Psycho-Affective Factors in Consecutive Interpreting 9780367445492, 9781032695983, 9781003011644

Citation preview

THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION

This Handbook discusses the theoretical and disciplinary background to the study of Englishmedium instruction (EMI) in higher education worldwide. It highlights issues relating to EMI pedagogy, varying motivations for EMI education, and the delivery of EMI in diverse contexts across the world. The spread of English as a teaching medium and the lingua franca of the academic world has been the subject of various debates in recent years on the perceived hegemony of the English language and the ‘domain loss’ of non-English languages in academic communication. Encompassing a wide range of contributions to the field of EMI, the chapters of this Handbook are arranged in four distinct parts: Part I provides an overview of English-medium instruction in higher education worldwide; Part II focusses on EMI in Europe; Part III on EMI in the Middle East, North Africa, and Sub-Saharan Africa; and Part IV on EMI in the Asian region. The overall scope and level of expertise of this Handbook provides an unrivalled overview of this field of education. It serves as an essential reference for many courses dealing with applied linguistics, English language education, multilingualism, sociolinguistics, and related subjects at many levels of education, including Master’s and PhD-level studies. This Handbook serves as a valuable edition for university libraries across the world and an essential read for many faculty, undergraduate and postgraduate students, educators, and policymakers. Kingsley Bolton is Emeritus Professor of English Linguistics at Stockholm University, Sweden, and Research Fellow at Ateneo de Manila University, Philippines. Werner Botha is Associate Professor at Flinders University, Australia. Benedict Lin is Senior Lecturer at the Language and Communication Centre, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

‘This extensive volume on English-medium instruction in higher education (EMI) offers a comprehensive and wide-ranging account of a multi-layered world Englishes perspective on EMI, highlighting the importance of sociolinguistic context in the planning and implementation of EMI policies across diverse regions. This Handbook will be of immense value for researchers and scholars in the field.’ Professor Vijay K. Bhatia, Chinese University of Hong Kong ‘This volume offers a comprehensive synthesis of EMI research and practice across the world. It is impressive in its geographical breadth, its theoretical depth, and its empirical rigour. It will no doubt become a foundational work in the field and help to set the agenda for future work in this area.’ Professor Rodney Jones, University of Reading ‘English-medium instruction (EMI) has been the most impactful and still expanding language education phenomenon in the last twenty years. This Handbook provides the most up-to-date and comprehensive survey of EMI across the globe. It will undoubtedly become an essential reference for researchers and practitioners worldwide.’ Professor Li Wei, Director and Dean, Institute of Education, University College London ‘English-medium instruction in higher education (EMI) is of key concern to academics and educationalists, as well as to decision makers and politicians. This timely Handbook explores these interests through a coherent and concrete set of empirical findings. It is an essential read in understanding how the English language currently shapes the many ways in which learning and teaching are managed in higher education.’ Professor Christopher J. Jenks, Intercultural Communication, Utrecht University ‘This timely and important Handbook provides a theoretical and empirical overview of the exponential development of EMI worldwide. Its focus on the importance/significance of examining these developments critically, conceptually, and contextually is what makes it an absolute must read.’ Professor Stephen May, University of Auckland, New Zealand ‘This volume is a tour de force--an essential resource for anyone working in the field of EMI. It traces the complex and pluricentric intellectual history of this rapidly maturing field and charts a course for its continued theoretical and methodological development.’ Professor Francis M. Hult, University of Maryland, USA ‘This Handbook offers a comprehensive look at what happens around the world when English is used as a teaching medium in higher education. The editors are to be congratulated for bringing together an impressive list of scholars-contributors, whose expertise covers an astounding geography in this important field of scholarship.’ Professor Patricia Friedrich, Arizona State University, USA

ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOKS IN LINGUISTICS

Routledge Handbooks in Linguistics provide overviews of a whole subject area or sub-discipline in linguistics, and survey the state of the discipline including emerging and cutting-edge areas. Edited by leading scholars, these volumes include contributions from key academics from around the world and are essential reading for both advanced undergraduate and postgraduate students. THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF SEMIOSIS AND THE BRAIN Edited by Adolfo M. García and Agustín Ibáñez THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF LINGUISTIC PRESCRIPTIVISM Edited by Joan C. Beal, Morana Lukač, and Robin Straaijer THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF EXPERIMENTAL LINGUISTICS Edited by Sandrine Zufferey and Pascal Gygax THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF SOCIOPHONETICS Edited by Christopher Strelluf THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF PRONOUNS Edited by Laura L. Paterson THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF LANGUAGE AND RELIGION Edited by Stephen Pihlaja and Helen Ringrow THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION Edited by Kingsley Bolton, Werner Botha, and Benedict Lin

