensated for the fact that there were variations in the students’ English levels as well as analytical skills. Another reason for doing this was to help the students to get to know each other and feel comfortable working together; as I realized later, and as is discussed below, this enhanced the development of their English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) accommodation strategy skills. Unfortunately, this did not eliminate the ‘native speaker problem’ (Graddol, 2006: 114–115); there were several students from inner circle countries in the groups who were unwilling or unable to modify their speech to accommodate the students for whom English was not their first language.

A Tale of Two Cl asses

199

The students in the program came from around the world: Europe, 41%; Asia, 25%; North America, 24%; others, 10% (Ritsumeikan University, 2015: 3) and my classes on the whole reflected these proportions. In addition, each year a few Japanese students from various departments of the university also enrolled. However, nationality was not always relevant to who these students were or to their language ability. One student from Norway had spent a year in Scotland and a year in the United States. A Chinese student was in Japan for a year taking a break from her studies in the United States. A Hong Kong student had spent a year in Canada. One Japanese student had just come back from a year in Australia. Several students claimed to be native speakers of two languages. In terms of English language ability most were very fluent speakers and good writers. Even so, as a career EFL teacher, I assumed that non-native speakers were English learners and occasionally corrected the errors on their written work. I spent more time on correction when the expression was unclear or I could not understand the meaning, but this applied to the work of the native speakers as well. This continued for the first two years I taught the course, and then came my epiphany.

The Epiphany In October 2013, after a two-year lapse, I attended the annual Japan Association for Language Teaching (JALT) conference in Kobe, Japan. There, for the first time, I learned about the internationalization of higher education, EMI, ELF and related topics. I know (now) that these topics had been discussed in the Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) environment since the turn of the 21st century; my only excuse for my ignorance is that I had not been focusing on issues of internationalization because my attention was directed elsewhere, to Computer-assisted Language Learning (CALL), TOEFL test preparation and other EFL areas. After the conference I began reading about the internationalization of higher education; particularly impressive to me were works on ELF. I learned, among other things, that ‘ELF speakers are not considered merely learners striving to conform to native-speaker norms but primarily users of the language, where the main consideration is not formal correctness but functional effectiveness’ (Hülmbauer et al., 2008: 28). I began to ‘move away from an obsession with correctness’ (Doiz et al., 2014: 356). I noticed that many TESOL professionals had been having their own epiphanies, supporting a movement in the field towards teaching English as an international language (e.g. Alsagoff et al., 2012). The result was that I changed my mindset toward the students in my ELF course. I stopped thinking of myself as a language teacher and the students as language learners. In practice this meant I became more accepting of non-standard English; more importantly, I came to realize that

200

Section 4: The Student and Facult y E xper ience

expressions such as ‘Wow! You speak just like an American!,’ while meant as praise, in fact may have sounded to the recipient as if I were a hegemonic neocolonialist. Of course I continued to address problems of meaning in written work, but as noted above, this applied to all students, including native speakers of English.

Language and Pedagogy The literature on the internationalization of higher education has much to say about changes that internationalization will require in admissions, teaching, assessment, teacher training and other aspects. In this section I focus on important language issues in ELF situations and argue that teaching classes with students from different national and linguistic backgrounds may require changes in pedagogy and the instructor’s mindset.

Language Language and teaching are linked closely in various ways; as Airey (2012: 64) claims, ‘all teachers are language teachers.’ The internationalization of higher education has created some new issues related to language and pedagogy; three topics are particularly relevant to this research. First is accommodation: Rodgers (2011: 356) points out that ‘teachers and lecturers operating within CBI consciously and unconsciously make modifications in the language they use in teaching, in order to make the content they are focusing on more comprehensible to their students.’ Some of the modifications he lists, such as simplification and redundancy, are similar to the accommodation strategies used in the ELF situation (e.g. Mauranen, 2012). Many years of EFL skills teaching has made this second nature to me so there was no particular change when I began teaching the Japanese Society course. Second is the fact that all teachers are, or should be, concerned with their students’ language, even in the L1 situation. This is exemplified by the writing across the curriculum movement in the United States and similar movements in other countries. Further, all subject-matter teachers must teach the language or discourse of the discipline, the disciplinary language (Airey, 2011) or disciplinary discourse (Airey & Linder, 2009). This was a problem for me because, as described below, I was not trained in the disciplines of the two courses. A final language issue is that problems with instructors’ English ability have been noted in many countries (e.g. Bradford, 2015: 81–82). Since I am a native speaker of North American English that was not a problem, although I must confess that I sometimes had trouble understanding the spoken English of some students. The research also points out many cases where the international students have difficulty communicating with the domestic

A Tale of Two Cl asses

201

students and each other (e.g. Earls, 2014: 162–163); more disturbingly, Haswell (2014: 35) found ‘pejorative views of non-ENL [English as a Native Language] varieties of English’ among students in an international program in Japan (see also Haswell, this volume). I never saw evidence of this in the Japanese Society class but I cannot guarantee that it did not exist.

Pedagogy One pedagogical issue is the so-called ‘internationalization’ (‘Americanization’) effect in which Western standards and practices are adopted by the local faculty to meet the needs and expectations of international students (Bradford, 2015: 86, 210–211). Tsuneyoshi (2005: 81) lists as examples preparing syllabi with course descriptions and multiple evaluation standards, as well as using discussion rather than whole-class instruction. This may be true but it is also the case that Japanese universities today, under pressure from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, are imposing many of these standards in an effort to improve the quality of teaching and research in general (e.g. Mulvey, this volume; Oba, 2009; Yamada, 2014). In any case, having been educated in as well as having taught in the American system, I have always prepared syllabi, assigned homework regularly, used various forms of assessment, etc. A second issue is the argument that internationalizing the curriculum and adopting EMI require a ‘rethinking of pedagogies’ (Sancho, 2008: 260), ‘an adaptation of the teaching methodology’ (Cots, 2013: 117), and demand that ‘teachers should re-examine the way in which their courses are delivered’ (Airey, 2011: 12). Further, it is often argued that even experienced teachers need training when switching to EMI (e.g. Horie, this volume; O’Dowd, 2015). This is certainly true but the changes that need to be made depend very much on the situation. First, one change suggested often in the literature is to emphasize interactive learning more than lectures (e.g. Leask & Wallace, 2011: 31) but I had been doing that anyway as an aspect of communicative language teaching. Another recommendation is to avoid assumptive teaching: ‘the teacher can no longer assume (for purely linguistic reasons) that students understand the content of a course’ (Ball & Lindsay, 2013: 53). Again, with experience as an EFL instructor, I was well aware of this. A third issue, mindset, refers to what a teacher believes that he/she is doing in a course. We can see this in operation in an EMI economics course at a university in Japan (Iyobe & Li, 2013: 379); the emphasis was very much on content but there was ‘a language learning aim in the teacher’s mind.’ One teacher studied by Sasajima (2013: 64) said, ‘I first felt nervous but gradually shifted my mindset to focusing on teaching content from teaching language.’ Of course, the mindset issue works the other way as well; the discipline specialists teaching in EMI in a British Council survey ‘did not see themselves as language teachers in any way’ (Dearden, 2014: 28; see also Airey, 2012).

202

Section 4: The Student and Facult y E xper ience

The above descriptions show that there were hardly any differences between the two courses in terms of course management and the tasks that the students did. The ‘rethinking’ and ‘re-examination’ were mainly in my mindset, as mentioned above, and this occurred only after my epiphany. In practice, however, this led to important changes in my teaching and my reading. I realized that I had been using a ‘deficit model of education’ that emphasized what the students could not do rather than their abilities, resulting in damage to their self-image (Kanno, 2000: 375). As mentioned above, I started to treat the students as language users instead of language learners. I came to see deviations from Standard English as acceptable in an ELF situation. I encouraged the use of accommodation strategies in the group discussions. I tried to frame my comments on students’ written work to aid clarity of expression rather than to point out ‘errors.’ Further, I put more focus on their conceptual understanding of the readings. I believe that these changes in my thinking conveyed to the students the subtle but important message that they were being valued for who they were and what they brought to the classroom, which in turn motivated them to study more. For myself, the change in mindset motivated me to gain more expertise in the field by reading less about second language acquisition and more about contemporary Japanese society, although I am embarrassed to report that my attempts to learn about recent sociological theory were not very successful. Wide reading did improve my teaching in that I could bring more background knowledge to discussions of the required course readings, and I became better equipped to answer the students’ questions. So my conclusion is that what was important when moving from EFL CBI to ELF EMI pedagogy was a change in my mindset and a realization of the demands of the new situation.

Qualifications and Disciplinary Expertise I have noted above that I had no formal qualifications to teach either the Anthropology of Tourism or Japanese Society courses; for that matter, I have had no formal training in TESOL either. My undergraduate degree was in Far Eastern Civilizations, my MA in East Asian Studies, and my M.Phil in history with a concentration on premodern Japan. Although I never completed my doctoral dissertation, I got a job teaching Japanese history for four years at a state university in the United States and was able to mine my unfinished dissertation for a few publications (e.g. Susser, 1985). Before I began teaching English at the tertiary level in Japan I had had some experience teaching conversation in Japan at the secondary level and in language schools, where, like the teachers studied by Breckenridge and Erling (2011: 98), I was ‘commodified as [an] English language resource.’ Despite my lack of EFL qualifications, I was able to obtain regular teaching positions at a junior college and then a four-year university, reaching the level of full professor and publishing

A Tale of Two Cl asses

203

research on EFL-related topics such as second-language writing and CALL. My point is that lack of formal qualifications did not prevent my having a career as an EFL instructor in Japan. Admittedly, I got my first full-time job through connections and in part because of the climate of native-speakerism (Houghton & Rivers, 2013) and the native speaker fallacy (Canagarajah, 1999) in Japan. However, I was able to move up in the academic world thanks to the support of colleagues and because of JALT. Participation in JALT was immensely helpful to me in acquiring knowledge of TESOL methods and techniques, and for providing opportunities to present and publish. In a wider sense, JALT emphasized and symbolized professionalism in English language teaching in Japan, enabling people like myself to move from the role of native language informant to EFL academic specialist. That said, teaching a content course such as the Anthropology of Tourism was a challenge of a different order. Having no expertise in this field, and lacking pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1986), I had to start from scratch. The first step was collecting syllabi of such courses from the internet; this gave me a list of the main topics covered and readings for each topic. Next was reading standard textbooks on the anthropology of tourism to gain background knowledge. The third step was to read many journal articles and book chapters to find two items for each topic that disagreed with each other in some way; this disagreement between two authorities was the key to making the in-class discussions challenging and productive through jigsaw reading as described above. The final step was to write homework and discussion questions that would help the students read the articles carefully and focus the discussions on the key points. In this way I compensated for my lack of qualifications in the field by using the content as an opportunity for students to improve their skills of critical reading and thinking. Even so, while I had read as an undergraduate a few of the classics of anthropology and sociology, I have never studied those fields formally nor have I read widely in those disciplines. Given the way the class was structured this was not a problem, but I sometimes felt keenly that I could have offered more to the students if I had had more background in anthropological and sociological theory. A more serious problem is that ‘courses taught by language proficient, but otherwise unprepared teachers … can result in superficial learning of content, reduced motivation and the development of negative attitudes toward both the content specialty and the L2’ (Iyobe & Brown, 2011: 183); further, programs that rely on EFL specialists to teach content courses may be seen as inferior by prospective students and other stakeholders. My qualifications to teach the Japanese Society course were a little better. As mentioned above, my major was Japanese history and during my career in Japan I have read widely in the English-language literature on Japan in various fields. Further, I taught an English Department seminar on the theme of representations of Japanese culture in English. In addition, for several years I taught Topics in Contemporary Japan to Japanese and exchange

204

Section 4: The Student and Facult y E xper ience

students in DWC’s Japanese Studies Program. Finally, for a few years I taught Representations of Japan in Print, Film and Cyberspace as a part-time teacher in the Center for International Programs at Kyoto Sangyo University; all students were exchange students from several countries. The topics covered in these courses overlapped in many cases with the topics for the Japanese Society course, although I had to update the reading list considerably. Reading standard textbooks was a great help. Even so, I had never taken a course similar to this one, and I often felt that my own understanding of the readings as well as my teaching would have been better if I had known more contemporary sociological theory.

Conclusion I noted above that autoethnography ‘uses a researcher’s personal experience to describe and critique cultural beliefs, practices and experiences’ (Adams et al., 2015: 1); what I did not realize when I started this project was that I would wind up critiquing my own ‘beliefs, practices, and experiences.’ In any case, I hope that this narrative will be of some help to EFL teachers who find themselves teaching in an EMI program. In particular, I hope that I have demonstrated that a change of mindset is the crucial point. Of course, knowledge of the discipline and the disciplinary language, course design and faculty training all are important, but beyond these both language teachers and discipline specialists must acknowledge in their own minds the special conditions that EMI imposes.

References Adams, T.E., Jones, S.H. and Ellis, C. (2015) Autoethnography. New York: Oxford University Press. Airey, J. (2011) The relationship between teaching language and student learning in Swedish university physics. In B. Preisler, I. Klitgård and A.H. Fabricius (eds) Language and Learning in the International University: From English Uniformity to Diversity and Hybridity (pp. 3–18). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Airey, J. (2012) ‘I don’t teach language’: The linguistic attitudes of physics lecturers in Sweden. AILA Review 25, 64–79. Airey, J. and Linder, C. (2009) A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: Achieving fluency in a critical constellation of modes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 46 (1), 27–49. Alsagoff, L., McKay, S.L., Hu, G. and Renandya, W.A. (eds) (2012) Principles and Practices for Teaching English as an International Language. New York: Routledge. Ball, P. and Lindsay, D. (2013) Language demands and support for English-medium instruction in tertiary education: Learning from a specific context. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster and J.M. Sierra (eds) English-Medium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges (pp. 44–61). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Bradford, A. (2015) Internationalization policy at the genba: Exploring the implementation of social science English-taught undergraduate degree programs in three Japanese universities. EdD dissertation, The George Washington University.

A Tale of Two Cl asses

205

Breckenridge, Y. and Erling, E.J. (2011) The native speaker English teacher and the politics of globalization in Japan. In P. Seargeant (ed.) English in Japan in the Era of Globalization (pp. 80–100). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Brown, H. and Iyobe, B. (2014) The growth of English medium instruction in Japan. In N. Sonda and A. Krause (eds) JALT2013 Conference Proceedings (pp. 9–19). Tokyo: JALT. Canagarajah, A.S. (1999) Interrogating the ‘native speaker fallacy’: Non-linguistic roots, non-pedagogical results. In G. Braine (ed.) Non-native Educators in English Language Teaching (pp. 77–92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Canagarajah, A.S. (2011) Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for research and pedagogy. Applied Linguistics Review 2, 1–28. Carty, P.C. (2015) Kyoto studies: Local to global education. In G. Brooks, M. Grogan and M. Porter (eds) The 2014 PanSIG Proceedings (pp. 23–27). Tokyo: JALT. Carty, P. and Susser, B. (2015) Global education and classroom teaching: From CBI to EMI. In P. Clements, A. Krause and H. Brown (eds) JALT2014 Conference Proceedings (pp. 1–8) Tokyo: JALT. Cots, J.M. (2013). Introducing English-medium instruction at the University of Lleida, Spain: Intervention, beliefs and practices. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster and J.M. Sierra (eds) English-Medium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges (pp. 106–128). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Dearden, J. (2014) English as a Medium of Instruction – A Growing Global Phenomenon. London: British Council. Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D. and Sierra, J.M. (2014) Language friction and multilingual policies in higher education: The stakeholders’ view. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 35 (4), 345–360. Doshisha Women’s College (2015a) Department of International Studies. See http:// www.dwc.doshisha.ac.jp/english/faculty_dep_info/liberalarts/international/index. html (accessed 15 November 2016). Doshisha Women’s College (2015b) Kokusai kyo¯yo¯ gakka: Karikyuramu [Department of International Studies: Curriculum]. See www.dwc.doshisha.ac.jp/faculty_dep_info/ liberalarts/parts/pdf/international/international_curriculum_2015.pdf Earls, C.W. (2014) Striking the balance: The role of English and German in a multilingual English-medium degree programme in German higher education. Current Issues in Language Planning 15 (2), 153–173. Graddol, D. (2006) English Next: Why Global English May Mean the End of ‘English as a Foreign Language.’ London: British Council. Haswell, C.G. (2014) Issues related to the internationalizing of Japanese universities. In N. Sonda and A. Krause (eds) JALT2013 Conference Proceedings (pp. 28–37). Tokyo: JALT. Houghton, S.A. and Rivers, D.J. (eds) (2013) Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup Dynamics in Foreign Language Education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Hülmbauer, C., Böhringer, H., and Seidlhofer, B. (2008) Introducing English as a lingua franca (ELF): Precursor and partner in intercultural communication. Synergies Europe 3, 25–36. Iyobe, B. and Brown, H. (2011) The positioning of bilingual education initiatives of Japanese universities: The global context and local possibilities. Journal of International Studies and Regional Development 2, 177–192. Iyobe, B. and Li, J. (2013) CLIL to what degree: A trial in English medium education at a Japanese university – Is it CLIL or not? Asian EFL Journal 15 (4), 373–382. Kanno, Y. (2000) Kikokushijo as bicultural. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (3), 361–382. Leask, B. and Wallace, J. (2011) Good Practice Report: Learning and Teaching Across Cultures. Strawberry Hills, NSW: Australian Learning & Teaching Council.

206

Section 4: The Student and Facult y E xper ience

Long, M.H. and Porter, P.A. (1985) Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly 19 (2), 207–228. Mauranen, A. (2012) Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers. New York: Cambridge University Press. Montgomery, C. (2011) Developing perceptions of interculturality: A troublesome space? In B. Preisler, I. Klitgård and A.H. Fabricius (eds) Language and Learning in the International University: From English Uniformity to Diversity and Hybridity (pp. 59–75). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Oba, J. (2009) New developments in the enhancement of student learning in Japanese universities. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education 15 (2), 235–248. O’Dowd, R. (2015) The training and accreditation of teachers for English medium instruction: A survey of European universities. See sgroup.be/sites/default/files/EMI Survey_Report_ODowd.pdf Ritsumeikan University (2015) Study in Kyoto Program 2015–2016. See http://www. ritsumei.ac.jp/file.jsp?id=74822 Rodgers, T.S. (2011) The methodology of foreign language teaching: Methods, approaches, principles. In K. Knapp, B. Seidlhofer and H. Widdowson (eds) Handbook of Foreign Language Communication and Learning (pp. 341–372). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Sancho, J.M. (2008) Opening students’ minds. In M. Hellstén and A. Reid (eds) Researching International Pedagogies: Sustainable Practice for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (pp. 259–276). Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media. Sasajima, S. (2013) How CLIL can impact on EFL teachers’ mindsets about teaching and learning: An exploratory study on teacher cognition. International CLIL Research Journal 2 (1), 55–66. Shulman, L.S. (1986) Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher 15 (2), 4–14. Simon-Maeda, A. (2011) Being and Becoming a Speaker of Japanese: An Autoethnographic Account. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Strauss, P., U, A. and Young, S. (2011). ‘I know the type of people I work well with’: Student anxiety in multicultural group projects. Studies in Higher Education 36 (7), 815–829. Susser, B. (1985) The Toyotomi regime and the daimyo. In J.P. Mass and W.B. Hauser (eds) The Bakufu in Japanese History (pp. 129–152). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Susser, B. (2006) CALL and content-area teaching. In E. Hanson-Smith and S. Rilling (eds) Learning Languages through Technology (pp. 97–107). Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Tsuneyoshi, R. (2005) Internationalization strategies in Japan: The dilemmas and possibilities of study abroad programs using English. Journal of Research in International Education 4 (1), 65–86. Yamada, R. (2014) Japanese higher education: Policies and future issues. In R. Yamada (ed.) Measuring Quality of Undergraduate Education in Japan: Comparative Perspective in a Knowledge Based Society (pp. 17–33). Singapore: Springer Science + Business Media.

13 Faculty Training for Non-Native Speakers of English at Japanese Universities: Effective English-Medium Teaching for a Culturally Diversified Student Population Miki Horie

How would you feel if you were suddenly asked to offer a new course next year on your specialized subject area, a course which you had taught for 15 years in your native language, but that now had to be delivered in a language you only learned at school? What if you were told that the course was for a mixed group of international and local students, whose cultural and linguistic backgrounds were diverse, whereas you only had experience teaching local students who spoke the same language as you, and who were around the same age, with similar school experiences? What if the language proficiency of some students were higher than yours? What if you were asked to not only teach your area of specialization, but to also facilitate intercultural skills development at the same time? And what if you were asked to deal with all of this without support or training? This is the reality facing some faculty members at Japanese universities which are trying to expand their capacity to offer English-medium instruction (EMI). The expansion of EMI is one of the key strategies for successful and meaningful internationalization of higher education in Japan, but EMI is relatively new in Japan and few Japanese faculty members have experience teaching in English. While the current government policy initiative, called

207

208

Section 4: The Student and Facult y E xper ience

the Top Global University Project (hereafter TGU project), is pushing designated universities to increase the number of faculty members who either hold degrees from overseas universities or are foreign nationals, the educational backgrounds of the faculty population are still predominantly domestic (MEXT, 2014). The student population is also dominantly Japanese-language speaking. This includes international students, who were until recently expected to achieve adequate Japanese-language proficiency before entering university. The growth of EMI is a challenging shift for Japanese universities, especially for classroom practices of teaching and learning. With the assumption that this challenge is an opportunity for Japanese universities to develop themselves through internationalization efforts, this chapter argues for the necessity of designing and offering effective faculty training programs. It outlines specific aspects which may increase pedagogical effectiveness.

Significance of EMI for the Internationalization of Japanese Higher Education Internationalization has been promoted in Japanese universities since the 1980s, mainly through a series of policies initiated by the national government. However, only recently did English become a choice as a language of instruction, although in limited courses. During the initial implementation of internationalization policies, an initiative called the 100,000 International Students Plan started in 1983. The widely shared assumption was that Japanese universities were to offer courses taught in Japanese and that international students were responsible for obtaining a certain level of language proficiency by attending Japanese language schools or intensive language courses affiliated with their universities prior to their degree programs. With a few exceptions, most universities established under the modern, post-Second World War education system did not have experience using English as a medium of instruction until recently. Subsequent to the 100,000 International Students Plan, the Japanese government announced the 300,000 International Students Plan in 2008 and implemented the Global 30 Project to intensify internationalization efforts at 13 designated universities. The Global 30 Project aimed to improve the quality of education and research in light of international compatibility, with one of the focuses being to establish degree programs taught in English. The intention of improving the quality of teaching in English-medium courses, as well as expanding the quantitative capacity of such courses at both undergraduate and graduate levels, has been even more strongly emphasized by the latest internationalization policy initiative, the TGU project. This is a long-term comprehensive project spanning 10 years, from

Facult y Training for Non-Nat ive Speakers of English at Japanese Universit ies

209

2014 to 2023, that aims to reform universities. Planned reforms include developing innovative student mobility programs, hiring faculty members with more international experience and adjusting the academic calendar to align with the international norms, such as an autumn intake and quarter systems. In addition, for all the 37 designated TGU universities, expanding the capacity and improving the quality of EMI courses or degree programs is a major task. One of the intentions of the current internationalization initiative is to provide a much wider range of students with various forms of international education opportunities that enable students to develop their intercultural skills. A government-initiated taskforce pointed out that intercultural skills, including effective communication, cross-cultural leadership, openmindedness, flexibility, adaptability, curiosity, psychological resilience and awareness of national/cultural identity, are expected learning outcomes of international higher education (METI, 2010). The previous reforms focused on international education through the development of in-bound and outbound mobility programs, with the main target of internationalization being the students participating in these programs. The majority of the student population on Japanese campuses was not included in this version of internationalization. Through the current project reforms, universities are expected to provide the domestic students who do not participate in mobility programs with various forms of on-campus programming aiming to cultivate intercultural skills, ideally with similar qualities and pedagogical impacts as the students in the international mobility programs experience. One possible format for the on-campus intercultural opportunities is courses where students of various cultural backgrounds learn together through direct interaction. In this regard, the presence of international students on campus should be regarded as a significant educational resource (Mestenhauser, 2001). This is a major shift from past internationalization policies. Under the previous initiatives in the 1980s and 1990s, such as the 100,000 International Students Plan, international students were almost always regarded as a target for special assistance, including financial support. They were not expected to contribute to local society at all. However, the current TGU initiative takes a very different stance. Now Japanese universities are supposed to recognize the pedagogical value of expanding the presence of international students on campus. In the context of Japanese higher education where most of the courses are taught in Japanese, EMI courses should be regarded as a possible platform for non-Japanese-speaking international students and local students to learn together. In other words, if designed appropriately to meet the needs of both international and domestic students, EMI courses can allow students enrolled in English-taught degree programs, who tend to be isolated owing to their limited Japanese language proficiency, to meet with the mainstream

210

Section 4: The Student and Facult y E xper ience

student body. EMI courses can function as a gateway for students to be involved in various campus communities beyond cultural and linguistic boundaries. For domestic students, EMI courses can be an international education experience and a route to intercultural skills. Since a cross-cultural environment does not automatically guarantee that intercultural learning happens among students (Arkoudis et al., 2010; Shin & Moon, 2015), quality improvement of EMI courses should be accompanied by some considerations on how to promote pedagogically meaningful interactions among students of various cultural and linguistic backgrounds in EMI settings at Japanese universities.