Further titles in this series can be found online at www.routledge.com/series/RHIL

THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF ENGLISHMEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Edited by Kingsley Bolton, Werner Botha and Benedict Lin

Designed cover image: The Convocational Hall, University of Yangon, Myanmar By Myrmux - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0 https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=131152629 First published 2024 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2024 selection and editorial matter, Kingsley Bolton, Werner Botha and Benedict Lin; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Kingsley Bolton, Werner Botha and Benedict Lin to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book ISBN: 9780367445492 (hbk) ISBN: 9781032695983 (pbk) ISBN: 9781003011644 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003011644 Typeset in Times New Roman by codeMantra

CONTENTS

List of tables List of figures List of contributors

xi xiv xvi

1 English-medium instruction in higher education worldwide Kingsley Bolton, Werner Botha, and Benedict Lin PART I

1

An overview of English-medium instruction in higher education

19

2 English-medium instruction: Theoretical and applied perspectives Ernesto Macaro

21

3 Language policies and English-medium higher education worldwide Andy Kirkpatrick and John Knagg

35

4 Lecturers’ professional development for English-medium instruction in higher education Julie Dearden and Ben Beaumont 5 Linguistic imperialism in English-medium higher education Robert Phillipson and Ahmed Kabel

vii

49 63

Contents PART II

English-medium instruction in higher education in Europe

79

  6 English-medium instruction in higher education throughout Europe Anna Kristina Hultgren

81

  7 English-medium instruction in higher education in Austria Ute Smit and Verena Grau

96

  8 English-medium instruction in higher education in the Basque Country David Lasagabaster

110

  9 English-medium instruction in higher education in France Marc Deneire and Hanane Benmokhtar

122

10 English-medium instruction in higher education in Germany Sandra Bohlinger and Thi Kim Anh Dang

134

11 English-medium instruction in higher education in Italy Francesca Costa

148

12 English-medium instruction in higher education in the Netherlands René Gabriëls and Robert Wilkinson

161

13 English-medium instruction in higher education in Poland Piotr Romanowski

176

14 English-medium instruction in higher education in Scandinavia Špela Mežek and Beyza Björkman

190

15 English-medium instruction in higher education in Spain Josep M. Cots and Guzman Mancho-Barés

204

16 English-medium instruction in higher education in Switzerland Iris Schaller-Schwaner and Andy Kirkpatrick

221

PART III

English-medium instruction in higher education in the Middle East, North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa 17 English-medium instruction in higher education throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and Sub-Saharan Africa Werner Botha

viii

235 237

Contents

18 English-medium instruction in higher education in Egypt Muhammad M. M. Abdel Latif

246

19 English-medium instruction in higher education in Saudi Arabia Tariq Elyas and Ali H. Al-Hoorie

259

20 English-medium instruction in higher education in Turkey Yavuz Kurt and Yasemin Bayyurt

272

21 English-medium instruction in higher education in the United Arab Emirates Sarah Hopkyns

284

22 English-medium instruction in higher education in East Africa Susanne Mohr and David Barasa

297

23 English-medium instruction in higher education in South Africa Susan Coetzee-Van Rooy and Werner Botha

311

24 English-medium instruction in higher education in West Africa Alexandra Esimaje, Charles Marfo, and Dunlop Ochieng

324

PART IV

English-medium instruction in higher education in Asia 25 English-medium instruction in higher education across the Asian region Kingsley Bolton, John Bacon-Shone, Werner Botha, Benedict Lin, and Isabel Pefianco Martin

335 337

26 English-medium instruction in higher education in Bangladesh M. Obaidul Hamid and Shaila Sultana

352

27 English-medium instruction in higher education in India and Sri Lanka Ravinder Gargesh

365

28 English-medium instruction in higher education in Malaysia Azirah Hashim

380

29 English-medium instruction in higher education in Nepal Prem Phyak

394

30 English-medium instruction in higher education in Singapore Kingsley Bolton, Werner Botha, and John Bacon-Shone

410

ix

Contents

31 English-medium instruction in higher education in Cambodia Benedict Lin, Kingsley Bolton, Bophan Khan, and John Bacon-Shone

429

32 English-medium instruction in higher education in China Kingsley Bolton, Werner Botha, and Wei Zhang

450

33 English-medium instruction in higher education in Indonesia Christopher Hill, Kingsley Bolton, and John Bacon-Shone

471

34 English-medium instruction in higher education in Japan Glenn Toh

491

35 English-medium instruction in higher education in Macau Andrew Moody

504

36 English-medium instruction in higher education in South Korea Hyejeong Ahn, Kingsley Bolton, Werner Botha, and John Bacon-Shone

518

37 English-medium instruction in higher education in Taiwan Yi-Ping Huang

535

38 English-medium instruction in higher education in Vietnam Mai Xuan Nhat Chi Nguyen and Phung Dao

551

Index567

x

TABLES

5.1 The linguistic imperialism of English in higher education 9.1 Number and percentage of EMI programmes in 2020: EOP figures 11.1 Laws and legal framework regulating language policies at Italian universities 11.2 Number of EMI courses in Italian higher education 2020–2021 12.1  The number and proportion of university programmes (Dutch; Dutch/English; English [EMI]) in bachelor’s programmes 12.2 The number and proportion of university programmes (Dutch; Dutch/English; English [EMI]) in master’s programmes 13.1  Number of EMI university programmes offered by ‘classic’ universities (2021) 13.2  Number of EMI programmes offered by universities of economics (2021) 13.3  Number of EMI programmes offered by technology universities (2021) 13.4  EMI programmes offered by universities of life sciences (2021) 13.5 Programmes offered by medical universities (2021) 14.1 Scandinavian higher education in figures 14.2  Languages of instruction and internationalisation at universities in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Based on Mortensen and Haberland (2012) and Saarinen (2012) 14.3  EMI programmes in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden (from 2002 to 2014) 15.1 Required level of English for students and instructors 16.1 UniFR 2020 Science Faculty Bachelor’s and Master’s programmes and their teaching languages 18.1  The types of EMI universities/study programmes in Egypt and their English language-related admission requirements and support 20.1  Historical representation of the prioritised foreign languages in Turkey 20.2 Number of bachelor programmes and EMI programmes offered in Turkish HE institutions 20.3 Motivations of students to learn English (as rated by students) 23.1 The classification of South Africa’s population by population group (StatsSA, 2016) xi

65 126 152 153 164 164 180 181 182 182 183 192 193 196 206 228 251 273 276 279 313

Tables

23.2 2011 Census: Home language by population group (Statistics South Africa, 2011) 314 23.3 By-Census 2016 distribution of the population aged 25 years and older by educational attainment (StatsSA, 2016) 316 23.4 QS BRICS university rankings for South Africa’s leading universities (QS, 2020) 317 23.5 Language policy histories and current language policies of the 10 leading universities in South Africa 317 24.1 A summary of survey data on EMI in selected West African countries 330 25.1 Current status and functions of EMI in higher education in Outer Circle Asian societies338 25.2 Current status and functions of EMI in higher education in Expanding Circle Asian societies 340 25.3 The ‘top twenty’ Asian universities: THE versus QS Asian university rankings compared 341 26.1 Medium of instruction across higher education institutions in public and private sectors 356 27.1 India: Medium of instruction at undergraduate level 373 27.2 India: Medium of instruction at postgraduate level 373 27.3 Sri Lanka: Medium of instruction at undergraduate level 374 27.4 Sri Lanka: Medium of instruction at postgraduate level 375 29.1 Universities in Nepal 397 29.2 EMI policy in higher education in Nepal 401 30.1 Language most frequently spoken at home (Singstat, 2020) 412 30.2 Major universities in Singapore 418 30.3 Extent of bilingualism, by university 422 30.4 Self-report of proficiency in English, by all students 422 30.5 Students’ self-reported language mixing practices 422 30.6 Language used when discussing academic matters in the classroom, by university 424 31.1 Proportion of students reading each text type in English ‘Very often’ or ‘Half the time’ 442 31.2 Proportion of students writing in English for each text type ‘Very often’ or ‘Half the time’ 442 31.3 Frequency of listening in English by context (Very often/Half the time) 443 31.4 Proportion of students speaking in English for different purposes ‘Very often’ or ‘Half the time’ 443 32.1 EMI policymaking and implementation in Chinese higher education 453 32.2 Reported exposure to English-medium lectures by discipline (Botha, 2013) 456 32.3 Reported exposure to English and Putonghua in class at SYSU (Botha, 2013) 456 32.4 Reported use of English and Putonghua on the SYSU campus (Botha, 2013) 456 32.5 Peking University ‘English-taught’ undergraduate courses (2021) 458 32.6 Published journal articles and reports of EMI in Chinese universities (2013–2022)466 33.1 Claimed ‘mother tongue’ of students 480 33.2 Language(s) usually spoken with friends 481 33.3 Perceived need to improve English communication skills 482 33.4 Students’ use of English outside university 483 33.5 Educator interviewees 484 35.1 Usual and additional languages spoken in Macau, 1996–2021 507 xii