Scope of this Chapter Although the expansion and quality improvement of EMI courses is thus one of the key issues for successful internationalization of higher education in Japan, many faculty members find it challenging to offer their courses in English. Moreover, promotion of intercultural learning through interactions among students of various cultural backgrounds is a new task for the majority of faculty members teaching in Japanese higher education. This chapter’s main purpose is to discuss the significance of designing and offering effective training opportunities for faculty members who need to teach their subject courses in English, while at the same time facilitating intercultural learning. The chapter focuses on challenges faced by the faculty members, mainly Japanese, who are not confident or comfortable enough with using English as a language of instruction in teaching their subjects. The challenge is not only due to their relatively limited English proficiency, but also related structural barriers including workload and teaching materials, and a psychological barrier created by the characteristics of the school culture and the pedagogical tradition in Japan. Beyond these structural and psychological barriers, faculty members must also be aware of some important aspects of intercultural learning, which are now encouraged in their classrooms, if we intend to make EMI courses more useful and beneficial to students. The following sections will, first, outline structural barriers that discourage faculty members from teaching their subjects in English in the context of Japanese higher education. Second, some typical psychological barriers experienced by non-English speaking faculty members will be discussed, along with some tips for removing these barriers and improving the overall efficiency of EMI, as suggested by Nakai (2008). The third part will explain some theoretical frameworks that may assist faculty understanding of the important aspects of students’ intercultural learning, and discuss the possibility of developing this in EMI courses. The chapter will then conclude with some suggestions for developing useful schemes for faculty training opportunities.

Facult y Training for Non-Nat ive Speakers of English at Japanese Universit ies

211

Structural Barriers In recent years, many universities have been trying to hire new faculty members who are mostly non-Japanese and already capable of offering courses in English, or sometimes in both Japanese and English, in order to expand the capacity of EMI courses. Some institutions have hired such faculty members with full professorships, and others with temporary positions. This means that, in both cases, the quality and quantity of EMI courses will be defined by the capacity of those newly hired faculty members. However, universities should also consider utilizing their existing human resources, simply because it is financially impossible to hire sufficient numbers of new faculty to cover all of the planned EMI courses. More importantly, if universities want to offer diverse content with unique Japanese perspectives for students from around the world, they will have to encourage and train local professors to conduct their courses in EMI. However, many local faculty members, who have spent their whole professional life using Japanese for their teaching, are generally hesitant to start teaching their courses in English for various reasons. For many faculty members, the heavy workload associated with EMI is a significant issue. In most cases, the teaching load for courses in Japanese and courses in English is counted equally, so the extra time required to prepare for EMI courses or to improve English proficiency of the faculty members is often not considered. Throughout the implementation of the previous internationalization initiatives, including the Global 30 Project, some faculty members experienced an increase in their workload. In starting up EMI courses, they had to do such things as translate lecture notes and materials, and modify their teaching to meet the needs of international students who had minimal knowledge of Japan. There has been a general fear among faculty members that their existing heavy workload may again be doubled in order to implement the current set of reforms (Rappleye & Vickers, 2015). Furthermore, faculty evaluations for promotion and employment generally give much heavier weight to research achievements than to teaching, so faculty see neither incentives nor rationale for spending extra time on teaching. This is a major issue facing internationalization in general. In addition, shifting the language of instruction from Japanese to English does not entail a simple translation; it requires the comprehensive development of teaching materials, such as textbooks and handouts. Textbooks written in English are widely available but most are published in Englishspeaking countries, so their content does not reflect a Japanese perspective. Particularly in the social science and humanities, it is crucial that the contents include Japanese cases or perspectives, in order for both local and international students to recognize the value of studying in Japan. Therefore, faculty members need to spend extra time developing their own teaching

212

Section 4: The Student and Facult y E xper ience

materials that are beneficial to both international and domestic students. In response to this workload, universities should be responsible for assisting faculty members in course development, such as creating the syllabus, writing materials, improving language proficiency and ensuring the readability of the written materials.

Psychological Barriers In addition to the discouraging structural circumstances discussed above, faculty members at Japanese universities may experience some psychological barriers when they consider teaching their courses in English. This is especially relevant for those faculty who grew up in Japanese society and learned English as a subject in the regular school curriculum. While no data is available on the actual English proficiency level of faculty members at Japanese universities, we can generally assume that they have at least learned English as a required subject through secondary education and achieved a certain level of proficiency. Some faculty members are fluent in terms of presenting at academic conferences and publishing papers in English, but they still hesitate to use English for teaching. The following section will give an overview of five aspects of such psychological barriers that Japanese faculty members tend to experience and the tips to overcome those issues and increase the efficiency of pedagogical interactions in EMI classrooms in the context of Japanese higher education, as suggested by the outcomes of a research project carried out in 2007 that resulted in a Japanese book called ‘Faculty Guide for Classroom English’ (Nakai, 2008).

The ‘Faculty Guide for Classroom English’ Project In 2007, a group of researchers, including myself, whose specializations include higher education, teaching and learning, freshman education and intercultural communication, started a project to develop a handbook to support faculty members, mainly those who are not confident enough to use English as a language of instruction. The group first gathered opinions and perspectives through individual and group interviews with faculty members who had taught or were going to teach EMI courses in various academic disciplines, including social science, humanities and science and engineering. The project group concluded that the difficulties of using EMI are not necessarily due to faculty members’ overall English proficiency. They did not express many problems with presenting the course contents in English. Rather, they felt less confident in the use of English for effective classroom management, in other words, for ensuring that students were actually learning in their classrooms.

Facult y Training for Non-Nat ive Speakers of English at Japanese Universit ies

213

The project group thus agreed that the book should assist faculty members to improve their overall efficiency and the quality of their teaching and student learning in their EMI classrooms by offering various pedagogical tips, rather than simply helping them learn useful English phrases. The book starts with five key principles, as explained below, and then lists some useful English phrases related to classroom management and facilitating participatory learning. The intention was that, by using such phrases, the level of faculty engagement with students would naturally increase along with student interaction in the classroom.

Principle 1: Don’t try to speak perfect English This psychological barrier emerges from the deep-rooted belief that teachers are supposed to be more knowledgeable about matters than their students. In addition to this unconscious belief, perfect use of English is connected with the faculty member’s earlier experiences studying English as a required subject during six years of Japanese secondary education, which generally ended with a single paper-and-pencil examination to enter a university. Therefore, English tends to be regarded as a subject where no mistakes are tolerated, rather than a flexible, creative tool for communication. The book project team agreed that such beliefs should be replaced with an alternative perspective on using English as a non-native speaker. Principle 1 suggests forgetting the idea of ‘perfect English’ or ‘native-like English’ and instead introduces the concept of World Englishes. This indicates that there is more than one ‘English’ used by both native and non-native speakers around the world. This also corresponds to the idea of ‘plurilingualism,’ as suggested by the Council of Europe, which does not see a native speaker as the ultimate model of a language user (Council of Europe, 2011). It may take some time and energy for Japanese faculty members to fully accept this idea since it contradicts their experiences during secondary school. The book thus suggests that, rather than pursuing fluency in English, faculty members should make efforts to organize their course content and communication so that students of various linguistic and cultural backgrounds will feel comfortable engaging with the subject and interacting with their classmates. In support of this idea, the book introduces the voices of students who have taken EMI courses, saying that a faculty member’s English proficiency does not really matter if the course contents and design are inspiring and of good quality. The students interviewed for this project, both native and non-native English speakers, welcomed not-so-fluent, butclearly-organized statements, rather than fluent-but-disorganized random speeches.

Principle 2: Design your course well Building on the previous principle, improving efficiency in teaching may make up for the discomfort of using a non-native language. The second principle suggests that faculty members pay more attention to organizing the

214

Section 4: The Student and Facult y E xper ience

contents and methods of teaching so that students of any linguistic and cultural background may more easily understand the main points. For example, distributing a course syllabus with detailed information on the course objectives, expected outcomes, schedule, assignments, requirements, evaluation criteria, etc., gives a clear picture of the overall structure of the course, thus helping both faculty and students understand where they are and what they should achieve together. However, Japanese universities did not, until recently, ask faculty to publish their course syllabus, so faculty enjoyed, or are still enjoying, the freedom to choose topics for lecture or discussion vaguely based on the course theme without telling students in advance. A shared roadmap gives students a context for the topic, thereby helping faculty to be better understood. The tradition of ‘teaching without a shared roadmap’ corresponds to the long-time dominance of one-way lecture as the major pedagogical method in Japan. This contrasts with student-centered active learning, which requires more structured coordination between class sessions, assignments and projects to meet with the needs of students with diversified linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Effective teaching in EMI classes therefore also requires faculty members to be open to, and willing to learn about, diversified pedagogical methods.

Principle 3: Use multiple communication channels Although Japanese universities have been experiencing some diversification of teaching methods, the lecture style is still dominant, especially at large-scale institutions, and it is actually a reasonable choice for some settings. In lecture-style teaching, the major communication channel is verbal speech, often with presentation slides shown in front of the classroom. Principle 3 suggests that faculty utilize multiple communication channels beyond verbal speech so that students have various hints to assist in understanding the essence of the course content and are able to join classroom interactions. This also applies to a small-size classroom setting. Multiple communication channels can be established through different formats. Various internet communication tools provide an online platform for sharing and exchanging ideas during and after the class. This system, for example, allows students who are not confident speaking out in the classrooms to spend extra time after class organizing and formulating their ideas and sharing them with classmates. Course instructors can also repeat important instructions on the platform to ensure that they are clear. Other IT systems, including various social networking services, also provide unlimited possibilities for faculty and students to expand interactions, if well managed. Moreover, non-verbal behaviors, such as gestures, facial expressions, voice tone, speed, use of pause/silence and use of physical space, are also powerful in classroom interactions. For example, it often happens that faculty using English with less confidence tend to speak quietly, which makes

Facult y Training for Non-Nat ive Speakers of English at Japanese Universit ies

215

it difficult for listeners to understand. Then the listeners must ask for repetition, which the faculty may misunderstand as criticism that their English was wrong and lose confidence again. Also, the speed of speech tends to be too fast when a speaker is nervous, which is not easy for anyone to understand. Slowing down and using a louder voice may make a difference, especially when important keywords are spoken.

Principle 4: Encourage students to participate in classroom interactions With a recognition of the rapidly changing society owing to globalization, the Central Education Council (2008), organized by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan (MEXT), suggested that university education should shift toward active-learning and student-centered practices to develop students’ problem-solving, cooperative, and communication skills. Although the lecture style is familiar to many faculty members, faculty training for EMI should also consider this general shift of the mode of teaching as a basic premise. Thus, Principle 4 suggests that faculty change the mode of teaching from a one-way lecture to learnercentered interactive teaching. A one-way lecture in a non-native language may possibly lead to a painful experience for both students and faculty members. Faculty who are not comfortable using English may want to prepare a long script to read in their lectures. Students then have to listen closely to such spoken words and try to make sense of them for a long period of time without a pause to ask questions. Moreover, the one-way lecture style may not satisfy some international students who are used to classroom interaction through their education at home. Learner-centered interactive teaching, however, is generally not easy to implement if faculty members have no direct experience with this mode of pedagogy. A major shift must take place in their mindset: from a knowledge provider to a facilitator of student leaning. In other words, in learner-centered settings, faculty members are not the main character, and students should be allowed more time to express themselves in order to share the learning process and to maximize their learning outcomes. The participants of an EMI faculty training program that the author facilitated often pointed out that they find it more challenging to shift their mode of teaching rather than just improving their English proficiency. This is natural, and critical, particularly for those who have no experience in joining an interactive teaching environment as students. An effective faculty training program, therefore, should include opportunities to visit different classes where the learner-centered pedagogy is actually implemented.

Principle 5: Be aware of the diversity in English proficiency levels of students EMI courses at Japanese universities often include both international and domestic students whose English proficiency levels range from intermediate

216

Section 4: The Student and Facult y E xper ience

to highly advanced level, including native speakers. Educational value can be added by suggesting that students consider this situation as similar to using English in the globalized society of their future. An EMI classroom offers a great opportunity for non-native speakers of English to use English, to recognize what works and what does not, and to improve their proficiency through experiential learning settings offered in the classrooms. Principle 5 suggests that faculty recognize the linguistic value of EMI environments for students who are native speakers of English. The author often meets faculty members who are afraid of using English in front of native English-speaking students, worrying that they may feel annoyed by various types of broken Englishes surrounding them in the classroom. I believe that such an environment itself is highly meaningful for those students, since it is a simulation of a globalized society where various people use English as a tool for communication. If students who are native English speakers want to become efficient communicators in cross-cultural environments, they have to be aware that their native-speaker English might not be the most efficient in a multilingual environment and thus learn to adjust the way they express themselves into more understandable forms for a varied audience. Moreover, they have to learn to focus on the essential points expressed by their classmates, not on superficial proficiency. Therefore, according to Principle 5, faculty members should be aware of, and convey to students, two aspects of the linguistic value of EMI courses. One is for the students who are not confident in using English: ‘Do not wait to use English until your English becomes perfect. Only practice makes you more comfortable and confident. The classroom is the safest environment to make mistakes, so just trust your classmates and speak up.’ The other message is for those who are native speakers of English: ‘Try to figure out how your English can be more understandable to non-native English speakers. Try to paraphrase your messages clearly and simply, and see how your classmates respond. This is a simulation of global communication where more than half of English users are non-natives.’

Intercultural Learning in the EMI Classrooms One rationale for Japanese universities to increase the number of courses in English is to expand the opportunities for international students, regardless of their Japanese language proficiency, to join domestic students in the classroom in order to facilitate intercultural learning by both groups. However, as mentioned earlier, simply being in the same classroom does not automatically offer them opportunities for meaningful interactions which support students in developing intercultural competencies and global mindsets. Then, what pedagogical aspects should be recognized in order for faculty to add this significant value to their EMI courses and

Facult y Training for Non-Nat ive Speakers of English at Japanese Universit ies

217

make internationalization efforts more meaningful to Japanese universities? And how can Japanese faculty members, who have thus far not been expected to achieve these goals, take on this challenge? This section outlines some theoretical frameworks that may assist faculty to promote intercultural learning as a secondary objective in their EMI courses for both international and domestic students. Intercultural learning is a complicated process in which one may obtain intercultural competencies, generally defined as a set of cognitive, affective and behavioral abilities with which one can fully function and pursue self-actualization in a cross-cultural setting (Hammer, 2012; Paige, 1993; Pusch, 1994; Ruben, 1989). Moreover, the process of intercultural learning should be accompanied by efforts that help students learn how to learn from hands-on intercultural experiences, which may prove useful in their future (Horie, 1999).

Visible and invisible cultural differences in classrooms The varied cultural backgrounds of students may offer invaluable opportunities for interactions among students, if they are allowed to extend their understanding of their cultural identity in areas such as value orientations, ways of thinking, and assumptions about human relations. However, international students in Japan are not usually encouraged to express these aspects, possibly because they are generally guided to adjust or even assimilate into the Japanese society in their daily lives. In fact, one of the early Japanese internationalization policies, the 100,000 International Students Plan, encouraged such assimilation by providing institutional support, such as training in Japanese language and social skills, for international students to integrate into school environments and local communities (Horie, 2002; MEXT, 1985). Such an attitude pushes international students to conceal their own original cultural identity, values and ideas. However, the EMI classroom provides a new environment for sharing different cultural values and ways of thinking, which are also recognized as invaluable resources for learning. This section suggests some theoretical aspects with which faculty members could promote intercultural learning in their EMI classrooms by encouraging students of various backgrounds to be aware of their unique cultural identity and share their personal views to enrich classroom interactions. Intercultural educators often refer to the iceberg model to conceptualize the nature of culture (Althen, 1994). This metaphor illustrates aspects of culture by explaining that only the tip of an iceberg is visible above the sea surface, while the rest of it is hidden under the water. The visible aspects include architecture, dance, music, foods, clothes, literature and arts, for example. The invisible areas include patterns of thinking, core values and norms, assumptions and beliefs, all of which provide the foundation for the visible parts of culture.

218

Section 4: The Student and Facult y E xper ience

In an EMI classroom, faculty may easily recognize the visible differences in the cultural backgrounds of students by nationality, ethnicity, gender, generation and religious background, but it will take some time and effort to uncover the invisible aspects of their cultural identities. The effort must be made intentionally because, otherwise, we tend to assume that our invisible facets are similar. Barna (1998) points out that people tend to focus on similarities rather than differences and believe that everyone is similar to reduce the anxiety and discomfort of not knowing. Faculty members who are aware that each student has his or her own iceberg understand the rich resources available when recognizing the cultural diversity of their classroom. Such awareness is the first step to producing pedagogically meaningful interactions among students that lead to intercultural learning.

Ultimate target: Overcoming ethnocentrism Recognizing a variety of cultural backgrounds at a deeper level is not a simple task for anyone, because the nature of our perception is constructed in a culturally ethnocentric way. In other words, ethnocentrism is a human condition where new information is accepted and comprehended only in the framework that already exists in one’s brain (Mestenhauser, 2001). Intention is necessary in the process of intercultural learning in order to expand our capacity and perception to see beyond the usual patterns of thinking or norms that we take for granted. Therefore, EMI faculty should intentionally recognize the influence of ethnocentrism as a major psychological barrier that easily prevents us, both faculty and students, from perceiving subtle messages conveyed in cross-cultural environments.

A guideline for intercultural development Faculty may find the Intercultural Development Continuum (Hammer, 2012; hereafter IDC) useful as a framework to be aware of students’ changes through intercultural learning. IDC is a modified scheme of the Development Model of Intercultural Sensitivities (Bennett, 1993), which suggests that an individual overcomes ethnocentrism through five stages. Initially people are ignorant of cultural differences (Denial) but, with limited intercultural experience, they come to find differences among various cultural groups and judge or criticize characteristics of other cultural groups by using their standard as the only right one (Polarization). At the next stage, people start to pay more attention to commonalities rather than differences and develop positive orientations to a different culture (Minimization). As they begin to understand the new culture beyond the visible, superficial level, they can accept the other non-judgmentally (Acceptance). At the final stage, people feel capable of, and comfortable with, choosing an appropriate behavior or a way of thinking according to a given cultural context (Adaptation). People at

Facult y Training for Non-Nat ive Speakers of English at Japanese Universit ies

219

this stage are motivated to learn more about invisible parts of various cultures, solve cross-cultural problems creatively and also bridge the gap between those of various cultures (Hammer, 2012). While the intercultural skills currently being promoted at Japanese universities tend to be unclearly defined at both the government and institutional levels, it seems reasonable to assume that Hammer’s adaptation stage is the ultimate goal. This implies that faculty should pay attention to various types of student responses, including emotional and behavioral patterns, in addition to their cognitive changes. Faculty members can refer to the IDC model to estimate their students’ current stage and their need to grow, even though clear lines between the stages are impossible to determine. It should be noted that the transition from one stage to another may require a certain amount of time, and faculty may be disappointed if they expect to see students moving up several stages during one semester. This model merely provides some concrete ideas of affective, cognitive and behavioral changes that may happen in classrooms and offers possible learning targets for a classroom setting.

Further Challenges for Meaningful Internationalization This chapter has discussed the significance and necessity of developing and offering faculty training opportunities. It explained various structural and psychological barriers experienced by faculty members of Japanese universities that hinder the expansion of EMI courses. Five different aspects were proposed for consideration in designing faculty training programs for those who wish to teach their subject courses in English more effectively and efficiently. Moreover, recognizing the significance of EMI as an expanding opportunity for local and international students to learn together, the chapter outlined some theoretical frameworks which help faculty members to promote students’ interactions among culturally and linguistically diverse students to go beyond ‘just being together’ to maximizing intercultural learning opportunities. Beyond all the points made in this chapter, the author also recognizes the necessity of training opportunities for faculty members to develop their own intercultural competence and sensitivity. They need training not only in pedagogy, but also in intercultural competency, which supports EMI courses in becoming opportunities for cross-cultural peer learning. It would be reasonable for faculty members to experience the process of intercultural learning before the students do if they want to lead such a process in their classroom. Moreover, intercultural training could possibly also prevent faculty members from getting involved in harassment cases due to cultural insensitivities or misunderstandings.

220

Section 4: The Student and Facult y E xper ience

The process of internationalization thus questions if we, as faculty members, have been able to keep up with all the changes in student demography and in the modes of pedagogy. Successful internationalization of higher education will produce many university graduates who are capable of creating their own career paths across borders and, more importantly, should also encourage faculty members to open their mindsets to alternative types of pedagogy, which help students learn collaboratively with their peers of diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. The expansion of EMI courses is expected to play a significant role in the efforts to create a new academic world for knowledge sharing and production.

References Althen, G. (1994) Cultural differences on campus. In G. Althen (ed.) Learning Across Cultures (pp. 57–72). Washington, DC: NAFSA. Arkoudis, S., Yu, X., Baik, C., Borland, H., Chang, S., Lang, I., Lang, J., Pearce, A. and Watty, K. (2010) Finding common ground: Enhancing interaction between domestic and international students. Melbourne: Australian Learning & Teaching Council. See http://melbourne-cshe.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/1861938/Finding CommonGround_web.pdf Barna, L.M. (1998) Stumbling blocks in intercultural communication. In M.J. Bennett (ed.) Basic Concepts of Intercultural Communication: A Reader (pp. 173–190). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Bennett, M.J. (1993) Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R.M. Paige (ed.) Education for the Intercultural Experiences (pp. 21–71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Central Education Council (2008) Yosoku Konnan na Jidai nioite Shogai Manabi Tsuduke, Syutaiteki ni Kangaeru Chikara wo Ikusei suru Daigaku he [University Reform for Promoting Life-long Learning and Educating Active Thinkers in an Unpredictable Era]. Tokyo: MEXT. See http://www.mext.go.jp/component/b_menu/shingi/ toushin/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2012/04/02/1319185_1.pdf Council of Europe (2011) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hammer, M. (2012) The Intercultural Development Inventory: A new frontier in assessment and development of intercultural competence. In M. Vande Berg, R.M. Paige and K.H. Lou (eds) Student Learning Abroad (pp. 115–136). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Horie, M. (1999) Intercultural education: A review of theories and concepts. Journal of International Student Advisors and Educators 2, 15–22. Horie, M. (2002) The internationalization of higher education in Japan in the 1990’s: A reconsideration. Higher Education 43, 65–84. Mestenhauser, J.A. (2001) The utilization of foreign students in internationalization of universities. In S.T. Bond and C. Bowry (eds) Connections and Complexities: The Internationalization of Higher Education in Canada. Occasional Papers in Higher Education 11 (pp. 12–27). Kingston, Ontario: Queen’s University. METI (2010) Sangaku Jinzai Ikusei Patonasippu Guro-baru Jinzai Ikusei Iinkai Hokokusyo [Final Report of the Committee of the Industry-Academia Partnership for Human Resource Development]. See http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/economy/jinzai/san_ gaku_ps/2010globalhoukokusho.pdf MEXT (1985) 21 Seiki heno Ryugakusei Seisaku [Policy for international students towards the 21st century]. Tokyo: MEXT.

Facult y Training for Non-Nat ive Speakers of English at Japanese Universit ies

221

MEXT (2014) Su-pa-guro-baru Daigaku tou Jigyou Koubo Youryou [Top Global University Project application guideline]. See https://www.jsps.go.jp/j-sgu/data/ download/01_sgu_kouboyouryou.pdf Nakai, T. (ed.) (2008) Daigaku Kyoin no tameno Kyoshitsu Eigo Hyogen 300 [Faculty Guide to Classroom English]. Tokyo: Alc. Paige, R.M. (1993) On the nature of intercultural experiences and intercultural education. In R.M. Paige (ed.) Education for Intercultural Experience (pp. 1–19). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Pusch, M.D. (1994) Cross-cultural training. In G. Althen (ed.) Learning Across Cultures (revised edn, pp. 109–143). Washington, DC: NAFSA. Rappleye, J. and Vickers, E. (2015) Can Japanese universities really become super global? University World News Global Edition Issue 389. See http://www.universityworldnews. com/article.php?story=20151103154757426 (accessed 10 November 2015). Ruben, B.D. (1989) The study of cross-cultural competence: Traditions and contemporary issues. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 13, 229–240. Shin, G.W. and Moon, R.J. (2015) Japanese education’s ‘foreign problem.’ Nikkei Asian Review. See http://asia.nikkei.com/Viewpoints/Perspectives/Japanese-education-sforeign-problem (accessed 16 July 2015).

Section 5 Curriculum Contexts

14 Factors for Success and Sustainability of an Elective English-Medium Instruction Program Bethany Mueller Iyobe and Jia Li

The English-medium instruction (EMI) program discussed in this chapter is part of the curriculum at a small, publicly funded university in Japan that mostly serves domestic students coming from local high schools. As the university went through a major curriculum overhaul in 2009, English language learning and EMI emerged as a key component of the new aims. Initially, there were expectations that the entire curriculum, or specific majors, would be full English-taught programs (ETPs). While this proved unfeasible owing to factors including the abilities and beliefs of some faculty members, another portion of the faculty and administration held on to the importance of English language learning and EMI education as central to the future image of the university. This resulted in the emergence of a set of EMI courses offered within the overall curriculum. The EMI courses at this university are optional, maintain a minor role in the overall curriculum and are designed to complement the Japanese-medium curriculum in international politics and economics and in applied linguistics. Students are required to study English in a semi-intensive English language program in their first year at the university and can then, from the second year on, choose whether or not to pursue studies offered through EMI courses. In the international politics and economics field, the second year courses are team-taught by content specialists and English language teaching specialists. In the third and fourth years of the EMI program, courses are taught solely by content teaching specialists. The general characteristics of these EMI courses are similar to many other programs starting up in Japan as described by Brown (2016). The students are mainly Japanese students; those participating in EMI make up less than 10% of the overall student body; EMI makes up only a part of the students’ credits 225

226 Section 5: Cur r iculum Conte x t s

required for graduation rather than being an entire ETP degree program; and it is offered to undergraduate students in Humanities and Social Sciences. Three aspects that differ from the typical program are that (a) there is a concerted effort to provide necessary and appropriate language preparation before students enroll in EMI, (b) there is a bridge stage that allows students to experience a gradual shift from language-focused learning to EMI, and (c) communication and collaboration between language-teaching specialists and content specialists is embedded into the program design. In this chapter we will address areas where attention is needed to ensure the sustainability of this program. The data, gathered through student performance, instructor reflection and student feedback, has allowed for preliminary observations to be made. Three factors that have arisen as integral to the sustainability of the program are: (a) the amount of exposure students have to EMI; (b) collaboration between content and language-teaching specialists; and (c) integrated content across the curriculum. In addition, students named the heavy workload as the primary reasons for not choosing to take more EMI courses. This caused a decline in student numbers and is worrisome as the program progresses. Some possible responses to this challenge will be put forth in the final portion of the chapter.