Tables

35.2 Undergraduate assessment of the amount of English used within their majors 35.3 Perceived use of English by Arts & Humanities and Business undergraduate students 36.1 Self-reported proficiency in the English language 36.2 Self-reported bilingualism 36.3 Texts that cause the greatest reading difficulty 36.4 Texts that cause the greatest writing difficulty 36.5 Tasks that cause the greatest speaking difficulty 36.6 Language mixing by other students 36.7 Self-reported language mixing 36.8 Attitudes of students towards English-medium instruction

xiii

511 512 526 526 526 527 527 527 528 530

FIGURES

1.1 A world Englishes (WE) model of English-medium instruction 7.1 Overview of English-medium programmes at Austrian traditional research universities and UAS (as in May 2021) 7.2 The ROAD-MAPPING framework (Dafouz & Smit, 2020, p. 47); numbers indicate the s­ equence of dimensions used here 8.1 Distribution of students in the three linguistic models at pre-university level (compulsory education) 12.1 Bachelor’s and master’s programmes per sector in 2016 and 2020.  19.1 (a) Policy for ELT 21 century for all school levels ‘Arabic Version’ (Ministry of Education, General Director of Curriculum, 2002). (b) Policy for ELT 21 century for all school levels ‘English Version’ (Ministry of Education, General Director of Curriculum, 2002) 19.2 Saudi Arabia’s Economic Vision 2030 initiative 20.1 Number of international students coming to Turkey for higher education since 2001 21.1 Monolingual ‘Happiness’ sign adorned with multilingual messages 21.2 Multilingual linguistic ecology (English, Arabic, Mandarin and Portuguese) 22.1 Homepage of Zanzibar University (Zanzibar University, 2023) 22.2 English and Kiswahili tweets from the University of Dar es Salaam 25.1 Number of languages spoken at home 25.2 English spoken at home 25.3 Self-rated proficiency in English 25.4 Proportion of undergraduate lectures in English 25.5 Writing academic essays in English (‘Very often’) 25.6 Using English to ask professors questions outside the classroom 25.7 Discussing in English with other students inside the classroom 25.8 Socialising in English with other students 25.9 Other students mixing languages with the professors 25.10 Perceived proficiency of other students’ English 25.11 Students’ self-perceived need to improve English xiv

10 100 104 113 165

262 263 277 287 288 305 305 343 343 343 344 345 345 345 346 346 347 347

Figures

25.12 Language skill that need the most improvement 25.13 Attitudes of students towards EMI 25.14 Level of enjoyment studying through English 29.1 Information from the webpage of Nepal Sanskrit University 29.2 Information from the webpage of Nepal Open University 30.1 First language learnt as a child 30.2 Language(s) usually spoken at home 30.3 Communication difficulties with teachers because of language problems, by university (N = 1037) 30.4 Undergraduate students’ perceived difficulty of communication tasks (N = 1032) 31.1 The Khmer (Angkor) Empire and Southeast Asia 900 CE 31.2 Map of Southeast Asia today 35.1 Distribution of students in three MOI 1989–2020 35.2 Increase in the number of residents with the ability to use English 36.1 The use of English in students’ spare time (N = 870)

xv

348 348 348 399 399 421 421 423 424 430 431 508 509 529

CONTRIBUTORS

Muhammad M. M. Abdel Latif is Associate Professor of TESOL at the Faculty of Graduate Studies of Education, Cairo University, Egypt. His research was granted some prestigious international awards, and he has published research papers in more than 15 internationally wellknown and ranked journals, including Applied Linguistics, Assessing Writing, Canadian Modern Language Review, ELT Journal, European Journal of Teacher Education, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, Journal of Research in Reading, ReCALL, and System. He is also the author of Writing Motivation Research, Measurement & Pedagogy (recently published by Routledge). His current research interests include L2 writing, language learner processes, language teacher education, and applied linguistics research methods. Hyejeong Ahn is Senior Lecturer in Language and Literacy at the Faculty of Education, University of Melbourne. Her teaching and professional experience spans three countries: Australia, South Korea, and Singapore. Dr. Ahn’s research employs an evidence-based approach, studying and evaluating the rapidly evolving language and literacy skills needed for students to actively and meaningfully engage in international affairs within the global context. Her recent publications include Beyond borrowing: Lexical interactions between Englishes and Asian languages (Routledge, 2023), Lessons from a translingual romance: Conflict and cultural innovation of intercultural couples (Palgrave Macmillan, 2023), and Emergence of Korean English (Routledge, 2023). Ali H. Al-Hoorie is Associate Professor of English Language at the Royal Commission for Jubail and Yanbu, Saudi Arabia. He completed his PhD in English Language at the University of Nottingham under the supervision of Professors Zoltán Dörnyei and Norbert Schmitt. His books include Research methods for complexity in applied linguistics (Multilingual Matters, 2020, with Phil Hiver), Student engagement in the language classroom (Multilingual Matters, 2021, co-edited with Phil Hiver and Sarah Mercer), and Contemporary language motivation theory (Multilingual Matters, 2020, co-edited with Peter MacIntyre). The latter book is the winner of the Jake Harwood Outstanding Book Award.

xvi

Contributors

John Bacon-Shone is Head of Quality Analytics at HKU SPACE, Fellow of the Hong Kong Academy of the Humanities, and Chartered Statistician of the Royal Statistical Society. He was previously Professor and Head of the Social Sciences Research Centre at The University of Hong Kong. His recent sociolinguistic publications include ‘The communication needs of students at Nanyang Technological University’ (with Kingsley Bolton, Werner Botha and others, 2016), ‘English-medium instruction in Singapore higher education: Policy, realities and challenges’ (with Kingsley Bolton, Werner Botha, 2020), ‘The statistics of English across Asia’ (with Kingsley Bolton, 2020), ’Societal multilingualism in Hong Kong’ (with Kingsley Bolton and S. L. Lee 2020), and The contribution of minority languages and dialects to Hong Kong’s linguistic landscape (with Kingsley Bolton, S. L. Lee and others, 2022). David Barasa is Senior Lecturer and Coordinator for Research and Publications at the School of Arts and Social Sciences, Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology. He has a PhD in Linguistics from the University of Cape Town, and is a graduate of the University of Nairobi and Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology. His research is on the fields of Linguistics and Communication Studies, with special reference to phonology, morphology, language documentation, ethnolinguistics, language policy analysis, language contact and variation, and multilingualism. Yasemin Bayyurt is Professor of Applied Linguistics at Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey. Her research focusses on world Englishes (WE)/English as a lingua franca (ELF)-awareness in ELT; English as medium of instruction (EMI) in higher education; disciplinary literacies and CLIL in K12 and higher education; interculturality and intercultural citizenship; and multilingualism in the linguistic landscape of metropolitan cities. Her publications include articles in various indexed journals (e.g. Language Culture and Curriculum and Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development), and edited books and book chapters published by national/international publishers. She edited Bloomsbury World Englishes Volume 3: Pedagogies (Bloomsbury, 2021). Ben Beaumont is a teacher educator and educational manager with a range of experiences in different educational sectors, primarily as a teacher but also in training, assessment, and administrational roles. Ben’s interests are in enabling teaching staff to develop the pedagogical knowledge and skills needed in order to be effective educators in different learning contexts. With a research specialism that relates to supporting lecturers working in EMI contexts, as well as a vocational background in pedagogical practice, Ben is keen to help maximise opportunities for learning by promoting research-based inclusive and interactive pedagogies. Hanane Benmokhtar is a PhD student specialising in sociolinguistics at Inalco in Paris, France. Her research interests include language contact, world Englishes, language conflict, language policy and management, and language ideology and discourse analysis. She is currently writing a doctoral thesis entitled ‘The position of English in the Algerian pluriglossic system: Ideologies, issues and strategies’. Beyza Björkman is Professor of English Linguistics at Stockholm University, Department of English. Her research interests include the use of English as a lingua franca (ELF) in academic settings, English-medium instruction (EMI), language change, language policy, linguistic equality, and spoken academic discourse. The policy implications of her work on EMI have led her to the