From Language Learning to EMI This university has a three-step EMI program design that leads students from focus on English language study in their first year, to focus on content learning through English language in later years. All of the courses, in both the language-learning curriculum and the EMI curriculum, fall on the Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) continuum (Bently, 2010), meaning that at each stage language learning and content learning are both part of the learning goals. On this continuum, soft CLIL is on one end, and language learning occupies a large portion of the focus, and hard CLIL is on the other, where content learning makes up a larger portion of learning goals. In the international politics and economics EMI program, soft CLIL is applied in the required, language learning courses in the first year shown on the left in Figure 14.1. The second year courses, which are primarily taught by a pair of teachers, have a rather balanced set of language and content learning goals. The approach then finally shifts to hard CLIL in the EMI courses offered in the third and fourth years, with a strong focus on content. These courses are shown on the right in Figure 14.1.

Step One – language courses designed for first and second year students This step is not only for students who choose to participate in the EMI program. All first year students at this university must complete the required

Fac tors for Success and Sust ainabilit y of an Elec t ive EMI Program

227

Figure 14.1 Structure/curriculum design of EMI program – three step framework

language study at this stage. In order to allow all students to prepare for future content studies in English, many of the first year compulsory language courses are specifically designed to focus on students’ integrated language skills instead of focusing separately on the four skills of reading, writing, speaking and listening. Additionally, authentic materials are utilized on such topics as urbanization, migration, food security and development issues. These topics are chosen in connection with the anticipated subjects needs of the EMI content classes. These language courses aim to cover both language and academic study skills. By the end of the first year, successful students are able to listen to lectures of 90 minutes, combine lecture content with reading assignments and apply information in discussions and short term papers. In Step One, which most students complete by the end of the first year of study, students are required to earn approximately a quarter of their credits through English language courses. One purpose for such emphasis on English from the start is to allow a large number of students to gain the experience and develop abilities that could encourage their interest in pursuing EMI courses, as these courses are entirely elective and open to any student. All courses in Step One are taught solely by language-teaching specialists.

Step Two – bridge courses designed for second year students interested in EMI This is the stage where EMI officially begins. Step Two is considered a bridge from language study to straight EMI. While Step One is required for

228

Section 5: Cur r iculum Conte x t s

all students at the university, Step Two is purely elective. After completion of Step One, students who do not enter EMI courses decide to switch focus to another language or to pursue their academic studies in Japanese. Students who hope to receive recognition for completion of the EMI program are expected to take (a) three of the four courses delivered by language specialist only, and (b) at least six of the eight pair-taught courses available in Step Two (see course list in Table 14.1). All courses are taught entirely through English and use materials in the area of international politics or economics. The courses taught by the language teaching specialists focus on skills development, while the pair-taught classes are heavily focused on content learning. A distinguishing feature in Step Two is that a pair of teachers, consisting of one content specialist and one language-teaching specialist, teaches a large number of courses, specifically, eight out of 12. The courses with similar titles have been designed to be taken as one set, with the same pair of content specialist and language-teaching specialist teaching both courses. For example, the same pair of instructors collaborates to teach the Principles of Economics A (Microeconomics) and the corresponding workshop course. Class management in these bridge courses is at the discretion of each pair of instructors. In some bridge courses these two classes are, in fact, presented as two separate sessions, with the content specialist lecturing in one session, while the language-teaching specialist provides language support and scaffolding in the workshop session. In other pair-taught bridge courses, content specialists and language-teaching specialists collaborate with each other closely to design activities and co-facilitate both courses and class sessions Table 14.1 Step Two bridge courses for second year students Category

Course title

Spring term

Courses delivered by language specialist only Comprehensive Study Skills A Academic Interactions A Pair-taught courses delivered by pairs of language and content specialists Principles of Economics A (Microeconomics) Principles of Economics A (Microeconomics): Workshop Principles of International Politics A Principles of International Politics A: Workshop Courses delivered by language specialist only Comprehensive Study Skills B Academic Interactions B Pair-taught courses delivered by pairs of language and content specialists Principles of Economics B (Macroeconomics) Principles of Economics B (Macroeconomics): Workshop Principles of International Politics B Principles of International Politics B: Workshop

Autumn term

Fac tors for Success and Sust ainabilit y of an Elec t ive EMI Program

229

together. In all cases, both instructors are in the classrooms for all lessons and consult with each other on such aspects as term schedule, content coverage, assignments and student evaluation. At this level, the emphasis of the learning goals has heavily shifted to content while the development of language abilities is still considered essential in reaching that goal. The language-teaching specialists continue instruction on vocabulary development, reading strategies and oral communication skills. However, these pair-taught bridge classes are not positioned as language courses in the curriculum; instead, they are considered content courses even though there is awareness that students’ language proficiency will affect the possible learning outcomes. These courses are a link, or bridge, between Step One, language courses, and Step Three, straight EMI courses.

Step Three: Upper level content classes in English designed for third and fourth year students To complete the EMI program, students are expected to take six courses from an available 11 total courses at this stage. These courses are positioned as ordinary content courses and are solely delivered by content specialists. Therefore, these courses give very little consideration to students’ language proficiency and are expected to be as deep and challenging in content as similar courses being taught in Japanese. It is still hoped that students’ English language abilities will continue to improve throughout this time, even though content specialist teachers do not do anything specific to foster such learning. It is expected that students will apply strategies learned in early courses to further their own language skills, especially in academic reading and vocabulary acquisition.

Factors of Success This EMI program in international politics and economics was officially available to students for consideration from 2013, meaning that the bridge courses of Step Two were offered for the first time in 2014. Among the 57 students who registered for international political-economic studies that year, 40 students took at least one EMI course in 2014. Three factors have surfaced as being connected to positive experiences in the classrooms and necessary to help ensure the sustainability and expansion of this elective EMI program.

Factor 1: A critical mass of exposure to EMI Participation in the EMI program is completely voluntary on the part of the students. It was designed with a significant amount of flexibility to allow students who wished to diligently participate in EMI an opportunity to do so, but also to ensure the EMI courses were available for those students

230

Section 5: Cur r iculum Conte x t s

who wished to participate in a less immersive way. Students who take the full range of EMI classes can earn up to 30% of the credits required for graduation through EMI. On the other hand, it is possible for students to complete their required study at the university, and in international politics and economics, without engaging in any of the EMI courses. This flexibility was important at the time of setup so as not to limit participation in the courses and hopefully attract a large number of students. To receive recognition for the completion of the program, students need to earn a specific number of credits at each stage of their studies as described above. Some students chose to follow these recommendations and aim for completion, while many others chose to register for fewer than the suggested number of credits and only experience one or two EMI courses. However, assessment results suggest that those students choosing to take only a few courses in EMI did not perform as well and are therefore probably learning less. By taking a close look at the results of the final exam for one specific bridge course (Bridge Course A hereafter), we can see a clear difference in the results for various sets of students (see Table 14.2). There were three identifiable registration patterns for the 39 students who participated in Bridge Course A: those planning to officially complete the full program of study, meaning that they registered for at least five courses recommended for that semester; those choosing a few courses according to their interests; and those who registered for Bridge Course A without the corresponding workshop course. This meant that Bridge Course A provided the opportunity for comparative assessment of almost all students who chose to participate in Table 14.2 Performance differences with different course registration patterns EMI course registration pattern

No. of students

Final exam scores for Bridge Course A (%)

Bridge Course A and the corresponding workshop course + more than four other EMI classes per week

13

Average score

71

15

Highest Lowest Average score

100 52 63

11

Highest Lowest Average score

91 44 51

Highest Lowest

72 32

Bridge Course A and the corresponding workshop course + fewer than four other EMI classes per week

Bridge Course A, taught by the content specialist, but not the corresponding workshop course + no more than two other EMI course per week

Fac tors for Success and Sust ainabilit y of an Elec t ive EMI Program

231

international economics and politics EMI courses. The breakdown of registration patterns for the EMI program of students in Bridge Course A was as follows (see also Table 14.2): •

•

•

Group 1 – 13 students registered for more than four EMI classes per week, as required for completion of the program. This registration included both sets of pair-taught bridge courses and workshops, including Bridge Course A, plus one or more of the other classes offered in Step Two. Group 2 – 15 students registered in such a way so as to take advantage of the EMI courses, but with no more than four classes per week, which indicates interest in EMI but not the intention of completing the program. All students in this category chose to take the lecture component and workshop component of Bridge Course A, and at least one other course in Step Two. Group 3 – 11 students registered for the lecture component of Bridge Course A, but did not register for the corresponding workshop component. This group of students was therefore exposed to a purer version of EMI at Step Two than was intended by design. Even though support was available, they chose to take the content specialist-led course without the assistance of the corresponding support course. Furthermore, the students in this category were registered for no more than two EMI courses overall.

The numerical breakdown of these groups was surprisingly balanced and allowed for interesting insights into respective students’ success in Bridge Course A in connection to their style of registration. From the score distribution on the final exam of in Bridge Course A (shown in Table 14.2), we found that (a) students who are taking more EMI classes per semester appear to perform better, and (b) students who are taking the workshop component, as well as the lecture component, appear to perform better. While there is overlap between the scores of the students in the three separate groups, we can see that there is also an even drop in overall performance from one group to the next, in both high and low scores as well as averages. It would seem that the combination of at least five classes taught through EMI in a week, and the benefit of participating in the workshop course, led to the most success on average. On the other hand, students who were taking very few EMI classes and chose to forgo the opportunity of the workshop course performed the worst on average. This went against some speculation in the beginning of the program that too many courses would overload the students and they would not be able to handle the work. It supported, however, the expectations of some who believed that success in EMI depended on exposure to a critical mass of EMI classes. It is worthy to note, of the students who registered for Bridge Course A, only one had significant experience abroad and this student fell into group three, taking only the

232

Section 5: Cur r iculum Conte x t s

lecture component of the class and scoring poorly on the final exam. The other 38 students had no significant experience in English speaking countries and did not have the traditional identifiable motivations for studying in English, such as plans to study abroad. The final exam scores of students in Bridge Course A provide important data because it was the only course that was attended by almost every student participating in the EMI program in this initial cohort of students. Furthermore, it provided a clear, even breakdown in registration patterns. Since the data is from only one class of students and in the initial term of this EMI program, it would be necessary to consistently monitor the scores of students in all classes to prove a trend. However, this data provides preliminary information that suggests the benefits of more EMI rather than less, and EMI with support courses rather than without at this level of language proficiency, approximately 450–475 on TOEFL PBT.

Factor 2: Collaboration The initial reasons for including the pair-taught courses in Step Two were to ensure that both content and language learning occurred at this stage as well as to ensure that the students would not be overwhelmed by the materials and concepts. In short, the program design tried to keep the cognitive challenge in check while language learning progressed. In retrospect, other significant benefits also resulted from this collaboration. McKee and Day (as cited in Volger & Long, 2003) state that two teachers collaborating in one classroom can be beneficial for students in that there is more chance for individual instruction. Letterman and Dugan (2004) further suggest it can enhance students’ interest and provides an opportunity for students to witness the instructors’ interaction with each other and gain varying perspectives. While these same benefits were also observed in this study, others also emerged. In terms of curriculum development, the pairing of instructors added a sense of validity to the courses being labeled as content courses rather than language courses. In a growing number of programs in Japan, language-teaching specialists are sometimes calling on their undergraduate majors, or are learning new content areas, in order to expand a Content Based Instruction or CLIL course into an EMI course (Brown, 2016; Susser, this volume). While this can be accomplished, it does take a certain amount of time to prepare for such courses. Furthermore, other faculty members and external stakeholders sometimes question whether the languageteaching specialist is qualified for such a position (Brown, 2014). This limits the extent to which these courses can benefit students or impact a curriculum. However, by having the content specialist collaborate with the language-teaching specialist to both prepare and facilitate lessons, questions or doubts concerning the quality of content, as well as the issue of preparation time on the part of the language teacher, are addressed. In this study,

Fac tors for Success and Sust ainabilit y of an Elec t ive EMI Program

233

the pairing was one of the deciding factors that allowed the workshop classes to be categorized as content courses in the wider curriculum. Content specialists endeavoring to teach solo EMI courses can also face challenges. It is not typical for content specialists in Japan to be trained in education or teaching methodologies, let alone in the types of techniques that may be helpful for students learning in a second language. It may be difficult for these instructors to gauge the appropriate level of language expectations and classroom material, provide scaffolding as necessary or judge when a lack of understanding is rooted in general misunderstanding of the concept or a linguistic limitation of the student. Pairing a content specialist with a language-teaching specialist can lessen the content specialist’s difficulty in choosing appropriate materials and understanding the students’ abilities. At least one of the content specialists involved in the pair-taught Step Two bridge courses at this university has commented that the skills and knowledge shared through this paired teaching are transferable to other solotaught EMI classrooms. In sum, these pair-taught bridge courses not only benefited students, but also allowed for expanded curriculum design and professional development for instructors.

Factor 3: Integrated curriculum content The collaboration between language and content specialists can also be seen as contributing to the integration of content across the larger curriculum in two ways. First, by becoming familiar with both the future content and the teaching styles and expectations of the content specialists that will teach the higher EMI courses, language-teaching specialists were able to more efficiently use the Step One language courses to appropriately prepare students for future EMI. The pair-teaching in Step Two could almost be understood as a type of needs analysis for the language-teaching specialists, allowing them an intimate look into the future target discourse community of their students. The drawback here is that not all language-teaching specialists were able to be involved in the pair-taught bridge courses and therefore this positive influence was limited. Ideally, if there could be an opportunity for each language-teaching specialist involved in the early language preparation courses (Step One) to experience such a pairing, the effects could possibly be more far-reaching. Content specialists also benefited by this collaboration. They became aware of the overlap of content between the bridge courses and other courses of similar subject areas that they were conducting in Japanese. This was a major point brought up by students in a focus group conducted with the first cohort of students in 2014. Students mentioned that a certain amount of overlap was extremely helpful and allowed for quick uptake of information and a sense of confidence in the beginning of Step Two. However, too much overlap was reported to be demotivating because students are already

234

Section 5: Cur r iculum Conte x t s

familiar with the material. Therefore, including content specialists in the Step Two bridge courses allows these instructors an opportunity to tailor the content so as to overlap in a supportive and complementary, rather than repetitive, manner with both classes conducted in Japanese and Step Three EMI courses on the same subject.

Experiences and Challenges The biggest challenge seen so far in sustaining the program is in attracting and maintaining enough students to justify the number of courses offered in the EMI program. In 2015, an online survey was conducted to collect students’ opinions of EMI courses (see Figure 14.2). There was a significant decline in the number of students in the first cohort of students moving from second year bridge courses to third year EMI courses (only 21 of the original 40 students chose to continue). Therefore, the survey targeted these remaining third year students. Of the 12 third year students who responded to the survey, eight of them (66.7%) considered the workload of EMI courses to be too heavy, and seven of them (58.3%) were not interested in the subjects of the courses being offered. These were the two top reasons given for not enrolling in the four courses per term of EMI that faculty advised third year students to take. In open-ended, follow-up questions, students mentioned it took a lot of time to prepare for the class every week, in particular, reading assignments seemed to be the main reason why students felt that EMI courses demanded so much work. It was unclear if this was simply because more reading was assigned than in Japanese courses, or if the reading took longer because it was in English. At the same time, students reiterated the opinion that a certain

Too much workload (assignment, reading etc.)

66.7%

Not interested in the subjects of some courses

58.3%

Scheduling problem (interested in other courses falling into same time slots)

25.0%

Overlapping of contents with courses in Japanese

8.3%

Other

8.3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Figure 14.2 Reasons for third year students taking fewer than four EMI classes per semester Note: Total respondents = 12.

Fac tors for Success and Sust ainabilit y of an Elec t ive EMI Program

235

amount of overlap was helpful in giving them the confidence and ability to pursue EMI courses. It also helped to lessen the workload. Q: If you are taking fewer than four EMI courses per semester, please let us know why.

Response to Student Concerns To promote the growth of the EMI programs and to encourage more students to continue from Step Two to Step Three it is necessary to consider ways of addressing students’ concerns. Currently, all faculty member participation in these EMI courses is voluntary. Furthermore, there is little possibility of persuading content specialists to choose course topics popular with students as they are all teaching in their own area of specialty. For these reasons, it seems that addressing the issue of content courses offered not being of interest to the students is unlikely at the moment. On the other hand, there are a few possibilities being considered concerning how the workload can be modified to entice more students to continue on into Step Three, upper-level EMI courses. After reflecting on EMI courses in this same program, Brown and Adamson (2015) suggested that types and volume of assignments should be carefully considered in EMI courses. Based on our look at these EMI courses, we can further develop that suggestion as follows: •

•

•

•

Teachers could be encouraged to choose only readings that can be considered core to the understanding of materials required for the course. Too many readings, and some that seem irrelevant to the lecture content, may be demotivating and the students will not know how to choose which are of importance. Teachers could choose core readings carefully so that they connect with and build upon, but are not translations of, other readings being assigned in courses of similar content taught in Japanese. This will ensure that a base of knowledge is being built which can then be applied across courses and curriculum making each subsequent course more accessible. Teachers could check that students are doing the readings by requiring active feedback from students in class. By ensuring that students are doing the readings and giving them a feeling of responsibility for the readings, it is likely their abilities will improve quickly and they will understand that the content of the readings is imperative for their understanding of the course material. Teachers could continue to refer to and highlight academic reading skills learned in earlier courses. For example, they could remind students to read for general understanding, find the main points and choose which vocabulary to investigate further rather than stopping at every new word to check a dictionary.

236

Section 5: Cur r iculum Conte x t s

General Reflections The EMI program studied in this research is in its initial stages. We do not have sufficient data for more sophisticated analysis, but we found that the program design is somewhat unique in providing solid language preparation and the inclusion of pair-taught bridge courses. Based on the experiences at this university, the following suggestions can be viewed as important for beginning a successful elective EMI program: (1) A certain number of EMI courses should be taken simultaneously rather than allowing students to register for single EMI courses per term. This extended exposure seems to lead to more success in acquisition of content and skill. (2) Curriculum design needs to take the buildup of students’ language proficiency into consideration. Preparatory language courses should be integrated language-skills based as well as academic-skills based, and specifically designed to lead into EMI classes. (3) To fill in the gap between language courses and straight content courses offered in English, pair-taught bridge courses might be effective. Content teachers usually do not have training in education, neither are they trained in teaching in a foreign language, while language teachers can distinguish students’ cognitive and language difficulties. Therefore, language-teaching specialists can help facilitate classes more effectively, and assist language development, so as to foster quick mastery of content. (4) The scope of EMI courses should be relatively focused and limited to a certain academic discipline, or at least adjacent disciplines. This design would guarantee sustained exposure to technical terms, logic formation, writing style and key concepts. This both lessens the burden on students participating in the EMI courses and allows the preparatory language learning to appropriately focus materials and skills so as to be beneficial for future EMI. This is likely to make the reading load more manageable. The difficulty of retaining students is an unresolved issue that is likely to be important for any university offering elective EMI courses in Japan. In the experiences of this program, the reasons for the drop in students are: (a) the heavy workload of EMI makes courses only attractive for a few highly motivated students; and (b) when offered as electives, students may tend to take too few courses. This then does not allow for significant exposure to EMI courses and therefore undermines the development of students’ abilities by limiting the reinforcement of specialist terms, skills and area knowledge across courses. For a sustainable program, these issues need to be addressed

Fac tors for Success and Sust ainabilit y of an Elec t ive EMI Program

237

carefully by way of required minimum exposure to EMI, collaboration between language-teaching and content specialists, and content integration across the curriculum.

References Bently, K. (2010) The TKT Course CLIL Module. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, H. (2014) Contextual factors driving the growth of undergraduate Englishmedium instruction programmes at universities in Japan. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics 1 (1), 50–63. Brown, H. (2016) English-medium instruction in Japan: Discussing implications for language teaching. In P. Clements, A. Krause and H. Brown (eds) Focus on the Learner (pp. 419–425). Tokyo: JALT. Brown, H. and Adamson, J. (2015) Integration and collaboration in undergraduate EMI: Adapting EAP to the emergence of a blended academic culture in a Japanese university. Paper presented at the fourth Integrating Content and Language in Higher Education conference (ICLHE 2015), Brussels, September. Letterman, M.R. and Dugan, K.B. (2004) Team teaching a cross-disciplinary honors course: Preparation and development. College Teaching 52 (2), 76–79. Volger, K.E. and Long, E. (2003) Team teaching two sections of the same undergraduate course: A case study. College Teaching 51 (4), 122–126.

15 Making the EFL to ELF Transition in English-Medium Instruction at a Global Traction University Jim McKinley

This chapter provides an analysis of the situation of English-medium instruction (EMI) at Sophia University, one of Japan’s selected universities for both the Global 30 and the Top Global University projects. The Global 30 Project was launched by Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) in 2009 and concluded in 2014. It was part of an attempt to increase the number of foreign students in Japanese universities to 300,000 by 2020. The Top Global University Project was then launched, refocusing energies on enhancing internationalization. The G30 Project was consistently criticized from its inception (see for example, Burgess et al., 2010; Hashimoto, 2013). Probably the most egregious issue was the discrepancy between the objectives of the project focusing too much on its goal to increase international student numbers and ignoring its other goal to increase domestic students’ English skills. This chapter attempts to offer a more positive evaluation of the project by exploring the changes in direction made at Sophia during its participation in the G30 Project, and the direction it has moved in at the launch of the Top Global University Project. This chapter highlights three programs at Sophia that feature English as the medium of instruction, either partially or entirely. It discusses a study which explores the relevance of EMI in providing what the university describes as global studies – a term with no shared understanding, that stakeholders interpret differently. Two analytical frameworks: English as a Foreign Language vs English as a Lingua Franca (Jenkins, 2006), and English Language Teaching vs Global Englishes Language Teaching (Galloway & Rose, 2015) were used to provide perspective on the ways that instructors in these programs approached English as a medium of study as opposed to viewing English as an object of study. This is a reflection of Sophia’s long 238

Mak ing the EFL to ELF Transit ion in EMI at a Global Trac t ion Universit y

239

history of successfully teaching through English both before and after the MEXT project initiatives. Findings indicate that Sophia’s balance of language and support might be the key to success in EMI. Furthermore, in consideration of Sophia’s accomplishments in generally meeting its Global 30 Project objectives, the Sophia programs could potentially provide examples of successful EMI education in Japan.

Setting of the Study Sophia University is a small, private and prestigious institution in central Tokyo. It is well known in Japan as an international university that now has more than a thousand foreign students, out of a total student body of nearly 12,000. Founded by the Society of Jesus in 1913, the university has always offered a strong internationally orientated education, and since 1949 at least one English-taught program (ETP) (Gardner, 2010). In total, Sophia maintains eight undergraduate faculties with 28 departments and 10 graduate schools with 25 programs. EMI for undergraduates, known internally as Englishconducted classes, is offered in several departments and programs. All the courses in the Faculty of Liberal Arts are taught in English. The Science and Technology Faculty began EMI courses in 2012. Some EMI courses are also offered as part of the undergraduate programs in the Department of English Studies, the Department of English Literature, the Department of Economics and the Department of Management, as well as some university-wide required general education courses (e.g. Christian Humanism, Physical Education). At the graduate level, Sophia offers the following ETPs: an MA in Global Studies/ Japanese Studies/International Business and Development Studies; a PhD in Global Studies/Japanese Studies; MS and PhD in Green Science and Engineering; MA and PhD in Global Environmental Studies; and an MA in Linguistics (TESOL: Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages). In line with the core intended outcomes of the G30 Project (see Rose & McKinley, 2017), Sophia University’s plan had various objectives that were focused very much on EMI as a route to increasing international student numbers. The outline of Sophia’s objectives provided on the MEXT official website for the G30 Project is as follows: To establish its international network and to expand study abroad opportunities for both Japanese and international students (Target Number by 2020: outgoing from 400 to 1000, and incoming international students from 1000 to 2600). The university plans to have New English programs (Global Environmental Studies in graduate program, Green Materials and Green Engineering Programs in Faculty of Science and Technology for undergraduate level), short-term study programs, and scholarships to meet the students’ needs. (MEXT, 2014a)

240

Section 5: Cur r iculum Conte x t s

The objectives that were accomplished during the project funding cycle included: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

establishing degree English programs; improving the quality of education, especially courses taught in English; expanding the network of overseas partners; increasing the number of international students; improving the environment for international students; creating a network of global universities within and outside Japan; building a language center for education and research; establishing overseas offices for recruitment and network building.

In consideration of Sophia University’s ability to generally meet its G30 objectives, and its success with EMI, it was selected in 2014 as a global traction university as part of the Top Global University Project, intended to lead the internationalization of higher education in Japan (MEXT, 2014b). Sophia’s participation in the project involves the creation of ‘a global campus with multilateral hub functions’ (MEXT, 2014b, para. 2). The specific goals (original numbers based on fiscal year 2013 statistics) are: (1) (2) (3) (4)

add 30 more foreign instructors by fiscal year 2023; increase the ratio of overseas-educated instructors to 57% from 47.5%; increase the number of students coming from abroad to 2940 from 1358; increase the number of Sophia students going abroad (based on intercollege agreements) to 1600 (just over 15% of undergraduates) from 519 (less than 5% of undergraduates); and (5) raise the ratio of English-conducted classes to 22.8% from 13.6%. In an effort to achieve these goals, Sophia will be offering pre-enrollment language programs (i.e. English for academic purposes programs for international and domestic students), expanding scholarship offerings, increasing the number of autumn-semester-start programs (including six departments and three graduate schools by 2023) and, in line with other Top Global universities such as Waseda and Keio, gradually shifting to a quarter system (MEXT, 2014b).

Analytical Frameworks: EFL vs ELF and ELT vs GELT Supporting both the G30 and Top Global projects is a change in attitude that understands students as users of English rather than learners of English. The idea is connected to respecting students as owners of English with their own agency rather than imperfect copies of a native speaker model. This long overdue change in attitude in Japan has been spurred by EMI, but has not yet

Mak ing the EFL to ELF Transit ion in EMI at a Global Trac t ion Universit y

241

Table 15.1 English as a foreign language (EFL) vs English as a lingua franca (ELF)

View of English Contrast with NE View of metaphors Process of language use View of code-switching and code mixing

EFL

ELF

Part of modern foreign languages Deficit perspective Transfer/interference and fossilization metaphors Conformative, monolingual bias Interference error

Part of World Englishes Difference perspective Contact/evolution metaphor Transformative, bilingual Bilingual resource

Note: Adapted from Jenkins (2006).

been fully realized. The reality for Japanese higher education is that this shift in mindset is necessary before EMI can really take off. Two similar perspectives, both relevant to EMI in Japan, may provide the impetus to a fuller realization of students as respected English users. The first perspective focuses on the shift in classroom theory and practice from English as a foreign language (EFL) to English as a lingua franca (ELF). Jenkins (2006) suggests five different criteria through which we can understand this shift, outlined in Table 15.1. The other, more detailed perspective, focuses on the shift in classroom theory and practices from English Language Teaching (ELT) to Global Englishes Language Teaching (GELT). The narrow focus of traditional ELT lacks relevance in the Japanese higher education context. In response came the very recently developed model of GELT, which offers a framework in which students are recognized as their own agents of English language use in a global context, and are not tested against native-speaker norms. Galloway and Rose (2015) suggest nine criteria through which we can understand the shift (see Table 15.2).

The Study Data for this study were collected through interviews with instructors, analysis of program descriptions, and classroom observations. Data were analyzed to evaluate criticisms of the G30 Project (e.g. Burgess et al., 2010; Hashimoto, 2013), including a lack of integration of local and international students in the program. Data were also analyzed according to the EFL vs ELF and ELT vs GELT frameworks, which were used to look at the degree that the instructors in these programs had transitioned from using English as a language of study to using English as a medium of study. Each program

242

Section 5: Cur r iculum Conte x t s

Table 15.2 English Language Teaching (ELT) vs Global Englishes Language Teaching (GELT) Traditional ELT

GELT

Target interlocutor Owners Target culture

NESs NESs Fixed NE culture

Norms Teachers

NE and concept of Standard English NNESTs (same L1) and NESTs

Role-model Materials

NESs NE and NESs

L1 and C1

Seen as a hindrance and source of interference Informed by the language teaching paradigm

NESs and NNESs NESs and NNESs Learners’ C1, interlocutors’ C1 and fluid ‘cultures’ Diversity, flexibility and multiple forms of competence NNESTs (same L1 and different L1), NESTs Successful ELF users NE, NNE, ELF and ELF communities and contexts Seen as a resource

Paradigm

Informed by the Global Englishes paradigm

Note: Adapted from Galloway and Rose (2015). N/NES/T = non/native English speaker/teacher. C1 = first culture.

was evaluated using a combined ELF and GELT framework, in consideration of the criteria relevant to the context of EMI in Japan. The seven criteria in the combined framework are: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

difference perspective; away from monolingual bias; code-switching and mixing a resource; target interlocutors and cultures NNESs; teacher variance (NNESTs and NESTs); role models (successful ELF users); C1 and L1 seen as resource.

Purpose of the study Sophia University offered a variety of EMI courses as well as one full ETP before its participation in the G30 and Top Global University projects. With its reputation as an established international education institution, there was little doubt among administrators that Sophia would be selected for these funding schemes. During its preparation years for the selection, there was some growing concern that students would be enrolling in courses in English and unable to keep up owing to a lack of language proficiency.

Mak ing the EFL to ELF Transit ion in EMI at a Global Trac t ion Universit y

243

Nevertheless, in the final years of the G30 Project, it was recognized that, in consideration of Sophia’s efforts in further developing their Englishmedium offerings, it did generally meet project objectives (i.e. Sophia increased the number of EMI programs and was on track to reach the expected number, set by MEXT, of 2600 international students by 2020). However, it was not clear as to whether or not students enrolled in Englishtaught courses were receiving improved quality of education, as outlined in Sophia’s G30 objectives.

Participants Three instructors were involved in the study, each belonging to different undergraduate programs that offer courses taught in English, including the Faculty of Liberal Arts, the Green Science program (within the Faculty of Science and Technology) and the Department of English Studies (within the Faculty of Foreign Studies). The Green Science and Liberal Arts programs have a high ratio of foreign students and are the university’s two purely ETPs where an entire four-year degree can be earned through English. In the English Studies program, which focuses on literature and culture in the Anglosphere rather than English language, nearly all students are Japanese and, while some courses follow an EMI model, others are taught in Japanese (see Table 15.3). Some courses taught in English at Sophia are more language-based while other classes are heavily content-based. As of 2015, there are four other programs at Sophia with courses conducted in English that are not included in this study. One program is in the Center for Language Education and Research, which is strictly focused on language learning; another is in the English Literature department, offering some content and skills-based courses in English; another is in the Faculty of Economics, offering third-year English in Management and Economics courses; and still another is the Global Discovery program which offers English-medium courses as well as Japanese-medium courses.

Table 15.3 Program descriptions English Studies Pedagogical EAP → EMI approaches Student NNES + some bilingual cohort bicultural Japanese students Faculty NESTs and (Japanese) cohort NNESTs

Liberal Arts

Green Science

EMI

EMI

Mostly bilingual and bicultural Japanese and international students NESTs and NNESTs

Mostly bilingual and bicultural Japanese and international students NESTs and NNESTs

244

Section 5: Cur r iculum Conte x t s

Methods Data were collected through classroom observations and interviews with instructors. For the classroom observations, one lesson was observed per instructor. The procedure for the analysis of observation data involved examining each of the four observed classes against the EFL vs ELF and ELT vs GELT frameworks to see how each program met the criteria of ELF and GELT. Two interviews were conducted with instructors (given single-letter pseudonyms for anonymity); the first was conducted within a few days following the classroom observation. The interviews were semi-structured and, in order to ascertain the instructors’ awareness of the intentions of Sophia’s participation in the Top Global University Project, focused on questions surrounding their intentions in the course regarding the use of English, and their understanding of global studies. The first interview was focused more specifically on the classroom observation, while the second interview, conducted at the end of the semester, allowed the instructors more of an opportunity to explain the course descriptions while reflecting on the previous interview. Each interview was approximately 30 minutes and was audio-recorded and transcribed.

Results and Findings Data collected from program descriptions and interviews were analyzed according to three criteria: pedagogical approaches, student cohort and faculty cohort (see Table 15.3). It was noted from the program descriptions that pedagogical approaches were not overtly described, so instructors were asked to elaborate. While the two ETPs were simply described as being conducted in English (and therefore labeled as EMI), the English program was described as moving pedagogically from an EAP to EMI focus, as students now focus more on cultural and content studies, rather than language development, as the department has elected to hire more content professors rather than linguists.

Meeting the ELF and GELT criteria In terms of how the observed classes fit into program descriptions, the observation notes were used to complete Table 15.4 showing seven criteria that represent the most pertinent of the six criteria of the ELF analytical framework (Jenkins, 2006) and the nine criteria of the GELT analytical framework (Galloway & Rose, 2015). Details of observations and interview data provide the specific case for each EMI program at Sophia.

Case studies Case one: Professor E, English Studies The English department at Sophia shifted its focus away from language several years ago (prior to G30 funding) by changing its name from the

Mak ing the EFL to ELF Transit ion in EMI at a Global Trac t ion Universit y

245

Table 15.4 Three programs analyzed using the combined ELF and GELT frameworks

Difference perspective Away from monolingual bias Code-switching and mixing a resource Target interlocutors and cultures NNESs Teacher variance (NNESTs and NESTs) Role models (successful ELF users) C1 and L1 seen as resource

English Studies

Liberal Arts

Green Science

O X/O X O X X X/O

X/O X X O X/O O X

X/O X X O X/O O X

X, Not observed/not present; O, observed/present; X/O, mixed data.

Department of English Language and Studies to simply the Department of English Studies. Although the department continues to offer language classes, much of the focus has shifted to EMI. While there are a number of linguists in the department, recently political scientists and historians have been hired; indicating the content aspects of studying about English language cultures (specifically only American and British), and not necessarily in English, are taking a greater role. The observation took place in a humanities elective course. In the department, differences in English proficiencies are remarkable since some students are kikokushijo [returnees, Japanese nationals who lived for extended periods outside Japan] while others have never been outside Japan. The humanities course was conducted entirely in English. Professor E, a native English-speaking teacher, suggested that some students dropped this course probably owing to a lack of language proficiency, as students were required to use English with each other (although occasional use of Japanese was acceptable, and code-switching was observed). The teaching approach was essentially lecture-based, but balanced with pair work or group work. Professor E had a background in TESOL, and therefore felt confident providing language support to students. For example, students were given a glossary that included difficult vocabulary. Some time was spent focusing on language aspects in which students frequently make errors, suggesting more of an EFL than ELF learning context. Professor E’s planned learning outcomes for the course indicated that writing and presentations accounted for most of the evaluation. The main aim was to understand and learn content, but students were also expected to learn English skills. Language use was therefore included in students’ evaluation. In terms of presentations, evaluation with regard to language use had to do with comprehensibility rather than fluency. In this way, returnees did not have an advantage over other students. Professor E explained that returnees have a tendency to speak too quickly or use difficult vocabulary without explaining it. For both writing and speaking, students received feedback about language such as grammar, vocabulary and organization. However,

246

Section 5: Cur r iculum Conte x t s

these language aspects were not as important as content, which was a main factor for evaluation.

Case two: Professor F, Faculty of Liberal Arts The Faculty of Liberal Arts is Japan’s longest running English-taught program, modeled on American liberal arts programs. Students in the program major in international business and economics, social sciences or humanities. The course selected for this study was in the humanities and the observation took place in a lecture-based lesson. The atmosphere in the class was a stark contrast from the English Studies class as the majority of the class was made up of foreign (mostly American) exchange students. In the class observed, the instructor spoke on content for about half of the class time, and then interacted with students about related content. There was some interaction between students during small group discussions involving mixed groups of local and international students. However, there was some imbalance in the groups as those with international backgrounds spoke more than others, and there was no language support in the class as it focused entirely on content. In the interview, Professor F, a native English-speaking teacher, explained that language support was provided outside the classroom to students during office hours on a more individual basis. The learning outcomes for this course were centered on Japanese culture, and Professor F pointed out that, in order to learn essential concepts, writing is integral since it contributes to the better understanding of the topic, clarifying, It is really easy to have a vague idea in a literature class [requiring students to make their own interpretations], but it is much harder to have a really concrete and fully explored idea that you write down in your paper. (Professor F) Professor F took into consideration the difficulty that Japanese students who have graduated from schools in Japan experience when studying content in English. For example, the amount of reading was set at a relatively low level compared with similar courses taught in universities in the United States. Professor F also tried to provide opportunities for all students to talk, in some cases, during classroom discussion, explaining that foreign students tend to dominate classroom discussion owing to their cultural background and, to some extent, the insufficiency of English proficiency of Japanese students. Professor F felt that, while their English proficiency is high, free discussion about complex ideas is a particularly challenging aspect for them. As for course assessment, it was heavily content-based. Professor F marked down scores in terms of language aspects only if the use of language was so problematic that it interfered with the content of the paper. This allowed for students with lower English language proficiency to avoid being disadvantaged by poor grammar or limited vocabulary.

Mak ing the EFL to ELF Transit ion in EMI at a Global Trac t ion Universit y

247

Case three: Professor G, Green Science The Green Science program is within the Faculty of Science and Technology. The program, launched in 2012 and offered by the Department of Materials and Life Sciences, was started as part of Sophia’s participation in the G30 Project and is fully English taught. The observed lesson was a highly technical lecture on a hard science and there was very little interaction between the instructor and the students. There were only two students in the class, owing to the fact that the program is still new. The enrollment for the entire program at the time of data collection was just 11 students. Several findings were obtained through the interview. The instructor’s approach to teaching reflected personal sink-or-swim experiences studying in a second language in high school and university. Because of these experiences, Professor G, a non-native English-speaking teacher, felt that students do not need to wait until they master a foreign language. The belief was that they can learn it naturally through taking classes in an ELF learning environment. Therefore, Professor G was not concerned with providing language support. Students who belong to this new program are from different countries including various Asian and European countries, the United States and Japan. The majority of students are foreign students, but many have already lived in Japan for a considerable time. A number of them graduated from international schools in Japan. Professor G explained that for those who wish to pursue a university life in Japan, there are in fact few university programs that offer science courses such as biology, chemistry or medical science taught entirely in English. Thus, this program aims to attract such students. Professor G felt that the English proficiency level of the students was sufficient to manage their studies in the program. As for course assessment, students were required to submit reports. The final report was the most important and in it, language aspects were included for evaluation. According to Professor G, doing such assignments encourages students to learn how to write an academic essay, but lessons on how to write an essay were not included in the course as students take academic writing courses as part of the Green Science program.

Discussion From these observations and interviews, it is evident that the three different cases at Sophia cover the spectrum from EFL and ELT to ELF and GELT. For the professors who speak English as a first language, teaching approaches were remarkably different. For example, Professor F, in the ELF learning environment of the Faculty of Liberal Arts, who had a majority of foreign exchange native English-speaking students, maintained a lecturebased lesson more along the lines of a content-driven lesson. Alternatively,

248

Section 5: Cur r iculum Conte x t s

Professor E, in the EFL learning environment of the English Studies department, who had mainly Japanese students with various levels of English proficiency, utilized an approach more commonly found in language learning environments, giving questions to students and providing a number of opportunities for students to do pair work and group work. Regarding the support students were given for both content and language, differences were also significant. For example, Professor E explained that reading assignments were chosen carefully – comprehensible and not too difficult for students. Students were also given glossaries that contained difficult or technical words. Furthermore, students were provided with content support. There were regular comprehension check questions and writing tasks focused on what students found difficult about content. Students were required to review what they learned briefly in the next class. Alternatively, Professor F offered language support only in individual consultations outside of class time. Professor G did not offer any language support. In terms of GELT approaches, strong transformations toward a global application of English were observed. While it is recognized in GELT that code-switching and utilizing students’ first language (L1) and first culture (C1) (observed in the English Studies class) are global approaches, the reduced difference perspective, varied cultural backgrounds of teachers as role models and lessons that avoided targeting NES interlocutors indicate that all three of these programs are achieving what Sophia promotes as global studies. With some careful planning, these programs could diversify their student cohorts more to include a balance of domestic and international students. They could provide language support only where necessary for those who need it, and opportunities for interaction between the two groups. The range of different courses offered and the diversity of student groups taking them is part of Sophia’s promotional rhetoric. This means that there are a variety of opportunities, some EFL, some ELF, for students to gain a number of benefits in areas such as content, language, thinking processes and culture. Therefore, one of the keys to solving the problems experienced in the G30 Project, and potential problems for the Top Global University Project, could be the collaboration of different programs – collaboration in order to help students participate successfully in EMI, which makes it possible for both local and foreign students to take various classes across programs. In this way, two of the major criticisms of the G30 Project, the exclusion of local Japanese students from integrated EMI programs and the difficulty faced by international students in engaging with Japanese culture and language, can be solved. This could be seen in at least one of the ELF/ GELT contexts at Sophia where interactions between local Japanese students and international students occur in multicultural groups in the ETP of the Faculty of Liberal Arts. However, in order for a successful balance of opportunities for students from various backgrounds and language proficiencies to be obtained, adequate language support is necessary. The

Mak ing the EFL to ELF Transit ion in EMI at a Global Trac t ion Universit y

249

consideration of balance of language and support might be the key to the success to EMI in Japan.

References Burgess, C., Gibson, I., Klaphake, J. and Selzer, M. (2010) The ‘Global 30’ Project and Japanese higher education reform: An example of a ‘closing in’ or an ‘opening up’? Globalisation, Societies and Education 8 (4), 461–475. Galloway, N. and Rose, H. (2015) Introduction to Global Englishes. Abingdon: Routledge. Gardner, R. (2010) Sophia University’s Faculty of Liberal Arts. Sophia International Review 30, 1–10. Hashimoto, K. (2013) ‘English-only,’ but not a medium-of-instruction policy: The Japanese way of internationalising education for both domestic and overseas students. Current Issues in Language Planning 14 (1), 16–33. Jenkins, J. (2006) Current perspectives on teaching world Englishes and English as a lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly 40 (1), 157–181. MEXT (2014a) Global 30, Sophia University. See http://www.uni.international.mext. go.jp/university_list/sophia/Activities/Index/ (accessed 30 December 2014). MEXT (2014b) Selection for the FY 2014 Top Global University Project. See http://www. mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/26/09/__icsFiles/_afieldfile/2014/10/07/1352218_02.pdf Rose, H. and McKinley, J. (2017) Japan’s English-medium instruction initiatives and the globalization of higher education. Higher Education, advance access online 22 February, 1–19. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-017-0125-1.

16 Features, Challenges and Prospects of a Science and Engineering English-Taught Program Nílson Kunioshi and Harushige Nakakoji

The number of English-taught programs (ETPs) and English-medium instruction (EMI) courses offered at universities in Japan has shown a rapid increase over the last 10 years (Brown & Iyobe, 2014). This can partly be explained by institutions’ strategic motives to enhance international competitiveness and attract both local and international students (Dalton-Puffer, 2012). From a financial perspective, funding from government projects promoting the internationalization of Japanese universities, such as the Global 30 Project and the Top Global University Project (MEXT, 2009, 2014, 2015), has been a driving force in launching new ETPs and EMI courses at many Japanese universities, including the program at Waseda University discussed in this chapter. Waseda University is one of the oldest and largest private universities in Japan, with more than 130 years of history and 50,000 students, including 5000 international students, enrolled at the undergraduate and graduate levels (Waseda University, 2015a). Waseda was selected in 2009 as one of the 13 Global 30 universities funded by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). However, this was not the beginning of internationalization at Waseda; at the time of its selection, the university was well known for its commitment to internationalization. Waseda has been accumulating experience and know-how on accepting international students over decades and has had a unit that offers education entirely through English since 2004: the School of International Liberal Studies. The Faculty of Science and Engineering is the largest in Waseda, having more than 10,000 undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in three undergraduate and three graduate schools with 18 departments (Waseda 250

Features, Challenges and Prospec t s of a Sc ience and Engineer ing E TP

251

University, 2015a). The Faculty of Science and Engineering celebrated its 100th anniversary in 2008, just before the Global 30 Project was launched. In contrast to other institutions that created new ETPs on a departmental basis, this faculty decided to develop its ETP throughout the entire faculty, and asked the departments to participate in it; 11 departments agreed, so the ETP of the faculty was launched in 2010, covering a wide range of scientific fields from its inception. This chapter will focus on the International Program in Science and Engineering (the ETP, hereafter the International Program) at the undergraduate level in the Faculty of Science and Engineering at Waseda University. This is done for the following reasons. Firstly, some courses in the three graduate schools had already been delivered in English at the graduate level prior to the introduction of the International Program, and the novelty introduced in 2010 did not alter the situation in the graduate schools to the same extent as it did in the undergraduate schools. In fact, the undergraduate International Program stands out quite uniquely in the context of Japanese higher education, as EMI in undergraduate science and engineering is not offered as often as it is at the graduate level. Furthermore, while there is a great deal of research that confirms the importance of the role of language in science education, from the elementary to the tertiary level (for example, Fraser et al., 2012; Lemke, 1990; Marton & Tsui, 2004; Mortimer & Scott, 2003; Saul, 2004; Wellington & Osborne, 2001), instructors in science and engineering can deliver a graduate course through English more easily than an undergraduate course. The contents of graduate courses tend to be closer to the research field or topic of the instructors. Moreover, from the student point of view, learning at the undergraduate level relies more heavily on language than at the graduate level, because the deeper background knowledge of graduate students can compensate more easily for the lack of language proficiency.

The Curriculum Design and Statistical Information We will first describe some features of the context in which the International Program developed. In the Regular Program in Science and Engineering (the conventional program delivered through Japanese; hereafter, the Regular Program) of the Faculty of Science and Engineering, 1800 first-year undergraduate students generally enter each department in groups of 100. The students belonging to the same department attend courses together, and rarely have a chance to meet students of different departments in the classroom during the first year. In general, since the number of students is large, even required courses taken by all students faculty-wide (hereafter common courses) are delivered separately to students from each department. This allows for some adaptation in the contents of the common courses to meet

252

Section 5: Cur r iculum Conte x t s

the different needs of students of different departments. In addition, since students in the Regular Program are mainly Japanese, their previous knowledge of each subject, obtained at their high schools, is quite predictable and homogeneous. The International Program runs in parallel to the Regular Program, but starts in September rather than April. This was set in order to match the academic calendar in other countries such as China, the United States and European countries, so that students from those areas could more easily apply. Another difference is that, in the International Program, all students, whichever department they belong to, attend the common courses together. This is because the total number of students enrolled in the ETP is much smaller than that in the Regular Program. Enrollment figures for the International Program over the past few years show both growth in the size of the program and increasing diversity in the student body. In the initial year, the International Program attracted only 18 undergraduate students, but the student intake has grown steadily over the past six years, reaching 61 in 2015 (see Table 16.1). At first, the aim was to reach 30 students entering the program each year, but that figure was reached by the third year, and now the Faculty of Science and Engineering is aiming for 100 new students per year. The number of student nationalities has also increased from five in 2010 to 12 in 2015. Table 16.1 shows the number of first-year students enrolled from 2010 to 2015, categorized briefly by their nationality (i.e. Japanese, Asian other than Japanese and Non-Asian). While the number of non-Japanese Asian students shows a fairly steady increase from 20 in 2011 to 50 in 2015, that of non-Asian students has also risen from one in 2011 to six in 2015. The high numbers of non-Japanese Asian students in those years are mainly due to the presence of Chinese students who form the biggest group in the program. The number of Japanese students varies in each year with a decline in 2015. It is worth noting that these relatively small numbers of Japanese students are explained by a restriction imposed on the Global 30 universities by MEXT, which did not

Table 16.1 Number of first-year students by their nationality in each year Year of entrance

Japanese

Other Asian

Non-Asian

Total

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

* 5 7 9 11 5

* 20 23 31 40 50

* 1 1 2 5 6

18 26 31 42 56 61

* The data for 2010 is not available.

Features, Challenges and Prospec t s of a Sc ience and Engineer ing E TP

253

allow Japanese high school students who had studied solely in Japan to even apply for entry into the program. This arrangement was implemented so as to meet the main purpose of Global 30, to internationalize Japanese universities by accepting more students from abroad. As a result, all of the Japanese nationals who entered the program had experience living abroad for several years (in Japan, these students are often referred to as returnees) and/or studying through English at an international school in Japan. The diversity in geographical areas where the students came from to join the program has also increased over the past six years. In 2010, students from six different countries were enrolled, and 11 countries in 2015. Table 16.2 shows the number of students enrolled in each year by the location of their high school (for 2012–2015) or country of residence at the time of application (for 2010–2011), categorized broadly into non-English-speaking and Englishspeaking countries. Whereas the former is classified further into Japan and other non-English-speaking countries, the latter are into Inner Circle and Outer Circle according to the now fairly conventional model of Concentric Circles (Kachru, 1992). It is notable that those from a high school in Englishspeaking countries are limited in number even with a fairly large increase in the number of students from the inner circle countries in 2015. The number of students from non-English speaking countries other than Japan rose from 17 in 2010 to 47 in 2015. The high numbers of these students in those years are due to the large numbers of students coming from China. The variety in the countries where the students in the ETP come from means that the background knowledge acquired in secondary education is quite heterogeneous. This makes it more difficult for instructors to take the students to the same level of achievement in the International Program than in the Regular Program. As a matter of fact, high intakes of Chinese students are not peculiar to the International Program, but fairly pervasive throughout the entire university, and throughout the entire higher education sector in Japan. Table 16.2 Number of first-year students by their high school location in each year Non-English-speaking

English-speaking

Year of Entrance

Japan

Other

Inner Circle

Outer Circle

2010* 2011* 2012 2013 2014 2015

0 5 2 7 9 4

17 19 25 29 42 47

0 2 2 3 3 8

1 0 2 3 2 2

* The data in 2010 and 2011 indicate the number of countries of residence at the time of application

254

Section 5: Cur r iculum Conte x t s

Chinese students actually make up approximately 50% of all international students registered at Waseda (Waseda University, 2015b) and approximately 49% of international university students nationwide (JASSO, 2016). Another major reason for the high student intakes from China in the International Program in particular is the existence of designated high schools [shitei ko¯]. In the Japanese admission system, private universities allow a certain number of students from designated schools to apply for their program with some advantage in the admissions process. Waseda University has these designated high schools not only in Japan, but also abroad, in Korea, Taiwan and mostly in China. In fact, more than half of the Chinese students entering the International Program are from these designated schools (29 in 2015). The numbers of native speakers of English (NS) and non-native speakers of English (NNS) are not indicated here because it is hard to draw a line between NS and NNS, especially when bi- or multilingual speakers such as returnees are involved. Nonetheless, for the purpose of presenting a broad picture of the student body in the program, we can assume that the majority of students are not NS if we define an NS to be someone with English proficiency equivalent to that of a monolingual speaker of English. In regard to language learning, students entering the International Program do attend courses on technical English, but the curriculum does not include courses on basic English language similar to those offered in the Regular Program. This is largely explained by the assumption held by the faculty that the students’ general English proficiency should be high enough even at the time of enrollment to cope with the EMI courses in the program. To prove their English proficiency, applicants for the ETP are required to submit their TOEFL or TOEIC score to the admissions office. There is no explicit minimum required score, but the score is an important factor for selecting the best students from among the candidates. Instead of basic English communication courses, students in the International Program have the opportunity to take elective Japanese language courses, and they attend these classes in groups according to their proficiency level defined by the scores they achieve in a placement test. The courses on Japanese language are offered by the teaching staff of the Graduate School of Japanese Applied Linguistics, which has been running Japanese language courses for Waseda’s international students for many years. These courses are customized to the specific needs of students, which vary according to their proficiency level, field of study, etc. Japanese language is not required for students in the International Program but they make the most of the opportunity to study it, and even the Japanese returnees tend to attend advanced Japanese language courses to improve their technical Japanese or polite Japanese skills when their time allows. In fact, the curriculum of the International Program has been set in a way to encourage the first-year students to study the Japanese language, with the belief that improved language skills in Japanese as well as English will not only help the students to live in

Features, Challenges and Prospec t s of a Sc ience and Engineer ing E TP

255

Japan during their studies, but also help them be better equipped to meet the demands of the job market in Japan and worldwide. We should also remember that MEXT strongly recommended that the Global 30 universities provide international students with opportunities to learn about Japanese language and culture. An additional difference between the curricula of the International Program and the Regular Program lies in the range of specialized elective courses available. In many departments, the ETP offers a much smaller number of specialized EMI electives for the second-year students (and above) compared with those electives offered through Japanese. However, since 2010, the number of these EMI electives has been increasing continuously, to the extent that in some departments there are also courses in the Regular Program where students have to learn through English. Moreover, as students in the International Program get confident enough in learning through Japanese, they will have more electives available to them as they enroll in electives offered in the Regular Program in their third or fourth year. As already mentioned, all students in the International Program attend, in the same classroom, the core courses that are common to all departments (like lectures on basics of mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology, as well as basic laboratory practices). In 2010, mainly to deliver these courses, the Faculty of Science and Engineering hired 10 full-time (non-tenured) instructors of various nationalities (mostly NNSs with high proficiency in English) that had already been working or studying in Japan. None of them was Japanese owing to a restriction on the Global 30 funding that prohibited its use for employing Japanese instructors that had been working in Japan, irrespective of their English proficiency. These instructors were allocated to the International Center for Science and Engineering Programs, which was created and given the responsibility to organize and deliver the common courses of the International Program. It is a challenge on the part of the faculty manager to find instructors with professional expertise in science or engineering as well as English skills high enough to teach these EMI courses.