xvii

Contributors

field of language policy. In this context, she has carried out several studies on language policies at Swedish universities, focusing on actual language practices versus language management and planning issues, as well as attitudes towards the use of English as manifested in policy documents in Swedish higher education. Sandra Bohlinger is Professor of Adult Education, Continuing VET, and comparative education at the Faculty of Education of the Technical University of Dresden, Germany. Her research interest is in vocational education and training (VET), and international and comparative education and education policy. Her latest research projects cover English as medium of instruction, internationalisation of VET research, contemporary teaching skills for South Asia and professionalisation of further education in Germany. Kingsley Bolton is Professor Emeritus at the University of Stockholm and Research Fellow at Ateneo de Manila University, Philippines. He is Co-Editor of the journal World Englishes (WileyBlackwell), Editor of the Routledge book series Multilingual Asia, and Chief Editor of the Wiley Blackwell encyclopedia of world Englishes. He has published widely on English-medium education, multilingualism, sociolinguistics, and world Englishes. His 2020 publication, the Handbook of Asian Englishes (co-edited with Werner Botha and Andy Kirkpatrick), won the 2021 PROSE Award from the Association of American Publishers (AAP) for the most outstanding academic work in the category of ‘Language and Linguistics’. Werner Botha is Associate Professor in the College of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences at Flinders University, Australia. His research interests include English-medium instruction in Asia and Africa, academic literacy in Australian higher education, language variation, multilingualism, and sociolinguistics, with particular reference to the Asian region. In 2020, he was recognised by The Australian research magazine as the most cited researcher for English Language and Literature between 2015-2020. Susan Coetzee-Van Rooy is Research Professor in UPSET in the Faculty of Humanities at the North-West University (NWU) in South Africa. UPSET is a research entity that focusses on the ‘Understanding and processing of language in complex settings’. Susan studies the multilingual repertoires of people and the specific roles that the home language and English play in these repertoires. She is always busy with thought experiments to determine which research methods best answer which types of research questions. The research methods that she uses include language portraits, language repertoire surveys, language history interviews, social networks, and ethnographies of communication. Francesca Costa is Associate Professor in English Language and Linguistics at the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore of Milan. She taught English Linguistics at Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore in Milan from 2002 to 2017, Scientific English at Università degli Studi di Pavia from 2006 to 2014, and English for Primary Education at Università degli Studi di Bergamo from 2017 to 2019. Her area of research focusses on applied linguistics, the teaching and learning of the English language at all levels of education (from primary to university), codeswitching and translanguaging, bilingual education, CLIL, ICLHE, EMI, and scientific English. Josep M. Cots is Professor of English and Applied Linguistics at the University of Lleida (Catalonia, Spain), where he teaches courses in pragmatics, discourse analysis, intercultural xviii