Concerns Related to Program Management It was not a surprise that many issues arose when the ETP started. One concrete example is the management of the Science and Engineering Laboratory, the basic laboratory practice that is common to all students in the Faculty of Science and Engineering. Table 16.3 shows a list of the main topics treated in the sessions during the first semester of this course. The topics are numbered just for convenience, and are not necessarily conducted in the order shown, because students from different departments conduct the experiments in a different order. All 1800 first-year students in the Regular Program have Science and Engineering Laboratory 1A in their first

256

Section 5: Cur r iculum Conte x t s

Table 16.3 Topics treated in Science and Engineering Laboratory 1A No.

Description

Classification

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Making a lens Waves Electromagnetic induction Visualization of sound waveforms The electric guitar Radio capacitor Physics of water flow Analysis of water quality Extraction of caffeine Synthesis of nylon Microscopic observation of cells

Physics Physics Physics Physics Physics Physics Physics Chemistry Chemistry Chemistry Biology

semester (from April), and in their second semester, they advance to Science and Engineering Laboratory 1B, which has a different series of experiments. The laboratory staff thus has to have all the experiments listed in Table 16.3 prepared for the whole first semester of the Regular Program, and another set of experiments for the whole second semester. In the International Program, the academic year begins one semester later than in the Regular Program, and students start Laboratory 1A in their second semester instead of the first, and advance to 1B in their third semester. This arrangement in the curriculum has been made to let both the Regular and International Programs offer the same series of experiments in the same semesters (i.e. Laboratory 1A in the Spring semester and 1B in the autumn semester). This decision was crucial from a practical perspective since it would have been too difficult for the laboratory staff to keep two different sets of experiments running along the whole year. Although it was not a great burden in the first two years of the ETP, this arrangement has made the allocation of all courses in the timetable more difficult. From 2012, the group of first-year students in the International Program became too large to fit in a single laboratory room for the experiments. Then, the group had to be divided into two, and this led to quite a number of issues at the operational level, ranging from finding assistants fluent in English who helped the two groups in the experiments to, again, a much more complicated timetable. It is not easy to make a timetable that allows students who fail in a required course to retake it in subsequent years. As far as the laboratory sessions are concerned, there is less difficulty in the Regular Program, where students can retake the sessions in Japanese any day of the week, but in the International Program there are many fewer options available. Unfortunately, scalability problems like these have become more frequent as more students have joined the ETP. The number of departments

Features, Challenges and Prospec t s of a Sc ience and Engineer ing E TP

257

that participate in the program is also increasing: there were 14 departments accepting ETP students as of autumn 2015, up from the original 11.

Concerns Related to the Medium of Instruction As mentioned above, the majority of both instructors and students in the International Program are NNS. Research on science education has shown that language matters (Wellington & Osborne, 2001). Tsui (2004) argues that the teacher should create a space where learning is possible (the space of learning) and present the object of learning (the concrete topic to be understood) in a clear way: The meanings that learners assign to the object of learning depend on a host of things. The teacher can affect these meanings through examples and analogies, through the stories that he tells, and the contexts that he brings in. The meanings will also depend on the personal experiences that the learners bring to bear on the object of learning. Together, all of these meanings constitute the semantic dimension of the space of learning, of which language plays a central role. (Tsui, 2004: 140) Students from different cultural and academic backgrounds will therefore tend to have different meanings assigned to a specific object of learning, and teachers need to be aware of this diversity in order to offer effective instruction. Teachers also need to be aware of their own behavior in the classroom and how it might change as they shift from teaching in their first language to teaching in a second. Even when an NNS instructor has high English proficiency and long experience in using English, the speed of speech may be slower and the style may be more formal when the instructor is teaching through English compared with when the first language is used in explaining the same topic (Thøgersen & Airey, 2011). There have been programs designed for helping NNS teachers to prepare for conducting EMI such as the ‘Classroom Practice and English-Medium Pedagogy’ offered in Spain (Ball & Lindsay, 2013), but this type of in-service training has not yet spread worldwide in science higher education. Similar to the case in other countries, in Japan, a focus on pedagogical skills has not been required for a successful university career in science and engineering, where research achievements receive much more attention. As more NNS teachers become involved in ETPs, the awareness of the need to develop teaching skills especially in conducting EMI is hopefully on the rise (see Horie, this volume). Facing the need to develop pedagogical skills related to science teaching through English, the Online Corpus of Academic Lectures (OnCAL, 2010) project was started in 2010 (Kunioshi et al., 2016). It aims to highlight the pedagogical relevance of some linguistic features of university lectures, and

258

Section 5: Cur r iculum Conte x t s

thus support the quality of instruction and effective learning in the International Program at Waseda and in other similar ETPs around the world. This corpus was built from transcriptions of university lectures delivered at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Stanford University by teachers that were predominantly NS. Pedagogical functions were identified in the teacher utterances so that OnCAL users can find concrete examples of how an NS teacher uses language to realize specific pedagogical purposes. OnCAL was recently demonstrated in a workshop for science and engineering instructors in the International Program, and these potential users found OnCAL to be of great help for their needs. Instructors can obtain insights for their particular pedagogical needs from OnCAL by seeing concrete examples of how a teacher uses language to intervene positively in the construction of scientific meaning in a classroom through examples, analogies and various other types of explanations. Students can also learn to improve their lecture comprehension skills by using OnCAL to identify how teacher discourse signals specific pedagogical intentions.

Student Voices and Interactions in Multicultural Settings Looking at interviews conducted with selected students in the International Program, relationships and integration between students emerged as an important issue to be explored. Within the program, students tend to form groups based on their language, ethnic or educational background. Furthermore, there are cases where those students from a strong English background (including Japanese returnees) feel discontent with the English level of the instructors or students from a weaker English background. This puts additional pressure on instructors, for whom English has always been an important tool for conducting and reporting on research, but had never been a medium of instruction before. In the Faculty of Science and Engineering as a whole, there is also an issue of integration between students from the International Program and the Japanese-taught Regular Program. Owing to the curriculum designs, the students from these programs rarely attend the same course, there are limited opportunities for them to interact with each other in the classroom and it seems that the interaction between them tends to be limited in other parts of their university life as well.

Topics for Investigation It is worth pointing out that one of the most notable characteristics of the International Program lies in the diversity of students’ lingua-cultural backgrounds, which creates a learning environment where students

Features, Challenges and Prospec t s of a Sc ience and Engineer ing E TP

259

communicate and study in multilingual and multicultural settings. This results in the creation of an environment where English functions not only as a lingua franca (Jenkins, 2011; Seidlhofer, 2011), but also as an academic lingua franca (Bjo¯rkman, 2013; Mauranen et al., 2010) or a classroom language (Smit, 2010), while languages other than English also come into play in the communication. In fact, an on-going study on the students’ language use in laboratory sessions in the International Program reveals that the students are making use of their plurilingual linguistic repertoire (i.e. L1 and L2s) in order to achieve their communicative needs according to the language background of their interlocutors (Nakakoji, 2016). As those laboratory sessions are not offered as Content-Based Instruction language courses, but part of specialized EMI science education in the degree programs whose primary objective is the learning of specialized content rather than that of language, the language usage (including the choice of language code) should be evaluated primarily on the basis of its effectiveness for content learning. This certainly sheds light on the plurilingual nature of ETPs and EMI courses, and raises such questions as ‘how far should nominally English-taught programs be English-medium in teaching and communication?’ and ‘how far should the use of L1 be permitted or promoted for the sake of effective content learning in specialized subjects?’ The roles of L1 and the local language of the institution (i.e. Japanese in this case) in addition to the official language of instruction (i.e. English) in content learning are indeed a very important research question regarding the language policy and pedagogy in ETPs. Our on-going studies of transcribed data from the laboratory sessions should bring new insights into the relationship between language and content learning in such a lingua-culturally diverse community of learning in EMI science education at the tertiary level.

Prospects for Further Developments The sections above described some concrete features and challenges that are faced in the management of the ETP, the International Program, of the Faculty of Science and Engineering of Waseda University. It is already in its seventh year, and the program managers are now much more experienced in running the program. In addition, the rules for recruiting students and teachers are now relaxed because the program is no longer run under the rules set by the Global 30 Project, which concluded in 2014. As already mentioned, one of the issues which the International Program’s management had to deal with was the smaller number of specialized electives available, compared with those offered through Japanese in the Regular Program – the conventional Japanese-taught program. This continues to be the case, but at least more and more EMI electives are becoming available in the International Program, and even some EMI specialized

260 Section 5: Cur r iculum Conte x t s

courses are now offered in the Regular Program. This is expected to have a positive impact on the internationalization of the entire faculty, because Japanese students in the Regular Program will have to enroll in some EMI courses, and therefore more students from the Regular Program will be in the same classroom as their colleagues in the International Program. The Faculty of Science and Engineering has made plans for expanding the center that currently organizes and delivers the courses that are common to all students in the International Program into a unit about three times larger than it currently is, which can impact more strongly on the whole faculty. More teaching and administrative staff who are dedicated to the ETP will be allocated, and more funds may also become available. Therefore, the International Program may grow further and, in the future, involve a significantly larger portion of the student body in the Faculty of Science and Engineering. The OnCAL initiative mentioned above was started to support NNS instructors and students on classroom language usage in EMI contexts. Both instructors and students can improve their academic English skills for classroom communication by looking at authentic examples of language used in university lectures taught through English. Many instructors and students at Waseda and other ETPs around the world should benefit from this online corpus. From all of the above, it can be seen that the International Program is evolving over time and a number of interesting aspects are found in its management and educational practice that can be investigated in future research projects. Students in the International Program form a multicultural group in which interactions are rich in linguistic features that cannot be observed in other more homogeneous student groups. This chapter highlighted the issues such as the priority between content learning and the use and learning of the instructional language (i.e. English), the relationship between the L1 and L2 in plurilingual communication in laboratory sessions, and language education policy in a context of specialized undergraduate education in science and engineering at a university in Japan. The International Program brings new challenges to the teaching and administrative staff of the Faculty of Science and Engineering at Waseda University, challenges that are being faced for the first time in more than 100 years of the faculty’s history. An analysis of how these challenges are dealt with deserves further exploration, not just for making a historical record but also for contributing to the development and accumulation of expertise useful for universities in and outside Japan which are seeking the internationalization of their institution through ETPs.

References Ball, P. and Lindsay, D. (2013) Language demands and support for English-medium instruction in tertiary education: Learning from a specific context. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster and J.M. Sierra (eds) English-Medium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges (pp. 44–61). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Features, Challenges and Prospec t s of a Sc ience and Engineer ing E TP

261

Björkman, B. (2013) English as an Academic Lingua Franca: An Investigation of Form and Communicative Effectiveness. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Brown, H. and Iyobe, B. (2014) The growth of English medium instruction in Japan. In N. Sonda and A. Krause (eds) JALT2013 Conference Proceedings (pp. 9–19). Tokyo: JALT. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2012) A postscript on institutional motivations, research concerns and professional implications. AILA Review 25, 101–103. Fraser, B.J., Tobin, K.G. and McRobbie, C.J. (eds) (2012) Second International Handbook of Science Education. Dordrecht: Springer. JASSO (2016). International students in Japan 2015. See http://www.jasso.go.jp/en/ about/statistics/intl_student/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2016/04/20/data15_brief_e.pdf Jenkins, J. (2011) Accommodating (to) ELF in the international university. Journal of Pragmatics 43, 926–936. Kachru, B.B. (ed.) (1992) The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures (2nd edn). Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press. Kunioshi, N., Noguchi, J., Tojo, K. and Hayashi, H. (2016) Supporting English-medium pedagogy through an online corpus of science and engineering lectures. European Journal of Engineering Education 41 (3), 293–303. Lemke, J.L. (1990) Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Marton, F. and Tsui, A.B.M. (eds) (2004) Classroom Discourse and the Space of Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Mauranen, A., Hynninen, N. and Ranta, E. (2010) English as an academic lingua franca: The ELFA project. English for Specific Purposes 29, 183–190. MEXT (2009) Launching the project for establishing core universities for internationalization (Global 30). See https://www.jsps.go.jp/english/e-kokusaika/data/00_mext2009.pdf MEXT (2014) Selection for the FY2014 Top Global University Project. See http://www. mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/26/09/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2014/10/07/1352218_02.pdf MEXT (2015) Study in English at Japanese Universities. See http://www.uni.international.mext.go.jp/documents/g30univguide.pdf Mortimer, E.F. and Scott, P.H. (2003) Meaning-making in Secondary Science Classrooms. Buckingham: Open University Press. Nakakoji, H. (2016) Plurilingual communication in science laboratory classrooms: A preliminary report on students’ interactive discourse in an English-medium degree programme in Japan. In N. Tsantila, J. Mandalios and M. Ilkos (eds) ELF: Pedagogical and Interdisciplinary Perspectives (pp. 104–111). Athens: Deree – The American College of Greece. OnCAL (2010) Online Corpus of Academic Lectures. See http://www.oncal.sci.waseda. ac.jp/ Saul, E.W. (ed.) (2004) Crossing Borders in Literacy and Science Instruction. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press. Seidlhofer, B. (2011) Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smit, U. (2010) Conceptualising English as a lingua franca (ELF) as a tertiary classroom language. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics 39, 59–74. Thøgersen, J. and Airey, J. (2011) Lecturing undergraduate science in Danish and in English: A comparison of speaking rate and rhetorical style. English for Specific Purposes 30 (3), 209–221. Tsui, A.B.M. (2004) The semantic enrichment of the space of learning. In F. Marton and A.B.M. Tsui (eds) Classroom Discourse and the Space of Learning (pp. 139–164). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Waseda University (2015a) Facts 2015. See http://www.waseda.jp/intl-ac/assets/FACTS. pdf

262 Section 5: Cur r iculum Conte x t s

Waseda University (2015b) Number of international students enrolled in Waseda University as of May 1, 2015. See http://www.waseda.jp/inst/cie/assets/ uploads/2015/10/20150501_en.pdf Wellington, J. and Osborne, J. (2001) Language and Literacy in Science Education. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

Section 6 Future Directions for English-Medium Instruction

17 The Future of English-Medium Instruction in Japan Akira Kuwamura

This chapter explores EMI’s potential for an increased role in benefitting domestic and international students at the tertiary level in Japan in a way that would be compatible with the local language and culture. Before we see EMI play its increased role, however, there are some questions that need to be addressed and answered. There is a heated discussion concerning such fundamental areas as the appropriate role for EMI and its effect on tertiary content learning, the level of preparedness for EMI practice and the willingness of the higher education sector to become more diverse. Faculty, researchers, administrators and other stakeholders will need to tackle those agendas and issues in order to realize a bright future for EMI in Japan. Before going further, I would like to take a brief look at the roles EMI has played in Japan in its on again, off again history prior to its recent significant growth. Then I will explore the open issues and unanswered questions surrounding EMI in Japan.

Roles of EMI to date As Mulvey (this volume) discusses, the role of EMI in Japan can be traced back to the late 1800s when English was among the three primary languages of instruction along with German and French at the Imperial University, the present University of Tokyo (Amano, 2009). At that time, the faculty at the Imperial University (IU) consisted of a limited number of domestic and a majority of visiting international content specialists. They taught academic content originating from the West in such fields as law, literature, science and medicine. Meanwhile, the Japanese government had sent young talented individuals to higher education institutions in the West to have them gain academic content knowledge that the nation had yet to accumulate. Upon the return of these young academics, they were recruited as content specialists at IU and gradually took over from the visiting scholars to start teaching, first in English, French and/or German, and then in Japanese as domestic 265

266

Section 6: Future Direc t ions for English-Medium Instruc t ion

teaching materials were written. Before long the national language, Japanese, became the primary language of instruction. EMI re-emerged a century later as a key component of governmentsupported special English-medium degree programs launched at national universities in the 1980s (MEXT, 2005) to attract talented international graduate students from developing countries as part of Japan’s Official Development Assistance scheme (Ninomiya et al., 2009). Then came a surge of small-scale non-degree study abroad and exchange programs, comprising EMI content courses and Japanese language courses, developed at a small number of national and progressive private universities from the mid-1990s through the mid-2000s. These were also targeted at international students, especially those at the undergraduate level. EMI has since been included in the Government’s international education policy in one way or another, especially in line with the ongoing reform of national universities in the last decade or so. Nevertheless, it appears that the growth of EMI in Japan has been relatively modest and its role remains peripheral (Bradford, 2013; Brown, 2015a). Initially, this was because, from the early 1980s, the implementation of EMI was driven by the Japanese government mainly to increase international student enrollment, rather than being initiated by universities themselves to diversify their curricula. Later, EMI became more inclusive of domestic students when the government shifted its mobility policy focus from incoming international to outgoing domestic students in the late 2000s in an effort to produce globally competent graduates through study abroad. This major policy shift was in line with the nation’s quest to strengthen its arguably laboring English language education through curriculum articulation between primary, secondary and tertiary education in an attempt to produce globally competent individuals over time. This was in response to the longstanding need for such individuals in the private sector (Kuwamura, 2013) and has led to a rapid increase in the number of EMI programs serving domestic students. However, the need for and potential of EMI have still not been addressed and pursued at the institutional level at many universities and questions of EMI’s position and status within universities remain open.

Debate: Double-Edged Factors Recently, a range of concerns over the implementation of EMI have been appearing in the academic literature and mass media. These revolve around fears of a potentially decreased role of the national language among stakeholders in the Japanese higher education community. Terashima (2014), a distinguished EFL educator in Japan, argues that that EMI may degrade the Japanese-medium education and research base and prevent students from the deep thought and originality that can only be acquired in their first language

The Future of English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japan

267

(L1). Shimizu (2015) shares her views as she reflects on her experience teaching her undergraduate philosophy class in English at a prestigious private university in Tokyo. She believes that, if students do not understand academic content in Japanese, they will not understand it in English either. For Shimizu, it is apparent that their level of understanding in English never exceeds that in Japanese regardless of their language proficiency, and this affects the overall quality of academic lectures. She argues that Japanesemedium instruction (JMI) is far more efficient than EMI as it takes a tremendous time and effort for domestic students to follow the latter. EMI therefore means being courageous enough to give even more challenging work to the majority of students who already have difficulties finding time to prepare for JMI content classes. Indeed, as Shimizu puts it, EMI will not be feasible without at least sufficient human resources to support programs and meet the needs of students. Bitter-sounding, yet somewhat forward-looking, Shimizu’s comments embody some of the key factors on the agenda of the EMI debate in Japan. EMI could go in either a favorable or an unfavorable direction depending on how these factors are dealt with. In this section I will start by outlining questions surrounding three of these factors: effects on learning, preparedness and support. I will then proceed with a more optimistic view of EMI as I explore a potentially increased role of EMI in the future.

Effects on learning Educators and other higher education stakeholders in Japan firmly believe that tertiary learning and academic literacy are supported by a students’ solid L1 proficiency. Given such a firmly held belief, shared by perhaps the majority of domestic faculty in the nation, what role could EMI play for the benefit of both domestic and international students in the Japanese context? What effect does it have on their learning? This section focuses on three areas of learning where EMI has positive and negative effects.

Content learning Is transfer of academic content knowledge attainable through EMI at an educationally satisfying level at all? Is the amount of information delivered and depth of knowledge gained through EMI comparable to that achieved through JMI? While there is a strong belief among domestic faculty that understanding of content knowledge can only be deepened through L1 as the medium of instruction (Saito, 2013), it is worth exploring the possibility that it can be deepened via the students’ second language (L2) as well. There are often differences in levels of prior content knowledge and language proficiency that exist among students, especially between domestic and international students, in the EMI classroom. Even so, we can deal with and take advantage of those differences for the better. For example, domestic students with low English proficiency can help their international counterparts with

268

Section 6: Future Direc t ions for English-Medium Instruc t ion

understanding culture-specific concepts they may not be familiar with (Close, 2015). In such a situation both domestic and international students are aware that there is always something they can learn from each other in the EMI classroom. Another concern held by some EMI researchers and practitioners is whether there are any differences in learning outcomes when EMI is taught by native English speakers (NES) and non-native English speakers (NNES)? Are NNES faculty able to deliver a comparable amount of information to the students as would be delivered in the L1 or by NESs? Compared with their NES counterparts, NNESs tend to cover or offer less content and less variety in the eyes of students (Lassegard, 2014; Morozumi, 2013) because of linguistic limitations. Such gaps potentially cause a sense of dissatisfaction among both domestic and international students. If such a limited delivery of content is really the case, students may not gain as much content knowledge through EMI as they would through their L1. Does that mean that NNES faculty are not qualified to teach EMI classes? Not necessarily. There are always areas of expertise, understanding and/or resources where they have more strength than their NES counterparts, something students can benefit from. As long as NNESs are prepared and trained to deliver content in English, they should continue to be a core part of the EMI faculty body, which has, since the late 1800s, comprised both NES and NNES.

Language learning Although, in principle, EMI focuses on content, students for whom English is a second language still face the reality of having to learn not only content but also language, regardless of their language proficiency. Can content and language learning can go hand in hand to maximize student learning in the Japanese context? Students may be able take advantage of incidental language learning in the EMI classroom, given a conscious attempt to support such learning on the part of faculty (Iyobe & Li, 2013). Or they could try to strategically learn the English terminology and language register used in the field they are studying. These conflicting views on whether EMI classes actually improve students’ English proficiency are not only found in Japan (Byun et al., 2011; Valcke, 2015). In Japan, EMI may also have an influence on the learning of Japanese by international students. Some international students come to Japan with no or little Japanese to join full degree English-taught programs, or attend short term study abroad or exchange programs. Because many of these programs require no Japanese proficiency at all upon their entry, students are not likely to learn the local language, nor acquaint themselves with the local people and culture during their time spent studying in Japan. Such a drawback is also identified in EMI programs elsewhere, such as in Western Europe (Cason & Rodriguez, 2013). Students may miss out on the horizon-broadening opportunities they would otherwise gain during their stay in Japan. In that

The Future of English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japan

269

regard, EMI potentially limits international students’ exposure to the language and culture of the foreign country in which they are studying. Even for students with an interest in learning Japanese and interacting with people in the local language, spending all of their time in EMI classes may potentially be a hindrance in their development of Japanese proficiency. On the other hand, some EMI programs require their participants to have at least minimal Japanese language skills upon entry even though all coursework will be in English. This closes the door to international students who possess little or no Japanese yet wish to study in Japan regardless. Such requirements have prevented those universities from developing international programs with non-Japanese higher education institutions (HEIs), thus limiting the expansion of reciprocal student mobility. This has been a dilemma among Japanese universities long hoping to expand such partnerships, especially with HEIs in English-speaking countries.

Culture learning For many international students, especially those on short-term programs, learning about Japanese culture is a goal. Programs designed for those students often include formal classes on Japanese history, culture and current affairs taught in English. However, these classes may not represent the authentic culture-learning experience the students were seeking. EMI can provide an excellent opportunity for both domestic and international students to interact and learn academic content in the same classroom. However, unfortunately, those international students, especially non-degree seeking students, are often placed in a special program in English, along with Japanese language courses, and may end up studying separately from their domestic counterparts. In these cases, domestic and international students will miss valuable cross-cultural learning opportunities. Again, international students may not be satisfied if placed in a special program away from their domestic counterparts (Hanami & Nishitani, 1997; Heigham, 2014, see also Heigham, this volume). This risks denying students a primary component of their study abroad experience; that is, communicating with the local students (Cason & Rodriguez, 2013).

Preparedness for EMI practice Preparedness is a key factor for learning to take place in the EMI classroom. However, in Japan there is a reported lack of preparedness of students and faculty as well as a lack of support for both groups.

Students Without adequate preparation, students will not benefit from EMI but instead will lose confidence in their intercultural learning. Often, however, students are not prepared when they choose to participate in EMI classes. Preparedness of students concerns the English language proficiency of

270

Section 6: Future Direc t ions for English-Medium Instruc t ion

domestic as well as their intercultural communication skills students (Byun et al., 2011; Lassegard, 2006; Utagawa, 2011). If domestic students do not possess sufficient English skills to follow lectures, they will probably be lost, learn little or nothing, and drop out at some point (Selzer & Gibson, 2009). What level of English language proficiency is required of students then? Some HEIs in English-speaking countries, for example, require a TOEFL score of 80 or IELTS score of 6.5 for incoming international students, and these benchmarks are consistent with the finding that a level of B2 on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages is sufficient grounding for success in EMI (Breeze, 2014). Few Japanese students have this level of proficiency unless they have dedicated time to learning the language intensively and effectively or have significant experience abroad. Nevertheless, it takes even students with such high English proficiency some time to become accustomed to listening to the speed and pace of an academic lecture in English. They still need to take extra time to prepare for each EMI class and check the meaning of discipline-specific terminology in order to keep up. This contrasts with language classes where lecturers adjust their pace according to students’ language levels. Domestic students’ willingness to communicate can also be a preparedness issue. Japanese students are uncomfortable in expressing their opinions in large groups (Close, 2015) and therefore are often unwilling to participate in class. This can lead to complaints from some international students (Lassegard, 2014). Despite this drawback, if Japanese students are called upon directly and individually for their opinions, and are given sufficient time to get their thoughts in order, they surprisingly produce a sound, lengthy discourse (Czarnecki & Rees, 2014). In this sense EMI serves to provide an excellent opportunity for domestic students to express something meaningful in an academic setting in a language other than their mother tongue.

Faculty Are there currently enough content specialists available at universities in Japan who can teach EMI courses effectively and comfortably to meet the varying academic needs of students, domestic and international? It is not likely unfortunately, as it appears that HEIs have difficulty finding qualified EMI professionals despite the growth of EMI (Brown & Iyobe, 2014; Kuwamura, 2009; Lassegard, 2006). As such, programs containing EMI courses tend to be unstable as EMI faculty, especially international faculty and increasingly domestic faculty, are often fixed-term or part-time employees. Naturally these teachers keep looking for better positions while teaching their present classes. This affects their motivation and commitment, subsequently leading to turnover. Furthermore, there is a general tendency for HEIs to assign domestic content specialists to teach EMI classes; the current EMI faculty body seems to be predominantly domestic content professors (Brown, 2015a), including those who had previously thought that EMI

The Future of English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japan

271

had nothing to do with them and have no particular desire to be involved in EMI programs (Nakai, 2011). Yet there are not enough of them to implement widespread EMI. This potentially chronic shortage of EMI faculty places domestic content specialists and EFL faculty under pressure to deliver EMI without being willing or professionally prepared. It is reported that EMI faculty are under external pressure to teach EMI courses, which causes anxiety (Nakai, 2009, 2011) and even a fear of EMI (Saito, 2013; Shimizu, 2015). In fact, many NNES faculty members are assigned EMI classes without their qualifications to teach disciplinary content in English or willingness to take on the extra challenge of EMI being checked. Conversely, NES faculty are being assigned to cover EMI courses in disciplines outside their field of expertise (see Susser, this volume). Such ad-hoc EMI instructor appointments in response to a growing demand for EMI have created a somewhat awkward situation. Domestic EMI faculty deal with not only content but also English, their L2, whereas non-Japanese faculty, often trained to teach EFL, handle not only English but also content. I suspect that the majority of HEIs in Japan do not have any specific guidelines for assigning professional EMI faculty yet. Because of the dual attention to language and content in EMI, extra time is needed for faculty members to prepare for classes. Ideally, their workload in other areas would be reduced in recognition of their EMI classes. However, the opposite is often true in Japan, with EMI classes being assigned outside their regular teaching load (Lassegard, 2006), resulting in excessive workload (Shimizu, 2015; Tsuneyoshi, 2005; de Wit, 2005; Utagawa, 2011). Furthermore, there is anxiety among domestic EMI faculty over their linguistic and pedagogical skills. Like domestic students, they have linguistic limitations (Utagawa, 2011) because English is not their first language. In addition, they may also lack an ability to improvise and communicate in the language effectively (Lassegard, 2006). Therefore, they fear that their perceived performance may even cause them to lose their authority as a professor in the eyes of the students. They would be embarrassed to reveal that their English proficiency was not up to the task of explaining complex concepts to their students in the language. In fact, voices are heard from international students in EMI classes saying that instructions were not well organized and that assignments were not well explained (Lassegard, 2014; Heigham, this volume). What level of English language proficiency and pedagogical skills are required of NNES faculty to overcome those limitations so as to deliver an EMI course effectively and comfortably? There are no standard measures in Japan that enable HEIs to qualify their appointed or interested faculty to teach in English. It varies from institution to institution. An assessment procedure like the Test of Oral English Proficiency for Academic Staff (TOEPAS), which is used at the University of Copenhagen (Kling & Stæhr, 2013), could be a good model for Japan, but would be difficult to implement given the autonomous nature of Japanese academia.

272

Section 6: Future Direc t ions for English-Medium Instruc t ion

In addition, EMI faculty, NES or NNES, face the challenge of teaching effectively across cultures and languages. In linguistically and culturally mixed EMI classes, adjusting the pace of a class to satisfy both domestic and international students is challenging for both domestic and international faculty. If the pace is too fast, domestic students may be lost. If it is too slow, international students may be bored in some cases.

Support In many, if not most, EMI programs currently in place in Japan, there is a clear lack of support for students, faculty and program administration. Students lack clear information and guidance about choosing EMI courses, faculty lack professional development support and the programs as a whole often lack effective administrative support and stable funding. Although the majority of English-taught degree programs set entry requirements, it is not necessarily the case for EMI courses in non-degree programs. In fact, it is reported that a majority of Japanese universities have no entry language requirements for their EMI classes (Brown, 2015a). Without proper course registration by incoming students based on entry requirements, a mismatch can occur in cases when courses are too easy or too difficult. Prerequisites stated clearly in syllabi would help the right students register for EMI courses. Despite the clear language issues described in the previous section, English for Academic Purposes (EAP) classes are generally not tied to EMI at most universities (Brown, 2015a). There is also a lack of support tailored to domestic EMI faculty (Kuwamura, 2009; Nakai, 2009, 2011; Utagawa, 2011). Some of these domestic faculty members have completed their graduate study in English-speaking countries and are fairly comfortable with the delivery of their specialty in English. Others have no prior or recent experience with EMI. Brown (2015a) reported in his nationwide survey that faculty development (FD) activities tied to EMI were seen at less than a third of responding universities despite the training needs of the faculty. In fact, domestic EMI faculty are typically content specialists, not pedagogy experts, whereas many of non-Japanese faculty are traditionally hired as language teaching specialists, not content faculty. As such, those trained in all three, content, pedagogy and language of instruction, are a minority. Utagawa (2011) points out that professional programs designed to train such academics in these areas have yet to be developed at the institutional level in Japan, although things are changing rapidly (see Horie, this volume). FD for EMI is not yet widespread or terribly effective but it is growing. When I interviewed 25 Japanese universities at the NAFSA (Association of International Educators) conference in Boston in 2015 to ask about their need for EMI training, 17 of them voiced such a need yet the majority of them had not been able to develop and provide their own in-house professional training. Some of these universities choose instead to outsource FD to EMI training program providers at home and abroad. These universities, especially those that are recipients of

The Future of English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japan

273

the Top Global University (TGU) grant, are under time pressure to expand and/or launch English-medium colleges, departments, degree programs or courses. Otherwise, their grant budget is likely to be cut a great deal in future years, as has been the case for the recipients of Program for Promotion of Global Human Resource Development (MEXT, 2012), the predecessor of the TGU project. Under this pressure outsourced FD may be a good solution. Although the Japanese government has steadily funded international programs at universities, balanced funding to support EMI is lacking. In fact, the government has limited its funding mostly to fixed-term, large-scale project grants such as the TGU project. The grant recipients tend to be a few national and private institutions that have the capacity to prepare timeconsuming proposals under tight submission deadlines. In fact, the total number of grant recipients during the five-year period from 2008 to 2014 was as small as 63 (Yoshida, 2015) out of the nation’s 781 HEIs (MEXT, 2014). To this end, shifting from that same old selective, large-scale funding to diverse, needs-based funding allocations in varying amounts would be necessary for Japanese higher education to pursue its full potential. As the third mid-term plan is implemented by the 86 national universities under the supervision of Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Technology (MEXT) for the six-year period from FY2016 to FY2021, MEXT appears to be going further to increase its already industry-oriented research funding. MEXT is urging national universities to restructure their humanities and social sciences divisions into interdisciplinary units, blending these fields with natural and applied sciences, and the STEM subjects (MEXT, 2015a). This has subsequently brought on heated discussions among stakeholders reminding the government of the significance of these arts and humanities fields – fields where EMI plays an especially key role in international education. Frequent rotation of administrative staff who support EMI (Tsuneyoshi, 2005) is another major issue and creates unstable conditions for international program operations. The usual custom in a Japanese organization is to hire generalist administrators who then move from position to position on a twoto five-year cycle. This means that the administrative staff supporting an EMI program may well be new to their position and lack an understanding of the program and the necessary language and intercultural proficiency. Without appropriately trained support staff, it is quite difficult to run EMI courses or programs in a stable manner.

Fitting In: Potential for Increased Roles EMI to facilitate learning Despite the challenges of offering content courses in both English and Japanese at the tertiary level in Japan where the language of instruction has

274

Section 6: Future Direc t ions for English-Medium Instruc t ion

long been Japanese, I believe that EMI can serve to facilitate and enhance student learning in Japan when delivered in a way that is compatible with the local language and culture. The importance of compatibility is found elsewhere, for example, the use of L1 for better learning outcomes (Byun et al., 2011) and the finding of a balance with L1 in the creation of a plurilingual ecology of languages (Doiz et al., 2011; Helm & Guardia, 2015). Chiba (2011) finds this balance when he introduces the use of both English-medium literature in the graduate JMI classroom and Japanese-medium literature in the EMI classroom for his students, domestic and international. He also has his students produce written summaries of subject matter in Japanese in the EMI classroom to allow international students to take advantage of the Japanese context they are concurrently studying in. EMI may even facilitate the understanding of academic content from different angles or even surpass JMI in the sense that EMI generates naturally occurring discourse and interactions in the classroom, something the traditional JMI may lack (Brown, 2015b; Hanami, 2012). Studying content in an L2 would also give students a different perspective on the topics and enhance or support their learning (Brown, 2015b). Domestic students may be better off learning content directly in English, not relying on reading texts translated into Japanese in certain fields where much of the research comes from overseas (Suzuki, 2014). They may perhaps find the educational value of EMI by having a solid grasp of terminology, concept and register in English in some disciplinary fields. With EMI’s added value, their motivation and sufficient language proficiency all in place, they may be willing to take on both the rigorous intellectual challenge and the additional workload. Of course this may depend on the field of study. Domestic students may be better able to participate in EMI courses in fields where they have prior basic knowledge in Japanese, such as Japanese studies, or other disciplinary fields that Japan has strengths in. These featured areas of study may especially be suitable for EMI courses and also educationally rewarding if offered across sections with their JMI counterparts, thus enabling both domestic and international students to have a better access to the content they are studying. Domestic and international students could share knowledge of English and its varieties (e.g. British English), Japanese and other languages, and their cultures, that is, Anglophone and other cultures. The resultant collaborative learning among EMI students is valued as a resource, as peers may help students gain much better comprehension levels and a deeper understanding of the content (Wilkinson, 2015). In this regard, placing students with various linguistic, cultural, professional and academic backgrounds in the EMI classroom enriches student learning. Together with JMI, EMI provides both domestic and international students with the opportunity to learn content, language and culture at home and abroad. In Table 17.1, I show expected roles of EMI and JMI in three areas of learning: content, language and culture. For example, L1 Japanese

The Future of English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japan

275

Table 17.1 Roles of EMI and JMI in student learning Areas of learning

EMI

JMI

Domestic students

International students

L2 content knowledge Academic L2 literacy L2 culture L1 or L2 content knowledge Academic L1 or L2 literacy L2 culture for NNJS

L1 or L2 content knowledge Academic L1 or L2 literacy L2 culture for NNES L2 content knowledge Academic L2 literacy L2 culture

Note: Non-native English and Japanese speakers respectively.

domestic students can learn L2 content knowledge, academic L2 literacy and L2 culture through EMI, whereas their NES international counterparts can acquire L1 content knowledge and academic L1 literacy also through EMI. Also, L2 English international students can experience three areas of learning in the L2 context, including culture. Domestic and international students with sufficient Japanese language proficiency can also acquire knowledge of academic content, academic literacy and/or the target culture through JMI.

Faculty learning possibilities Despite the anxiety it may cause faculty, EMI provides them with excellent learning opportunities through teaching content across cultures and languages. It exposes them to various cultures in a single classroom and thus hones their pedagogical and linguistic skills through their intercultural communication experience. EMI also facilitates their L2 learning. This can perhaps be unconsciously achieved by focusing not on their language but on the structural and cultural proficiency elements of the EMI practice (Bradford, 2015).

Enriching the mainstream curriculum Having a comfortable and healthy coexistence of EMI and JMI across disciplines in mainstream university curricula is ideal and should enhance learning. In that endeavor, the effective use of both mediums is worth pursuing at the institutional level. Offering disciplinary content courses across languages serves the increasingly diverse learning needs of students in a way that would give them choice for their benefit. Students could easily choose a section of an appropriate content course in their preferred language of instruction. It is needless to say that prerequisites should be set and explicitly stated in terms of, for example, level of study, language requirements and, of course, language of instruction. Although it is educationally and administratively challenging, increasing course options in this way might result in

276

Section 6: Future Direc t ions for English-Medium Instruc t ion

better learning outcomes given a balanced enrollment of domestic and international students and smaller class size. Furthermore, flexible course options would help Japanese HEIs connect with other institutions at home and overseas, making curriculum coordination between institutions easier, for example, in their development of double degree or joint degree programs. When attending major international education conferences like NAFSA, I am often asked by non-Japanese HEIs if we offer English-medium content courses and have no choice but to realize that English plays a central role in international higher education. As such, without EMI courses offered in areas of their students’ interest, it becomes increasingly difficult for Japanese HEIs to sign academic exchange agreements with their non-Japanese counterparts – institutions which are becoming more and more selective in finding the right partners. However, before EMI can take on an expanded role, the needs of students, especially their English-language proficiency needs, must be addressed. Programs need to develop language courses, including EAP, as prerequisites embedded in general education for interested students to choose from according to their language proficiency levels and study needs. University-attached English language programs in English-speaking countries, for example, offer a range of course options and bridge programs for their incoming degree- and non-degree-seeking students. Such academic support for prospective EMI students, domestic and international, would help retain and increase enrollment in EMI courses leading to the continued implementation and further development of EMI along the way.

Multilingualism for the growth of EMI In her widely read work, Mizumura (2015), educated in the United States and a former professor of literature at universities there, questions the dominance of English as well as the spread of EMI when all academic content can be taught in Japanese. She stresses the importance of both Japanese (L1) literacy and diversity in language learning in the age of the English language. Indeed, the nation’s foreign language education has long been leaning heavily toward the English language. MEXT should consider shifting the nation’s foreign language education from the traditional English-based model to multilingual model according to the rapidly changing and diverse learning needs and interests of students. This shift would in turn allow the students to see foreign languages from far wider angles, not limited to Anglophone perspectives. In this regard, diversifying foreign language study at the secondary level would allow students to familiarize themselves with other languages early so as to take on more advanced language study at the tertiary level. Such diverse language study in turn makes study abroad destinations more diverse, not limited to English-speaking countries, which are currently the top choice

The Future of English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japan

277

among Japanese students. Moreover, students who study in non-Englishspeaking countries become motivated to learn English and vice versa. This cycle would not only increase the small number of domestic fluent speakers of other languages but also develop the already much larger group of fluent speakers of English, forming a potentially far wider cohort of serious foreign language learners over time. EMI may comprise a core part of this growth cycle, producing well-trained, highly skilled and motivated individuals capable of communicating disciplinary content in English across sectors and borders.

EMI for career development EMI plays a meaningful role in providing motivated domestic students with the opportunity to obtain disciplinary content knowledge across languages. It is also significant in preparing them to pursue international careers at home and abroad. Such educational potential of EMI can fill a long overdue need for individuals in the private sector who can work comfortably and professionally with people from other cultures. There is also another area in which this EMI’s potential could play a role; a recent survey shows that there is growing unwillingness to work overseas among young Japanese nationals (SANNO Institute of Management, 2015). This survey targeted 831 newly hired employees and found that the number of young people unwilling to work overseas has more than doubled from 28.7% in 2004 to 63.7% in 2015. Among the reasons for their unwillingness were lack of confidence in their L2 skills and security concerns about living overseas. EMI provides educational value by offering opportunities for domestic and international students to interact, preparing both to work bilingually and professionally across cultures at home and abroad after they graduate. Despite the growing unwillingness to work abroad, the number of Japanese nationals who study abroad for degree and non-degree purposes rose again in 2012 after falling steadily from 2004 to 2011 (MEXT, 2015b). This recent rise has been attributed to steadily increased participation in non-degree study by college and university students thanks to an increased study abroad budget allocated by MEXT, a byproduct of their policy shift from inbound to outbound student mobility focus in 2010. This is good news because, unlike the majority of current corporate employees, college graduates with increased study abroad experience may be more motivated to work overseas. This upward trend should be maintained if the government’s study abroad funding continues. To this end, EMI certainly serves to feed overseas opportunities for Japanese nationals to advance their international careers. EMI also provides domestic academics and advanced degree holders with several important opportunities. They have the opportunity to gain experience teaching classes related to their field of expertise in English, which is a requirement if they choose to seek academic positions overseas. EMI can also

278

Section 6: Future Direc t ions for English-Medium Instruc t ion

foster their bilingual skills in their field of study to meet the needs of today’s globalized workplace in Japan and beyond. This also may give an opportunity to the increased numbers of domestic advanced degree holders unemployed and living in poverty (Mizuki, 2007), a phenomenon long seen since the government deregulation in 1991, when the number of graduate schools started increasing with the prospect of higher demand for their graduates. This demand, however, is unfortunately yet to materialize.

Developing a sustainable EMI community It appears that Japan has yet to reach the breakeven point that would meet the demand and supply of qualified EMI professionals; at present, the former far exceed the latter. If Japanese HEIs continue hiring non-Japanese faculty on a fixed-term, part-time, project-based or non-tenure-track basis, and rely only on them and domestic faculty to teach EMI classes, it will be extremely difficult to fill the gap between demand and supply and form a healthy, sustainable EMI faculty body who can benefit students from various cultural backgrounds with different academic needs. Realizing the status quo, more and more institutions are becoming aware of the importance of forming a team of trained EMI content specialists, domestic and international. In fact, many Japanese HEIs, such as the TGU grant recipients, are increasingly hiring full-time, permanent content specialists and assigning them to recently established EMI classes. Although the degree of diversity of the faculty body from which to form a balanced mix of domestic and international EMI faculty still remains low compared with rates in the United States and Europe (MEXT, 2010; Yonezawa & Ishida, 2012), the percentage of full-time non-Japanese university faculty in Japan shows a significant increase from 3.4% in 2009 to 4.2% in 2015 (MEXT, 2015c). Moreover, over the 30-year period ending in 2010, the number of full-time non-Japanese faculty grew by about six times and university faculty became far more diverse in terms of, for example, nationalities and areas of expertise (Yonezawa & Ishida, 2012). Given that close to 80% of non-Japanese faculty engaged in language education in 1979 (Hiroshima University Research Institute for Higher Education, 1980), the percentage of non-Japanese content, not language, specialists may have increased significantly since then as well. To this end, hiring non-Japanese faculty in larger numbers, but not at the expense of the current domestic faculty, would promote an open and international outlook at Japanese HEIs, which is good for the higher education community as a whole. In a manner described by Iyobe and Li (this volume), English-medium courses could perhaps best be taught by a professional team of native and nonnative speakers of English. Each member of the team would bring to the class their own strengths, content knowledge, availability and workload, teaching skills, proper levels of language proficiency and motivation.

The Future of English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japan

279

Collaboration Collaboration serves as a driving force for pursuing EMI’s potential. Without it, EMI may be isolated and remain peripheral. To move things forward, it is important for EMI practitioners and advocates to develop a shared understanding of the significance of EMI internally in a way that is in line with the institutional mission and international education policies. This takes time and patience. Tactful approaches through groundwork and internal marketing, without resorting to top management directives, is the key so as not to put EMI in an unnecessarily unfavorable position internally with a risk of later backlash by concerned academic departments. This soft and slow approach would lead to enhanced understanding of a healthy spread of EMI implementation among stakeholders within HEIs. Yet in many programs there tends to be little or no communication between content and language teachers nor between academic divisions implementing EMI in the same university (Brown, 2015a). Table 17.2 shows possible areas of collaboration between academics with knowledge of disciplinary fields, second language (L2) pedagogy and target language and culture. There have already been numerous findings in those areas that can be applied for the purpose of, for example, constructing and developing EMI pedagogy. In this regard, collaborative work is strongly encouraged among researchers and educators at home and abroad.

Closing Remarks As has been explored in this chapter, EMI can play many important roles in international higher learning in Japan. It can offer broader study options for students at home and from abroad, provide them with the intellectual challenges of deepening their thoughts across languages and cultures, create opportunities for intercultural communication and prepare them for future careers in the multilingual and multicultural workplace. EMI can also motivate faculty to hone their discipline-specific pedagogical skills. We could continue expecting such a positive effect of EMI on tertiary learning and beyond for the benefit of students and faculty. Table 17.2 Possible areas of collaboration between academics Academics

Areas

Content/language faculty

Expertise (e.g. terminology, Japanese equivalents) L2 pedagogy (e.g. TESOL, EAP, ESP) Target language skills (e.g. EFL and Japanese) Knowledge of Anglophone, local and other cultures L2 pedagogy

Domestic/international Experienced/inexperienced

280

Section 6: Future Direc t ions for English-Medium Instruc t ion

There is no doubt that the effective use of L1 and L2 speakers of English and Japanese in the university classroom can be a driving force to advance internationalization of Japanese higher education as a whole, if implemented in an educationally rewarding and culturally sensitive manner.

References Amano, I. (2009) Daigaku no tanjou (jou) Teikoku daigaku no jidai [The Birth of University (1) The Era of Imperial University]. Chu ¯o¯ko¯ron shinsha: Tokyo. Bradford, A. (2013) English-medium degree programs in Japanese universities: Learning from the European experience. Asian Education and Development Studies 2 (3), 225–240. Bradford, A. (2015) Internationalization policy at the genba: Exploring the implementation of social science English-taught undergraduate degree programs in three Japanese universities. EdD dissertation, The George Washington University. Breeze, R. (2014) Identifying student needs in English-medium university courses. In R. Breeze and C. Llamas-Saiz (eds) Integration of Theory and Practice in CLIL (pp. 143– 160). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Brown, H. (2015a) Module 2: Painting a picture of EMI in Japan: Extent of, rationales for, and implementation of undergraduate English-medium instruction classes at universities in Japan. PhD thesis, University of Birmingham. Brown, H. (2015b) Factors influencing the choice of CLIL classes at university in Japan. ELTWorldOnline.com, Special Issue on CLIL, 1–22. Brown, H. and Iyobe, B. (2014) The growth of English medium instruction in Japan. In N. Sonda and A. Krause (eds) JALT2013 Conference Proceedings (pp. 9–19). Tokyo: JALT. Byun, K., Chu, H. Kim, M., Park, I., Kim, S. and Jung, J. (2011) English-medium teaching in Korean higher education: Policy debates and reality. Higher Education 62 (4), 431–449. Cason, C. and Rodriguez, P. (2013) Why English? European Association for International Education Forum Winter 2013. Chiba, S. (2011) Eigo ni yoru tani shutoku puroguramu – Bairingarizumu ni yoru senmon kyouiku/kokusaikirisutokyou daigakudaigakuin no baai [Credit-bearing program in English – Specialized education through bilingualism/A case of International Christian University Graduate School]. Ryugakukouryuu 6 (1), 1–5. See http://www. jasso.go.jp/ryugaku/related/kouryu/2011/_icsFiles/afieldfile/2015/11/19/shinchiba. pdf Close, N. (2015) Dealing with mixed-language abilities in an English-medium university content course. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 11 (3), 69–77. Czarnecki, M. and Rees, N. (2014) Classroom diversity challenges in a global context: Mixing L1 and L2 proficiency. Paper presented at the First Annual Conference on Global Higher Education at the Lakeland College, Tokyo, Japan. de Wit, H. (2005) English as the common language in higher education: Issues and challenges. In M. Woolf (ed.) I Gotta Use Words when I Talk to You: English and International Education. European Association for International Education Occasional Paper 17 (pp. 3–13). Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D. and Sierra, J.M. (2011) Internationalization, multilingualism and English-medium instruction. World Englishes 30 (3), 345–359. Hanami, M. (2012) Jissen houkoku Bureinsuto-minngu ‘Eigo de jugyousuru/shinai.’ [Practice report: Brain storming ‘merits and demerits of teaching in English’]. Mie University Center for International Education and Research Journal 7, 93–107.

The Future of English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japan

281

Hanami M. and Nishitani (1997) Kyouiku no kokusaika to tankiukeire puroguramu [Internationalization of education and short-term programs for incoming international students]. Hitotsubashi University International Center Report. Heigham, J. (2014) Voices on campus: International students in an English-medium instruction degree programs in Japan. Journal of the Ochanomizu University English Society 5, 64–74. Helm, F. and Guarda, M. (2015) ‘Improvisation is not allowed in a second language’: A survey of Italian lecturers’ concerns about teaching their subjects through English. Language Learning in Higher Education 5 (2), 353–373. Hiroshima University Research Institute for Higher Education (1980) Nihon no daigaku ni okeru gaikokujin kyouin – Zenkokuchousa kekka no gaiyou [A national survey of opinion among foreign teachers at Japanese universities and colleges. A summary report]. Daigakukenkyu Note [Notes on Higher Education] 43, 1–85. See http://rihejoho. hiroshima-u.ac.jp/pdf/note/49306.pdf Iyobe, B. and Li, J. (2013) CLIL to what degree: A trial in English medium education at a Japanese university – Is it CLIL or not? Asian EFL Journal 15 (4), 373–382. Kling, J, and Stæhr, L.S. (2013) The development of the Test of Oral English Proficiency for Academic Staff (TOEPAS). See http://cip.ku.dk/forskning/cip_publikationer/ CIP_TOPEPAS_Technical_Report.pdf/ Kuwamura, A. (2009) The challenges of increasing capacity and diversity in Japanese higher education through proactive recruitment strategies. Journal of Studies in International Education 13 (2), 188–202. Kuwamura, A. (2013) Major shift in international student mobility policy in Japan. Paper presented at the Ninth QS-APPLE Conference, Seoul, South Korea, October. Laasegard, J. (2006) International student quality and Japanese education reform. Journal of Studies in International Education 10, 119–140. Lassegard, J. (2014) The role of English-medium instruction in the internationalization of Japanese higher education. Paper presented at the 50th Japan Comparative and International Education conference at Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan, July. MEXT (2005) Wagakuni no ryuugakusei seido no gaiyou Ukeire oyobi haken [Outline of the student exchange system: Study in Japan and abroad 2005]. See http://www. mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/ryugaku/06021615/001.pdf MEXT (2010) Ryuugakusei kouryuu no suishin ni tsuite [Promotion of student exchange]. See http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/chukyo4/025/gijiroku/_ _ icsFiles/afieldfile/2010/06/02/1293056_3.pdf MEXT (2012) Project of Promotion of Global Human Resource Development (Global 30 plus). See http://www.mext.go.jp/english/highered/1326675.htm (accessed 25 January 2015). MEXT (2014) Heisei 26 nendo Gakkou kihon chousa [Basic school survey FY2014]. See http://www.mext.go.jp/component/b_menu/other/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2015/03/19/ 1354124_3.pdf MEXT (2015a) National university reform for the coming era. Higher Education Bureau, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. See http://www. mext.go.jp/english/highered/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2015/10/01/1362381 _ 1_1.pdf MEXT (2015b) Nihonjin no kaigairyuugaku jyoukyou [Report on Japanese nationals studying abroad]. See http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/ryugaku/icsFiles/ afieldfile/2015/03/09/1345878_01.pdf. MEXT (2015c) Gakkou kihon chousa [Basic school survey FY2014]. See http://www.estat.go.jp/SG1/estat/NewList.do?tid=000001011528 (accessed 11 March 2016). Mizuki, S. (2007) Kougakureki waakingu puaa [The Highly Educated Working Poor]. Tokyo: Koubunsha. Mizumura, S. (2015) Nihongo ga horobiru toki – Eigo no seiki no naka de [The Fall of (the Japanese) Language in the Age of English]. Chikuma shobou: Tokyo.