Contributors

communication, and multilingual education. His research focusses mainly on applied discourse analysis, multilingualism, and intercultural competence. Thi Kim Anh Dang is Senior Lecturer (TESOL and Languages Education) at the School of Curriculum, Teaching, and Inclusive Education, Faculty of Education, Monash University, Australia. Theoretically grounded in Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory and activity theory, her research focusses on English-medium instruction, teacher professional learning, globalisation, and learning in collaborative settings. She has led several research projects and supervised PhD students in English-medium instruction in Australia, Vietnam, China, and Germany, and provided professional learning programmes for EMI academics in China. She has published in high-impact international journals such as Teaching and Teacher Education, Higher Education, and Current Issues in Language Planning. Phung Dao is Assistant Professor in Second Language Education at Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, where he teaches MPhil/MEd courses in Research in Second Language Education (RSLE) and supervises PhD students. Before joining the University of Cambridge, Phung was a Senior Lecturer in TESOL at Manchester Metropolitan University. He also taught Applied Linguistics courses at the University of Queensland (Australia), Concordia University (Canada), and An Giang University (Vietnam). His research interests focus on Instructed Second Language Acquisition, specifically on learner engagement in face-to-face and synchronous online classes, peer interaction, Task-Based Language Teaching, L2 pedagogies, and L2 teacher education. Julie Dearden is the founder and director of Oxford EMI, a training and consulting company which has provided EMI training courses for lecturers and advice to ministries and higher education institutions around the world. Julie founded Oxford EMI to support lecturers in changing their pedagogy when teaching through EMI, and has published widely on EMI in higher education, including the first global report on EMI for the British Council, English as a medium of instruction: A growing global phenomenon (2015). This included the first definition of EMI as follows: ‘The use of English language to teach academic subjects in countries where the first language (L1) of the majority of the population is not English’. Marc Deneire is Associate Professor of English Linguistics and Applied Linguistics at the Université de Lorraine, France. As a member of the research centre ATILF/CNRS, his research focusses on sociolinguistics, world Englishes, discourse analysis, and language teaching. Tariq Elyas is Professor of Applied Linguistics at King Abdulaziz University, KAU (Saudi Arabia). He holds an MA in English Literature (USA), a PhD in Applied Linguistics (Australia), and an LLM in International Law and Human Rights (UK). Professor Elyas’s areas of interest include global English, teacher identity, policy reform, the media, and female studies in the Middle East. Professor Elyas is an Associate Editor for the Wiley Blackwell encyclopedia of world Englishes, as well as the Tourism Section Editor for Routledge Resources Online-English in the Real World. Alexandra Esimaje is Professor of English and Applied Linguistics at Benson Idahosa University, Nigeria where she is the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Education as well as the Administrator of the Corpus Linguistics and Language Centre. She has published many journal articles, authored some books, and pioneered the production of edited volumes including Corpus linguistics and xix

Contributors

African Englishes published by John Benjamins in 2019, African perspectives on the teaching and learning of English in higher education published by Routledge in 2023, and Christianity and society: Essays in honour of Archbishop Margaret Benson Idahosa @80 published by Galda Verlag in 2023. She is a multiple grant award winner and member of several professional bodies. René Gabriëls is a Lecturer in Philosophy at Maastricht University (Netherlands). His research concerns social philosophy, sociolinguistics, philosophy of language, and sociology of stratification. He focusses on democracy, inequality, human rights, linguistic justice, poverty, and the relation between semantics and pragmatics, with current research on English-medium instruction (EMI) at universities and on food banks. Ravinder Gargesh is Professor at S.R. Samarkand State University, Uzbekistan. Earlier, he had worked with the University of Delhi, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Seoul, South Korea, and Aligarh Muslim University, India. He was the president of AsiaTEFL during 2020–2022. His research interests include world Englishes, language teaching, stylistics, lexicography, translation studies, and phonology. Verena Grau is a PhD candidate and research assistant in English linguistics at the University of Vienna, Austria. As a qualified EFL teacher and university lecturer, she aims to contribute to providing research-based insights into English-medium education in multilingual university settings (EMEMUS). Her main research interests are stakeholder’s perspectives on EME, and students’ disciplinary literacies development and narrative inquiry. She is Co-Editor of the CELT Matters Journal and coordinator of the international ICLHE PhD Special Interest Group. M. Obaidul Hamid is Associate Professor of TESOL Education at the University of Queensland, Australia. His research focusses on the policy and practice of TESOL education in developing societies. He is Co-Editor of a volume on Language planning for medium of instruction in Asia (Routledge, 2014). He is on the editorial boards of Current Issues in Language Planning, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, English Teaching Practice & Critique, and Journal of Asia TEFL. Christopher Hill is Assistant Professor at the University of Doha for Science and Technology’s College of General Education where he teaches courses on academic communication and ethical reasoning. Previously, he has taught at universities in New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Indonesia. His research focusses on writing and education, and he has completed several studies on topics related to English-medium instruction in higher education, learning transfer, peer feedback, and student-faculty collaboration. Sarah Hopkyns is Lecturer at the University of St Andrews, UK. She has previously taught in the United Arab Emirates, Canada, and Japan. Her research interests include English-medium instruction (EMI), identity, language policy, translingual practice, linguistic landscapes, and English as a global language. She has published in journals such as Asian Englishes, Linguistics and Education, Multilingua, and World Englishes, and has contributed numerous chapters to edited volumes. Sarah is the author of The impact of global English on cultural identities in the United Arab Emirates (Routledge, 2020) and Co-Editor of Linguistic identities in the Arab Gulf states (Routledge, 2022).