282

Section 6: Future Direc t ions for English-Medium Instruc t ion

Morozumi, A. (2013) Kyuugekina ‘kokusaika’ wa nani o motarasuka Kankoku no jirei kara [What does rushed ‘internationalization’ bring? A case of South Korea]. Chu¯¯oko¯ron 128 (2), 64–69. Nakai, T. (2009) Eigo ni yoru jyugyou nonouhau no mijika [Making approaches to English-medium instruction visible]. Nagoya Journal of Higher Education 9, 77–89. Nakai, T. (2011, September) Eigo ni yoru jugyou no tameno FD no kadai [The Challenge of FD for English-medium instruction]. Ryugakukoryu, 6, 1–7. See http://www.jasso. go.jp/ryugaku/related/kouryu/2011/_icsFiles/afieldfile/2015/11/19/toshi kinakai. pdf Ninomiya, A., Knight, J. and Watanabe, A. (2009) The past, present, and future of internationalization in Japan. Journal of Studies in International Education 13 (2), 1–8. Saito, M. (2013) Eigo de kougi suru to ushinawareru mono [What we will lose if teaching in English]. Chu¯¯oko¯ron 128 (2), 58–63. SANNO Institute of Management (2015) Dairokkai shinnyuu shain no guroubaru ishiki chousa [The 6th survey on global mind of newly-hired]. See http://www.sanno. ac.jp/research/global2015.html (accessed 13 January 2016). Selzer, M.A. and Gibson, I.R. (2009) Preparing Japanese students for English-medium instruction in international studies: Methodology and practice in the IIIS international public service program. Ritsumeikan Annual Review of International Studies 22 (1), 127–140. Shimizu, M. (2015) Moshi nihon no subete no daigaku no jugyou ga eigo de okonawaretara: nanameshita kara mita guro-baruka [What if all courses at the tertiary level in Japan were conducted in English?: Globalization seen from diagonally below]. Chu¯¯oko¯ron 129 (2), 142–147. Suzuki, N. (2014) Daigakusei wa eigo de manabe [University students should learn in English]. The Asahi Shimbun, 3 July, p. 13. Terashima, T. (2014) Daigakusei wa eigo de manabe [University students should learn in English]. The Asahi Shimbun, 3 July, p. 13. Tsuneyoshi, R. (2005) Internationalization strategies in Japan: The dilemmas and possibilities of study abroad programs using English. Journal of Research in International Education 4, 65–86. Utagawa, T. (2011) A possibility of offering courses in English at a small university. Hokkaido University of Education Journal (Humanities and Social Sciences) 61 (2), 49–59. Valcke, J. (2015) Uncovering CLIL: Teachers and students discuss their views. In M. Castermans (Chair), Opening session. Symposium conducted at the fourth Integrating Content and Language in Higher Education conference (ICLHE 2015), Brussels, Belgium, September. Wilkinson, D. (2015) English-medium content course: Student approaches and strategies to increase comprehension levels. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research 11 (3), 1–16. Yonezawa, A. and Ishida, K. (2012) Nihon no daigaku no gaikokujin kyouin: sono koudou to ishiki [Non-Japanese Academics at Japanese Universities: Their Behaviors and Perspectives]. Research Institute for Higher Education Hiroshima University Reviews in Higher Education 116, 1–104. Yoshida, A. (2015) Guroubaru jinzai ikusei no kuukyo [Emptiness of producing globally competent individuals]. Chu¯¯oko¯ron 129 (2), 116–121.

18 Final Thoughts: Have We Seen This Before? The Information Technology Parallel Annette Bradford and Howard Brown

This volume has shown that English-medium instruction (EMI) in Japan is growing and is beginning to assume perhaps not a central, but a meaningful role in the higher education sector. The chapters have shown how, with careful planning and close collaboration among academic content instructors, language-teaching specialists and administrators, and with the help of teaching assistants, EMI programs can be successful. They can provide quality international experiences for students, and have the potential to inspire other internationalization efforts across campus (see for example Yamamoto & Ishikura, Chapter 5; Birchley, Chapter 8; Iyobe & Li, Chapter 14; Kunioshi & Nakakoji, Chapter 16). However, the growth in EMI has not been without challenge. Chapters in this volume have highlighted issues at both the national policy and institutional levels. For example, Mulvey in Chapter 3 and Poole in Chapter 6 both show that there are challenges maintaining momentum for reform in the face of pressures and constraints from within universities, and Chapters 9–13 all highlight problems supporting both faculty and students involved in EMI classes. Universities are also having trouble designing EMI programs with a shared sense of direction and clear program goals (Birchley, Chapter 8). In addition, there are open questions raised by Kuwamura in Chapter 17 concerning such things as EMI’s potential to facilitate learning and increase diversity in higher education. These questions need to be addressed as EMI becomes more widely established. The challenges in implementing EMI can be seen as roadblocks in the path to internationalization of universities. However, are these roadblocks unique to the current internationalization efforts, or are we perhaps seeing the most recent iteration of an ongoing structural characteristic of the Japanese higher education sector? Although EMI is an area which is currently receiving a 283

284

Section 6: Future Direc t ions for English-Medium Instruc t ion

great deal of investment and attention, this is not the first time that innovations have entered Japanese higher education. The sector faced surprisingly similar challenges in the past. In her 2003 edited volume, Roadblocks on the Information Highway: The IT Revolution in Japanese Education, Jane Bachnik tells a fascinating story of how information technology (IT) was introduced in Japanese higher education in the 1990s. For anyone involved in current internationalization efforts or EMI implementation, it is a very familiar tale. The parallels are striking, and by looking at the example of IT, we may catch a glimpse of where EMI is heading. The first striking parallel is in the context of implementation. During the IT revolution, higher education innovation was being driven by a sense of crisis. Along with a deep malaise and uncertainty about the future growing out of the bursting of the infamous bubble economy, there was a sense that Japan was falling behind in the race to adopt IT. There was a strong demand from potential employers for graduates with IT skills and computer literacy, who possessed ‘originality, individuality, creativity, initiative, and leadership abilities’ (Bachnik, 2003: 10). These creative individualists would lead Japan into a new era of IT entrepreneurship based on the American Silicon Valley model. As shown by Hashimoto in Chapter 2, in today’s globalizing society, the rhetoric of crisis and the call for a new kind of university graduate are again clear. The recession which began following the collapse of the bubble has never been completely overcome and demographic changes have led to a decline in the labor force. In addition, Japan’s economic competitiveness has been weakened and is further threatened by the rise of China. The government sees EMI as a two-pronged part of the solution to this problem (Hashimoto, Chapter 2). First, EMI allows for a greater influx of talented students from abroad. These students have the potential to revitalize higher education in Japan and can become a new talent pool for the knowledge economy. However, as Ota and Horiuchi point out in Chapter 7, the number of such students admitted to English-taught programs by Japan’s top tier universities is quite small and, as Heigham (Chapter 10) notes, they may not be always be welcomed and well taken care of when they arrive. In addition to making universities more attractive to international students, EMI is also a key element in the higher education sector’s approach to internationalization at home. EMI is the cornerstone of the attempt to foster global jinzai, globalized human resources, among the domestic student body (Takagi, Chapter 4). It fulfils the current business demand for young people who have strong communication skills, can understand different cultures and values, work creatively, take independent action and become global leaders. This demand is highly reminiscent of the earlier calls for a new generation of IT professional. Another parallel is seen in how IT implementation was approached and funded at the national level. When IT was introduced, competitive grants

Final Thought s

285

funded initial large-scale implementation, with most resources going to elite universities. Less prestigious universities adopted IT later and on a smaller scale, without a clear mandate or coordinated strategy. The same can be seen today with the Global 30 and Top Global funding schemes supporting EMI initiatives at a small number of prestigious universities, such as the one described by Yamamoto and Ishikura in Chapter 5, while the bulk of EMI programs develop without government support or a central plan. A third parallel emerges at the institutional level. Early IT initiatives were largely volunteer-based and faculty-led. Administrators were assigned to IT projects, but they were, by and large, generalist administrative staff; there was a serious lack of skilled IT personnel. With this limited support, faculty members picked up the slack, resulting in IT initiatives relying on self-taught faculty acting as volunteers (Yoshida & Bachnik, 2003). The same can be seen today. As Poole describes in Chapter 6, internationalization activities and EMI programs are supported by non-specialist administrators, many assigned to the EMI program for a limited term. These short-term administrators have little or no voice in program decision-making and the full-time administrators assigned to EMI often do not understand, or sometimes even question, the value of EMI for the university. Most of the leadership for EMI is coming from faculty members who, until they began working on EMI implementation, had no experience with and limited knowledge of EMI. Over the last 10 years, they have trained themselves to become specialists (see Yamamoto & Ishikura, Chapter 5). Likewise, as Susser (Chapter 12) and Horie (Chapter 13) point out, faculty members teaching in EMI programs often have little experience delivering their subjects in English. A fourth parallel that emerges from a comparison of IT and EMI initiatives is a focus on implementation rather than integration. That is, implementation is driven by numerical targets rather than performance-based goals. In the case of IT implementation, there was a policy-level focus on fostering a new kind of student, but at the institutional level the focus was on equipment and logistical issues. It was much more important to ensure the availability of a certain number of computers than to consider how those computers would be used to facilitate learning and teaching (Bachnik, 2003). Ozkul and Aoki (2007) point to a gap between the availability of IT on campus and its actual use in education. They argue that, even now, a full two decades after the rush to implement IT systems, and despite a very welldeveloped IT infrastructure, Japan lags behind in the actual educational adoption of IT, especially in higher education. In the early days of IT implementation, funding was available for equipment, software and logistics, but little support was given to training or the development of pedagogy (Latchem et al., 2008), and that trend continues. EMI implementation and the wider issue of internationalization of higher education in Japan suffer from the same focus on implementation at the expense of integration. As described by Bradford and Brown in Chapter 1,

286

Section 6: Future Direc t ions for English-Medium Instruc t ion

many EMI programs are ad hoc and lack the coordination and coherence that Iyobe and Li (Chapter 14) consider a requisite element of successful EMI implementation. For many universities, the priority has been on numerical targets such as the number of EMI classes or programs, the number of international faculty members and student mobility rates, perhaps due in part to university ranking tables and government funding structures which, as Hashimoto explains in Chapter 2, prioritize and reward such measurable outcomes. Just as with IT, EMI implementation has been supported by government funding. However, as Yamamoto and Ishikura (Chapter 5) note, when funding ends, EMI programs must be supported with mainstream university resources, and this raises concern over sustainability. Under these conditions, the much-needed faculty training opportunities described by Horie in Chapter 13 may never be fully realized. A final, and perhaps overarching, parallel between IT initiatives and EMI programs can be seen in how both seem to have been fighting against a prevailing social structure: educational traditions and institutional identities, what Brumby (2003: 291) calls the ‘tyranny of tradition.’ In the case of IT, the attempt to develop a new generation of computer-literate specialist students went against the prevailing notion of what universities were supposed to do at the undergraduate level: produce generalists. In this sense, both the students and universities were ‘swimming upstream … that is to say, moving against prevailing social forces’ (Bachnik, 2003: 93). At the institutional level, efforts to implement IT were hampered by a lack of long-term strategy and a focus on pragmatic, superficial goals. Universities failed to accept the need for shifts in organizational structures, institutional identity and classroom pedagogy implied by the adoption of IT (Latchem et al., 2008). This struggle, the sense of swimming upstream, is familiar to those working in current EMI initiatives. As discussed above, EMI is being implemented, in many cases, for domestic students as part of the drive to foster global human resources for Japan’s business community. However, the goal of creating an internationally minded young generation in Japan runs counter to the prevailing notion of the importance of Japanese national identity (Mulvey, Chapter 3). As such, a strong sense of national identity and understanding of Japanese culture are both seen as key elements of the definition of global jinzai by many, if not most, university leaders (Huang & Daizen, 2014) and by many students in international programs (Shimauchi, Chapter 11). This leads to attempts to foster students as outward-looking people, but not too outward looking. Current indicators show that, as far as social change is concerned, EMI is following the same short-term, superficial path as IT. EMI is seen as a simple and cheap solution to the challenge of internationalization (Hashimoto, Chapter 2) and the very real difficulties inherent in implementing EMI in a systematic and meaningful way are not always being given due consideration as universities rush to establish new programs. The

Final Thought s

287

deep and possibly identity-threatening changes in institutional culture, administrative structures and approaches to pedagogy necessary to make EMI a central part of the Japanese higher education sector are slow to be adopted. These changes will not be easy. They require a change in how international varieties of English are viewed (Haswell, Chapter 9), a change in the mindsets of faculty members and administrators (Susser, Chapter 12; Poole, Chapter 6), and a change in the role of English on campus (McKinley, Chapter 15). Stakeholders in current internationalization efforts may readily see the somewhat discouraging parallels to the experience of IT initiatives. The route to IT implementation was littered with roadblocks and some question whether IT has ever been truly integrated into the culture of the higher education sector or remains simply layered onto existing structures. Many of the same issues and questions plague EMI programs today. However, where do these problems come from? For Bachnik, the key issues all stemmed from decisions that universities had to make when they set out to establish IT systems and policies. Implementing IT and effectively integrating it university-wide meant making deep systemic changes in the culture and politics of the institution, a daunting prospect. Alternatively, universities could focus on superficial technical issues and numerical targets on a department-by-department basis, thereby avoiding the more troubling issues and taking an easier path. Looking back at the IT experience, the choice universities made was clear. Making deep and substantial changes was never a real option; universities chose the easier path. Implementation was characterized by short-term planning and reactive problem solving. While this may have seemed like the obvious choice at the time, these short-term solutions were in fact the source of many of the long-term problems and IT has never really lived up to its potential in the higher education sector. Communications technology, information management and online distance education all remain relatively underdeveloped in Japanese universities. So, what of current EMI initiatives? The evidence from this volume would appear to show that we are heading down the same easy path of short-term, reactive decision-making. In 20 years’ time, EMI could be in a situation similar to where IT is now, with a stable position as a commonplace part of higher education, but not playing a central role and not deeply integrated into the university culture. If that is what we, as EMI stakeholders, want, then we may be on the right path. However, there is still room for change, room for EMI to live up to its potential and truly effect the internationalization of Japanese higher education. EMI in Japan is still in its infancy and there is time for universities to take the more challenging path. We can learn from the experience of the IT programs before us and consider the structural changes that need to take place to ensure not just successful EMI implementation, but real EMI integration.

288

Section 6: Future Direc t ions for English-Medium Instruc t ion

References Bachnik, J. (ed.) (2003) Roadblocks on the Information Highway: The IT Revolution in Japanese Education. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Brumby, E. (2003) Technology and the tyranny of tradition in Japanese higher education. In J.M. Bachnik (ed.) Roadblocks on the Information Highway: The IT Revolution in Japanese Education (pp. 291–307). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Huang, F. and Daizen, T. (2014) Cultivating global human resources in Japan: An analysis of national strategies and major findings from national survey. Paper presented at the the First Annual Conference on Global Education at Lakeland College Japan, Tokyo, May. Latchem, C., Jung, I., Aoki, K. and Ozkul, A.E. (2008) The tortoise and the hare enigma in e-transformation in Japanese and Korean higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology 39 (4), 610–630. Ozkul, A.E. and Aoki, K. (2007) E-learning in Japan: Steam locomotive or shinkansen. Open Praxis 1 (1), 47–55. Yoshida, A. and Bachnik, J. (2003) A nationwide assessment of IT implementation in higher education. In J.M. Bachnik (ed.) Roadblocks on the Information Highway: The IT Revolution in Japanese Education (pp. 25–60). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Index

Note: t refers to tables.

100,000 International Students Plan 38, 208, 209, 217 300,000 International Students Plan 20t, 22, 23, 28, 71, 108, 110 4P marketing approach 132 7P marketing approach 131–142, 144 academic calendar 79, 209, 240, 252, 256 academic English English as a classroom language 259 English as an academic language 4–5 English for Academic Purposes (EAP) 227, 240, 272, 276 as lingua franca 259 teaching in schools 35 as tool for exploration 37 academic literacies 5–6, 247, 267, 275 Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) 16 academic writing courses 247 accessibility of programs 108–129 accommodation (housing) 124, 140, 166 accommodation (linguistic strategy) 198, 200, 202, 216 accountability 10, 43 accreditation 7, 34, 40–41, 43, 60, 81, 228, 230 acculturation 5, 43 see also intercultural competencies ‘Action plan to cultivate Japanese who can use English’ (MEXT, 2004) 34–36 action research 75, 163–164 active learning 36, 144, 197, 201, 215 ad hoc programs 8, 17, 133 Adams, T.E. 195, 204 Adamson, J. 235 adaptability 58 adjunct teachers 8 administration

admissions management 95–97, 108–129 bilingual administrators 43, 100, 102, 134, 140, 166, 170–171 burdens of 66, 73 bureaucracy 12, 66, 91–107, 141–142 bureaucratic hiring practices 8, 99–101 bureaucratic obstruction of ETPs 91–107 costs of 133–134 generalists/non-specialists 99–100, 102, 140, 171, 273, 285 and international students 170–171 and internationalization 8 lack of global skills 100–101 lack of support for 272–273 language of 6, 140, 170–171 need for specialists 99–100, 102, 140 parallels with IT implementation 285 permanent employees 8, 99, 100, 101, 102, 164 policies for international students 171–172 ‘serious’ (majime) workers 104–105 short-term employees 8, 100, 102, 170–171, 270, 273, 278, 285 admissions management 34, 95–98, 108–129 admissions quotas 112–114t, 116–117, 126–127 advertising 130–146 affective aspects 58 agents 7–9, 103, 152 agile universities 93 agriculture 25 Airey, J. 200, 201 A-levels 122 Americanization 201 American-style instruction 74 Anctil, E.J. 143 Anthropology of tourism 196–197 anti-EMI attitudes 40, 267–268

289

290

English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japanese Higher Educat ion

Aoki, K. 285 application fees 117–118, 119t application procedures 110–123 Arzubiaga, A.E. 76 Asian Gateway Initiative 20t, 22, 23 Asian varieties of English 150–160 Asiaweek 16 Aspinall, R. 40, 93–94 assessment criteria 60, 65–66, 81 assignments 74, 79–80, 173, 175, 214, 234–235, 248, 271 assimilation 217 assumptive teaching 201 attitudes 12, 149–160, 286 attrition rates 85, 234, 236 Australia 110, 150 authentic materials 227 autoethnographic research methods 195 Bachnik, J. 284, 286 Barna, L.M. 218 Basic Plan for the Promotion of Education 20t, 23 benchmarks For language proficiency 6-7, 270, 17, 57, 80, 118, 166, 184, 254, 270 For learning outcomes 17, 41, 53, 66, 79, 81, 274, 286 Bennett, M.J. 218 bilingual staff bilingual administrators 43, 100, 102, 134, 140, 166, 170–171 bilingual lab staff 256 bilingual teaching assistants 62–63 bilingualism 199, 277 see also multilingualism; plurilingualism Block, D. 164 Bolton, K. 152 Bourn, D. 64 Bradford, A. 4, 9, 65–66, 73, 77, 200, 201, 275 brand architectures 143 Breaden, J. 92, 100, 102 Breckenridge, Y. 202 bridge courses 227–228 Brown, H. 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 51, 64, 110, 117, 203, 225, 235, 266, 272 Brumby, E. 286 bureaucracy 12, 66, 91–107, 141–142 Burgess, C. 74, 75, 110, 191 business community, as agent of EMI 7 business uses of English 159

business-like approaches 57, 59, 131 Bysouth, D. 79, 81 calendar, academic 79, 209, 240, 252, 256 Canagarajah, A.S. 197, 203 capacity building 77–78 career development 81, 277–278 see also employability Carroll, J. 65, 67 CEF (Common European Framework) 41, 270 Central Education Council 215 Certified Evaluation and Accreditation 125 challenges for EMI programs administrative challenges 65, 66, 67–77 cultural challenges 12, 65, 66, 73–74, 84, 86, 210, 275 institutional challenges 12, 65, 66, 67, 91–105 linguistic challenges 12, 65, 66, 73–74, 84, 86, 175, 177, 210 psychological challenges 212–216, 219 structural challenges 12, 19, 24, 73, 77, 78–79, 84, 86, 210, 211–212, 219, 275, 283–287 Chiba, S. 274 China Asian varieties of English 153–158 Chinese students in Japan 65, 72, 150, 252, 253–254 growth of EMI xviii, 18 international students 254 and Japan’s competitiveness 15, 284 offshore EMI 109 Christensen, T. 34 circles 80, 167–168 citation rankings 16 citizenship 55 see also global citizenship class participation 78, 186–188, 215, 246 classroom layouts 141 classroom pedagogy adjusting according to student feedback 85 differing styles of 78, 141, 175–176, 214, 270 and foreign faculty 36 interactivity in the classroom 78, 215 lack of training in 257 power of MEXT to influence 34–36 rethinking of 9 clearing houses 97 clubs and activities 80, 167–168

Inde x

code-switching 196, 241, 242, 245, 248 cohort advisors 81, 83 collaboration, inter-institutional 279 collaborative learning 274 College Scholastic Ability Test (CSAT) 122 commodification of education 131, 132 Common Application 97, 116 Common European Framework (CEF) 41, 270 common sense 104, 105 communicative teaching styles 35, 201 competition-type internationalization 52–53 competitiveness crisis of 15–17, 22, 26–27 and EMI 22–25, 284 ETPs as window-dressing for 126 government policies regarding 93 and Internationalization of Curriculum (IoC) 55, 56, 57, 59 statistics on 11, 177 Competitive-Process model of IoC 54, 55, 58–60, 63–64 Competitive-Product model of IoC 54–55, 57–58, 63–64 Concentric Circles model of English 151, 253 Confucianism 9, 65 consumers, students as 130–131, 144 Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) xviii, 10, 67, 141, 197, 226, 232 Content-based Instruction (CBI) xviii, 10, 195, 196–197, 232, 259 contract workers 8, 100, 102, 170–171 see also short-term employees cooperation-type internationalization 52–53 Cooperative-Process model of IoC 54, 55, 61–64, 67 Cooperative-Product model of IoC 54, 55, 56, 60–61, 64 corporate branding 143 corporatization 57 Cots, J.M. 201 Council of Europe 213 Craig, A. 92 criteria-based assessments 81–82 critical mass of EMI exposure 229–232, 236 critical thinking skills 35, 36, 203 cross-cultural capabilities 58, 168–169, 209–210, 216–219, 269, 272 see also intercultural competencies cross-faculty ETPs 115–116, 117, 143 crossroad EMI programs 110, 182

291

crossroad programs 182 cultural awareness 43, 65 cultural capital 67, 102 cultural competencies 73–74 see also intercultural competencies curriculum design 51–70, 79, 227, 236, 251–255, 275–276 Dafouz, E. 3–4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 92, 103 Daigaku Kaikaku Jikko plan (2012) 34 Davis, C. 163 de Wit, H. 152 Dearden, J. 92, 109, 201 deficit models of education 74, 202 definition of English-Medium Instruction (EMI) xviii de-internationalization 94, 98, 99, 102 Dejima EMI programs 75, 110, 182 Dejima-ization 75, 77, 81, 182 demographic pressures 11, 15, 27, 35, 57, 108, 130 department store syndrome 139 designated high schools system 96, 254 Development Model of Intercultural Sensitivities 218 diagnostic tests 35 dietary needs 170 disciplinary differences 5 disciplinary language 5–6, 200, 204 distance learning options 134–135 diversity 35, 67, 95, 127, 150, 163, 198, 216–219, 252–253, 258–259, 274 Doiz, A. 199 domestic students admissions management 96 EMI aims to attract 57, 64 EMI as career development for 277–278 EMI policies for 24, 209 on English-taught programs (ETPs) 8–9, 74–75, 127, 164, 199, 248, 266, 274 as focus of IoC 55 Japanese-medium instruction 267 mixing with international students 162, 167–169, 209, 248, 258–259, 269, 274–275 more cost-effective than international 127 promotion of EMI to 135–137 studying alongside international 58, 61 willingness to communicate 270

292

English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japanese Higher Educat ion

‘domesticated’ enrollment management 95–97 Doshisha University 94–98 Doshisha Women’s College 196–197 double degrees 276 Dugan, K.B. 232 dynamic model of Englishes 151 Earls, C.W. 201 early graduation 79 economic prosperity 38 economic recession 15 Edo period 75, 182 education fairs 137–138 Education Rebuilding Council 22–23 eigo ni yoru jugyou (lessons conducted in English) 6 eigo o tsuujite (learning through English) 35 eigo shinkou (English worship) 40 eikaiwa (language schools) 151 EJU (Examination for Japanese University Admission for International Students) 123 employability 56, 59, 61, 64, 159, 184, 192, 255, 277–278 engineering 5, 25, 58, 59, 112–114t, 250–262, 273 English as a Foreign Language (EFL) 14, 238, 240–249 English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) 4, 198–204, 238, 240–249, 259 English as tool for academic exploration 37 English for Academic Purposes (EAP) 4–5, 227, 240, 272, 276 English imperialism 40 English language proficiency and academic literacies 5–6 admissions criteria 96, 118, 254, 270, 272 admissions management 96 Asian varieties of English 153–158 and career development 277 Content-based Instruction (CBI) 196–197 in definition of global jinzai 17, 26 and Dejima-ization 75 effect on classroom participation 187–188, 246 effects on learning of L2 267–269 and EMI courses 42, 73, 198 EMI may not improve 268

faculty ability to teach in English 7, 73–74, 77–78, 139–140, 172–175, 200, 207–221, 228–229, 232–233, 255, 257–258, 268, 270–271 and female students 183–184 and Internationalization of Curriculum (IoC) 65 Japanese language 109–110, 166, 268 Japanese students in ETPs 74, 84 language learning not part of EMI xviii as motivation for taking EMI classes 186 ‘native speaker problem’ 198, 203 native speakers having to prove 172 no Japanese requirement for ETPs 166 non-native varieties of English 151 pair teaching (language and content) 228–229, 232–233 as part of selection procedures 96, 118 pre-course requirements 270 preparedness for EMI courses 269–272 progression through EMI programs 225–229 role of L1 267 standardized benchmarks 6–7 standardized English test scores 172, 184, 254, 270 see also TOEFL; TOEIC student diversity in 215–216 tests of 172, 184 TOEFL 16, 35, 57, 118, 166, 184, 254, 270 TOEIC 17, 57, 184, 254 TOEPAS (Test of Oral English Proficiency for Academic Staff) 271 training for non-native speakers 207–221 users versus learners of lingua franca language 199, 202, 240–241 written English proficiencies 169–170 English Language Teaching (ELT) 238 Englishization 6, 14, 18, 28 English-taught programs (ETPs) admissions management 96 bureaucracy 91–107 comparative rarity of xviii, 3, 4, 18 content learning 267–268 costs of 133–134 crossroad programs 110, 182 Dejima programs 75, 110, 182 domestic students 8–9, 74–75, 127, 164, 199, 248, 266, 274 domestic versus international students 9, 164 elective elements of 254–255, 259–260

Inde x

extra workload of 80, 211, 271 Global Citizen programs 110, 182, 183, 184 in Global 30 Project 71, 72 history of 18, 22–25 increasing in engineering and natural sciences 5 offshore ETPs 109–110 operating costs of 127 outside Japan 109 statistics on 108, 225–226 structural models of 115–116 use of L1s in 174, 182, 245, 259, 274 enrollment management 95–98, 185 entrance requirements 97, 110–111 entry-level academic posts 77 Erasmus Program 109 Erikawa, H. 40, 42–43 Erling, E.J. 202 ethnocentrism 218 ethnographic research 82, 195 Europe, ETPs in 109, 128, 144 evaluation 9, 34, 41, 80, 85, 245, 247 Examination for Japanese University Admission for International Students (EJU) 123 examinations (admissions) 118–122 excess capacity in HEI 11 exchange programs 7, 19–22, 26, 62, 85, 266 extracurricular activities 61, 63, 80, 167–168, 189, 210 faculty development 27, 67, 76, 133, 201, 207–221, 257–258, 272, 286 ‘Faculty Guide for Classroom English’ Project 212–216 fee structures 117–118 feedback 9–10, 81, 83, 85, 175–176, 199, 202, 245 female students 180–195 finance office, imperialism of 94–95, 103 food and dietary requirements 170 formative assessment 60, 65, 81 Foskett, N. 149 Freire, P. 85 Fujita, H. 131 Fukushima University 143 funding, competitive 34, 41, 43, 57, 59, 116–117, 285 G30 see Global 30 Project G30+ Project 93–94

293

gaikokjin kyoushi system 37, 39 gaikokujin kyouin system 38, 39 gakubu 97–98 Galloway, N. 241, 244 Gareis, E. 168 gatekeeper language, English as 149 genba- analysis 74, 75, 76 gender 180–195 generalists/non-specialists, hiring of 8, 99–100, 102, 140, 171, 273, 285 George, W.R. 142 Gilligan, C. 142 Global 30 Project 71–87 accessibility of institutions 123–126 acting as bridge between learning communities 84 admission quotas 116 admissions procedures 111 aims of 11, 20t, 26–27, 72–75, 93–94, 208 criticisms of 238, 241, 248 cultural effects of 181 Dejima-ization 182 faculty add-on ETPs 115–116, 117 funding of 116–117, 285 genba- analysis 76 history of 23 increased faculty workload 211 and Internationalization of Curriculum (IoC) 56, 57 and Japanese language 255 and language barriers 110 and marketing 134 promotion events 137 restriction on domestic faculty 255 restrictions on domestic students 252–253 Sophia University 239–240, 242–243 staffing and capacity building 77–78 statistics on 8–9, 24 success of 80, 108–109 Waseda University 250, 251 global approaches 248 Global Citizen EMI programs 110, 182, 183, 184 global citizenship 55, 56, 60, 181, 182, 190 Global Englishes Language Teaching (GELT) 238 Global Human Resource Development Promotion Council 16, 24 global, jinzai and bureaucracy 97, 103 and geographical mobility 28

294

English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japanese Higher Educat ion

global, jinzai (Continued) Global Citizen EMI programs 182 government policies 7, 11, 16–17, 24, 26, 266, 284 and Internationalization of Curriculum (IoC) 51 Japanese identity 286 and liberal arts 97 and marketing 130 global standards, universities with 16 global studies 238, 244, 248 globalization 17, 55, 109, 284 see also internationalization global-minded institutions 7 Global-Regional Student Development Program (Guro-baru/Chiiki Jinzai Ikusei Puroguramu) 42 glocalization 10–12, 103, 104 Go Global Japan 11, 17, 21t, 24 Goonawardana, S. 130, 142, 143 government policies 6–7, 14–31, 32–47, 92, 149, 273 see also specific policies Graddol, D. 198 grade contestation forms 171–172, 175 grade point average (GPA) 122, 172 graduation calendar 79 graduation certificates 98 Graeber, D. 93, 104, 105 Grin, F. 184 group work 99, 197, 248 guest lecturers 62 Gumport, P.J. 131 Guro-baru/Chiiki Jinzai Ikusei Puroguramu (Global-Regional Student Development Program) 42 Guroubaru Jinzai Ikusei Suishin Jigyou see Go Global Japan guroubaru sutandaado (global standard) 19 Hall, I. 37, 38 Hammer, M. 219 handbooks 81–82 Harris, R. 176 Hartley, M. 136 Hashimoto, H. 7, 27, 28 Hemsley-Brown, J.V. 130, 142, 143 hensachi 97 high school grades, for admission 122 high school visits (as marketing) 137 high schools, designated 96, 254 high-theory fields 59–60 hiring practices 8, 36, 38–39, 99–101, 278

history of EMI 36–39, 265–266 homerooms 81, 83, 84 homogenization effects 5 Horiguchi, S. 92 horizontal curricular links 61 Hülmbauer, C. 199 Human Science International Undergraduate Degree (HUS) Program, Osaka University 72, 76–86 humanities and social sciences 5, 25, 34, 59, 64, 112–114t, 211, 226, 244–245, 273 iceberg model of culture 217–218 identity, institutional 12, 91–92, 94–98, 102, 104, 117, 130, 286 identity, Japanese national 190–191, 192, 286 IELTS 166, 270 IMD World Competitiveness Centre 15 individualism 92 industry, pressures from 16, 26 information technology 57, 63, 134–135, 138–139, 214, 283–287 see also internet innovative institutions 7, 17 institutional focus ETPs 115, 124–125 intangible outcomes 60 Integrating Content and Language in Higher Education (ICLHE) xviii intensive English programs 225 intercultural competencies assessment of 65 benefits of L2 268 EMI benefits for domestic students 277–278 future of EMI 269, 274 gender 189 Global 30 Project 73 intercultural learning 67, 216–219 intercultural teaching skills 67 and internationalization 56, 58, 61, 62, 65, 67, 198, 209–210 limited by lack of local language 268–269 multiculturalism 11, 60, 61, 62, 66, 198, 258–259 science and engineering courses 258–259 support for international students 168–169 Intercultural Development Continuum (IDC) 218–219 intercultural learning 66, 216–219

Inde x

interdepartmental collaboration 11 interdisciplinary collaboration 62, 97–98, 112–114t, 144, 184, 273 intermingled and interactive types of ETPs 110 International Affairs sections 163, 164, 166 international awareness 188–191, 192 International Christian University 18 international education fairs 137–138 international faculty acculturation 43 as agents of EMI 8 competency in Japanese 39, 43 cost of 134 and Dejima-ization 75 gaikokujin kyouin 38–39 government policies regarding 35–36 history of 37 in the history of EMI 265 international content experts 10 language proficiency 139, 208 logistics of 43 opposition to 32 short-term employees 8, 100, 102, 170–171, 270, 278, 285 statistics on 278 sustainability 278 training for non-native speakers 211 International Priority Graduate Programs 18 international students academic support issues 172–176 admissions management 96–97, 108–129 assimilation 217 bringing intercultural opportunities 58, 65, 67 closing in versus opening up 191 diversity of student body 35 EMI aims to attract 8–9, 17–18, 23–24, 57 ETPs only open to 110 history of EMI 266 home countries 21, 72, 150, 161, 164, 199, 252 in Japanese-medium courses 161 Japanese language 4, 22, 58, 65, 268, 269, 275 less cost-effective than domestic 127 mixing with domestic students 162, 167–169, 209, 248, 258–259, 269, 274–275 non-academic support needs 165–172 non-native varieties of English 216

295

as overlooked minority 161–179 promotion of EMI to 137–139 relationships with administration 170–171 satisfaction levels 161–179 statistics on 24, 26, 71, 161 studying alongside domestic students 58 studying in Japanese-medium programs 4 international studies courses 57, 59 internationalization accreditation contingent on 7 applies to domestic students too 169 bureaucracy as challenge to 12 categories of institution 7–8, 17 competition-type versus cooperation-type 52 and cultural diversity 207–221 de-internationalization 94, 98, 99, 102 and Dejima-ization 75 of domestic students 284 EMI as core of 23, 72–75, 284 and English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) 199–204 ETPs as an indicator of 110 and gender 190–191 and glocalization 10–12 in government policies 14–31, 92 at home 52, 64 hybrid models 54 international students as symbols of 162 and market segmentation 142 and marketing 132 and multilingualism 4 myths of 152–153 parallels with IT implementation 283–288 and pedagogy 201–202 policies for 14–31 roadblocks 283–284 role of EMI in 208–210 roles of English 4–5, 149 teaching versus research 211 training for non-native speakers 208 of universities generally 17–18, 149–150 Internationalization of the Curriculum (IoC) 51–70 internet 44, 63, 118, 138–139, 214 see also online learning platforms; social networking

296

English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japanese Higher Educat ion

interview research methods 164–165, 185, 241, 244 interviews (admissions) 118–122 Ishikura, Y. 63, 75, 81, 82, 84 isolation, student feelings of 161, 209 isolationism 44, 182 Ivy, J. 132 Iwate National University 41 Iyobe, B. 11, 51, 64, 110, 201, 203 JALT (Japan Association for Language Teaching) 203 Jamieson, I.M. 131 Japan Massive Open Online Courses (JMOOC) 135 Japan Student Services Organization (JASSO) 4, 19, 71, 72, 108, 111, 137, 150, 161, 254 Japan Study Model 109 Japanese Business Federation (Keidanren) 7 Japanese language as barrier to international recruitment 109–110 coexistence of JMI and EMI in curriculum 275–276 courses offered to ETP students 254 fears for role of 266–267 forms and paperwork 169 international students’ competency in 4, 21–22, 58, 65, 268, 269, 275 needed for daily life 166, 254–255 requirements for pre-course proficiency 166, 269 for social purposes 167 and student support 164, 165–166 teaching in 39 as translanguaging device 197 used in CBI courses 197 used in ETP courses 174, 182, 245, 259, 274 Jenkins, J. 241, 244 jigsaw reading tasks 197, 203 JMOOC (Japan Massive Open Online Courses) 135 joint degree programs 276 Jon, J.E. 73, 74 Jones, A. 92 Kachru, B. 151, 152, 253 Kanazawa University 27 Kanda Naibu 37

Kanno, Y. 202 Keidanren (Japanese Business Federation) 7 Keizai Shakai o Ken’in Suru Guroubaru Jinzai Ikusei Shien see Go Global Japan Kelsky, K. 191 kikokushijo see returnees Kim, E.Y. 73, 74 Kimura, I. 187 Kimura, R. 187 Kirkpatrick, A. 17–18 Kitao, S.K. 36, 37 Knight, J. 51, 152 knowledge economy 16, 132, 284 Kobayashi, Y. 183 Kobe University Programme for European Studies (KUPES) 62–63 Kokuritsu Daigaku Gyousei Houjinka laws (2003) 34, 40 Kokuritsu Daigaku Kaizen plan (2013) 34 Kokusaika see internationalization Kubota, R. 40, 190 Kudo, K. 7, 17, 27, 28 Kyouin Law (1982) 38 kyoutei-ko (partners) 138 language management (ROAD-MAPPING) 6–7 language support 254, 268, 276 law 58, 59 leadership 77 learner-centered teaching methods 9–10, 41, 60, 65, 74, 215 learning competence 84 learning outcomes 41, 53, 60, 67, 79, 209, 215, 229 learning styles, differing 73 learning support 62–63, 66, 67 Leask, B. 51, 52, 67, 201 lecture-style teaching 9, 35, 141, 175, 188, 198, 214 see also classroom pedagogy Leford, D. 138 legal-rational bureaucracy 92, 94, 103 Letterman, M.R. 232 letters of reference 123 Li, J. 201 liberal arts institutions 97–98, 181, 239, 245 liberalism 104 library hours 79–80 Lilley, K. 181 lingua franca (English) see English as a Lingua Franca (ELF)

Inde x

local ideologies 102 Long, E. 232 Macaro, E. xvii Malaysia 14, 18, 109, 151–152 marginalization of international students 161–179 Marginson, S. 16 market forces 57, 130–131 market segmentation 142–144 marketing 130–146, 279 Matsuda, A. 158 McVeigh, B.J. 187 medicine and health sciences 25, 58, 59 Medium of Instruction (MoI) policies 14–15, 19–22 Meiji period 14, 28, 36–37, 265–266 mentor systems 43 Merton, R.K. 104, 105 Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) accelerated internationalization 152 active learning 144 competing discourses 92 enrollment management 116 future of funding 273 government policies 7, 14–31 guidance on teaching styles 201 invocations of ‘the MEXT position’ 101 plans for internationalization 34–35 power relations with universities 33–34, 38–39, 41–42 statistics on EMI courses 33 study abroad programs 277 Miyazki International College (MIC) 41, 42 Mizumura, S. 276 mobility, intra-institutional 100 mobility, student 4, 16, 72, 132, 134, 209, 269 moderation meetings 81–82 monoculturalism 161 Montgomery, C. 198 MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) 28, 134–135 Moodle 63, 134 Mori, R. 34 Morita, L. 181 Morizumi, F. 183 Morphew, C. 136 motivations for taking EMI classes 185, 186–188, 192 Motomichi, I. 36, 37

297

multiculturalism 11, 60, 61, 62, 66, 198, 258–259 multilingualism see also plurilingualism bilingual administrators 43, 100, 102, 134, 140, 166, 170–171 bilingual lab staff 256 bilingual teaching assistants 62–63, 78 and career development 277 code-switching 196, 241, 242, 245, 248 and the growth of EMI 276–277 and internationalization 4 in language policies 6 need for 38 policies for 11 returnees 254 as setting for ETPs 258–259 of students on ETPs 199 multiple communication channels 214–215 Mulvey, B. 34, 41, 57 Naidoo, R. 131 Nakai, T. 210, 212 Narita, H. 42–43 narrative education 85 national universities 7, 56, 71 nationalism 37, 38, 40, 190–191 national-level agents of EMI 7 ‘native speaker problem/native speakerism’ 198, 203 native-speaker models 213, 240 natural sciences 5, 18, 58, 60, 78, 112–114t, 250–262, 273 Neesima, Joseph Hardy 105 neighboring Englishes 149–160 Nemawashi (informal consensus building) 77 neoliberalism 57, 92, 93 Nepal 150 Newby, H. 91, 93 Ninshou Hyouka laws (2004) 34 non-Japanese faculty see international faculty non-native varieties of English 149–160, 200–201, 202 non-verbal communication 214 norm-referenced entrance requirements 97 ODA (Official Development Assistance) 58, 266 OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) 37–38, 93

298

English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japanese Higher Educat ion

offshore ETPs 110, 276 Online Corpus of Academic Lectures (OnCAL) 257–258, 260 online learning platforms 63, 134–135, 214 open campus events 136–137 opposition to EMI 32, 40–44, 72–75, 117 Osaka University 72–86 Ota, H. 18, 24, 109 outcome indicators 17, 24, 25, 27, 55, 60, 79, 285–286 over-capacity 11 overseas institutions, collaboration with 276 Ozkul, A.E. 285

product, in HE 132–133, 144 product model of internationalization 52, 53–54 professional development 81, 277–278 Program for Promotion of Global Human Resource Development 273 Project for Establishing Core Universities for Internationalization see Global 30 Project promotion of EMI 135–139 pseudo-international institutions 8, 17 public relations 137 public (local/municipal) universities xviii, 7, 17, 34, 118, 225

pair teaching (language and content) 228–229, 232–233, 236, 278 partner institutions, foreign 61, 62, 276 partner school programs 138 pastoral care of students 140, 165–172 pedagogy and language 10, 73–74, 84, 200–204, 212–216, 259, 272, 279 peer learning 274 peer-to-peer counseling 159 permanent employees 8, 99–100, 101, 102, 164, 278 personal development 61 physical sciences 58 PISA ( Programme for International Student Assessment) 35 plurilingualism 4, 6, 213, 259, 260, 274, 276–277 see also multilingualism policies, government 6–7, 14–31, 32–47, 92, 149, 273 see also specific policies Poock, M.C. 138 Poole, G. 94, 98, 102 positioning 142–144 postgraduate programs 18, 24, 61, 251 practices and processes (ROADMAPPING) 9–10 pre-course seminars 159 pre-enrollment language programs 240 presidents, university 103 prestigious universities 131, 181, 239 price, in EMI 133–134 private universities xviii, 7, 11, 17, 18, 19, 34, 41, 52, 56, 71, 92, 111, 115–118, 127, 133, 239, 250, 254, 266, 273 privatization of universities 93 process model of internationalization 52, 53–54 processes, EMI 141–142

Qiong, H.X. 158 quality assurance 9, 22, 79, 125, 201 ranking tables 11, 16, 26, 28, 35, 56 Rappleye, J. 93 Rear, D. 92 reciprocal arrangements 269 recruitment of faculty 77 recruitment of students 11, 58, 94–95, 234 re-embedding of the campus 99 reference letters 123 religion 189 research-led institutions 57, 64, 257 responsbile citizenship 55 returnees 38, 100, 115, 188, 197, 245, 253 Ritsumeikan University 198–199 ROAD-MAPPING 3–13 Rodgers, T.S. 200 Rose, H. 241, 244 Saito, M. 42–43 Saito, W. 99 Sakae Institute of Study Abroad 118 Sancho, J.M. 201 Sasajima, S. 201 SAT (Scholastic Assessment Test) 122, 123 satisfaction levels 161–179 Sawa, T. 103 scaffolding 74, 78, 228 Schneider, E. 151 schools diversity of languages taught in 276–277 English teaching in 14–15, 35 high school visits (as marketing) 137 language policies 19

Inde x

partner school programs 138 school designation systems 96, 254 Seargeant, P. 151, 192 selection procedures 118–123 senior managers 101, 142 senpai (senior students) 80, 83, 168 sensitivity 58 ‘serious’ (majime) workers 104–105 SERU (Student Experience in Research University) 79–80 Shibata, M. 151 shidogengo (instructional language) 6 Shimauchi, S. 110, 182, 191, 192 Shimizu, M. 267 short-term employees (contract staff) 8, 100, 102, 170–171, 270, 278, 285 short-term programs 4, 19, 85, 150 Short-term Student Exchange Promotion Program 18, 19, 20t, 95 Simon-Maeda, A. 195 Singapore 14, 18 Smit, U. 3–4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 92, 103 Smith, R. 36, 37 social change, slow 286–287 social networking 44, 214 social sciences see humanities and social sciences social support networks 166–169 socialization into disciplines 5–6 soft skills 58, 60 soft-applied subjects 59 Sophia University 18, 71, 238–249 South Korea xviii, 18, 65, 72, 110, 122, 127, 150, 153–158 stakeholders 7–9, 82–86, 140, 163 standardized English test scores 172, 184, 254 see also TOEFL; TOEIC standardized university entrance tests 119–121t Standards for Establishment of Universities 125 statistics on EMI courses 8–9, 33, 108, 150 STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) 5, 25, 58, 59, 112–114t, 250–262, 273 Strategies for Accepting International Students to Take Advantage of Global Growth 21t, 25 Strauss, P. 198 Student Life sections 164 student-centered teaching methods 9–10, 41, 60, 65, 74, 215

299

study abroad programs 57, 61, 73, 184, 196, 266, 276–277 success factors 229–234 support, student 162, 164, 165–172, 246–248, 272–273, 276 sustainability 225–237, 278–279, 286 Suzuki, T. 40 Taiwan xviii, 18, 65, 127, 150 Takagi, H. 51–52, 54, 56 teachers see also international faculty ability to teach in English 7, 57–58, 73–74, 77–78, 139–140, 172–175, 200, 207–221, 228–229, 232–233, 255, 257–258, 268, 270–271 adjunct teachers 8 agents of EMI 8 cost of 134 EMI-related career development 277–278 extra burden of preparing classes in English 232 gender of 186 importance of 139–140 Japanese versus international 8 language background of 139 language versus content teaching 199–200, 201–204 learner-centered teaching methods 9–10, 41, 60, 65, 74, 215 as learners 85 learning possibilities from EMI 275 linguistic and cultural skills of 73–74 native speakers versus non-native speakers 271 pair teaching (language and content) 228–229, 232–233, 236 pedagogical training 257–258, 272 qualifications 202–204 recruitment of faculty 77 shortage of suitable faculty 270–271 sustainability 278 teacher-student relations 83 training for EMI 42, 272 training for non-native speakers 207–221 teaching assistants (TAs) 62–63, 78, 82, 85 teaching styles 10, 74, 175–176, 188–189, 198, 201, 214, 246, 257 see also classroom pedagogy learner-centered teaching methods 9–10, 41, 60, 65, 74, 215

300

English-Medium Instruc t ion in Japanese Higher Educat ion

lecture-style teaching 9, 35, 141, 175, 188, 198, 214 teacher-led approaches 58, 64, 65, 85 yakudoku teaching methods 35, 37 technical English courses 254 temporary employees 8, 100, 102 see also short-term employees Terasawa, T. 183, 184, 192 Terashima, T. 40, 42–43, 266 terminology xviii TESOL 139, 199, 202, 245 Tetsujiro Inoue 37 textbooks and teaching materials, language of 36, 141, 211–212 Thailand 150 Three Circles model of English 151, 253 Times Higher Education Ranking (THE) 16, 35 TOEFL 16, 35, 57, 118, 166, 184, 254, 270 TOEIC 17, 57, 184, 254 TOEPAS (Test of Oral English Proficiency for Academic Staff) 271 Tokumoto, M. 151 Top Global University Project accelerated internationalization 152 aims of 11, 21t, 25, 26–27, 28, 36, 40, 93–94, 208–209, 238 funding of 285 implementation challenges 91–92 and internationalization 56, 86 and Internationalization of Curriculum (IoC) 56–57 marketing 134, 137 potential problems with 248 Sophia University 240, 244 time pressures of 273 training for non-native speakers 208 Type A universities 24, 25, 56 Type B universities 24, 56 Toyo Gakuen University 141, 143 transferability of credits 10, 19, 124 translanguaging 197 transnational faculty 98 see also international faculty transnational students 98 see also international students transparency 9, 43, 175 Tsuda, Y. 40 Tsui, A.B.M. 257

Tsukuba University 38 Tsuneyoshi, R. 73, 74, 77, 201 UK 110, 122, 150, 151, 157, 158 undergraduate programs xviii, 4, 5, 9, 18, 19, 24, 61, 65, 71–86, 91–107, 108–129, 149–160, 161–179, 195–206, 238–249, 250–264, 266–267, 286 United States 110, 122, 123, 150, 151, 157, 158 University of Tokyo 73, 135, 177, 181, 265 ‘university position’ (daigaku gawa) 101 Utagawa, T. 272 utopia of rules 93, 104 value for money 133–134 value-added EMI 28 value-based thinking 55 Vietnam 150 view-books 136, 143 virtual online learning platforms 63, 134–135, 214 Volger, K.E. 232 Wallace, J. 201 Waseda University 71, 240, 250–262 web-based promotions 138–139 Weberian ideology 92, 94, 99, 102, 104 Western-oriented standards 10, 65, 73, 139, 191, 201, 246 Wilson, R. 142 workload, increased 10, 22, 66, 80, 210, 211, 226, 234, 270 World Englishes 213 world-class research institutions 57, 64 written English proficiencies 169–170 written examinations (admissions) 118–122 yakudoku teaching methods 35, 37 Yamamoto, B. 75, 76, 79, 81, 83, 84 Yamamoto, S. 34 Yano, M. 38 Yonezawa, A. 16, 22, 38 Yoshino, K. 14 Young, S. 198 Yutori generation 187