xx

Contributors

Yi-Ping Huang is Associate Professor in the Department of English in National Chengchi University in Taiwan. She also serves as the Chief Editor of the Taiwan Journal of TESOL. She is passionate about the internationalisation of higher education. Her research interests include a qualitative investigation of English-medium instruction (EMI) in higher education and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in K-12 education. Her recent emphasis is placed on teacher identity, teacher agency, and teacher professional development. Anna Kristina Hultgren is Professor of Sociolinguistics and Applied Linguistics and UKRI ­Future Leaders Fellow at The Open University, UK. She is currently leading a large-scale interdisciplinary project funded by UK Research and Innovation, which seeks to understand the drivers of English as a medium of instruction in European higher education. Kristina has published her research in the Journal of Sociolinguistics, Language in Society, and International Journal of Applied Linguistics, among others, and edited and co-edited a number of volumes on English in academic and educational domains. She is Review Editor of Applied Linguistics and serves on the editorial boards of the Journal of English-Medium Instruction, Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes, Journal of Applied Language Studies, and the Routledge Studies in English-Medium Instruction. Ahmed Kabel is Associate Professor at the School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Al Akhawayn University in Ifrane, Morocco. He has written widely on language policy, political economy, language ideologies, the politics of English, and global linguistic coloniality. His work has appeared in major scholarly journals and reference handbooks. He has served on the editorial board of many journals including Multilingual Education and Language Policy and as a guest reviewer of journal and book manuscripts. Bophan Khan is an independent education specialist currently providing consultancy for the ­UNESCO STEPCam programme and a Senior Lecturer at the Royal University of Phnom Penh. He has a PhD in linguistics and literacies from Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. His work involves teacher policy focussing on continuous professional development, Human Resource Management Information System, Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning, multiliteracies, digital education transformation, testing and assessment, English-medium instruction, English for Professional Purposes, pre-service and in-service teacher education, curriculum development, and action research. Andy Kirkpatrick is Professor Emeritus at Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia, and a Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities. His research involves the study of the development of Asian varieties of English and the role of English as a lingua franca in ASEAN, language education policy in Asia, and Chinese rhetoric. His recent publications include Is English an Asian language? (CUP, 2021), The Routledge handbook of world Englishes (Routledge, 2020, second edition, editor), The Routledge handbook of language education policy in Asia (Routledge, 2019, co-edited with Anthony J. Liddicoat), and the Wiley-Blackwell handbook of Asian Englishes (Wiley-Blackwell, 2020, co-edited with Kingsley Bolton and Werner Botha). John Knagg is an international education consultant. He was Head of Research and Consultancy and Head of English for Education Systems at the British Council, and co-ordinated the British Council approach to English as a medium of instruction. He was Chair of Accreditation UK and is a Fellow of the UK Academy of Social Sciences. He has lived and worked in Europe, the Middle

xxi

Contributors

East, South-East Asia, and South America. He has received the Educational Order of Merit from the state of Ecuador and an OBE from the United Kingdom. He now divides his time between the UK and Ecuador. Yavuz Kurt is Assistant Professor in the English Language Education Program of the Foreign Language Education Department at Marmara University, İstanbul. His research focusses on English-medium instruction in higher education, English as a lingua franca, English as an international language, and the assessment of Turkish as a second language. He co-authored articles published in national and international refereed journals. Recently, he has been involved in national and international research projects about English-medium instruction in multilingual settings. David Lasagabaster is Professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Spain. His research revolves around EMI (English-Medium Instruction), CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning), attitudes and motivation, and multilingualism. He has published widely in international journals, books, and edited books. Among others, he has co-edited English-medium instruction at universities: Global challenges (Multilingual Matters, 2013), Motivation and foreign language learning: From theory to practice (John Benjamins, 2014), and Language use in English-medium instruction at university: International perspectives in teacher practice (Routledge, 2021). He is the author of English-medium instruction in higher education (Cambridge University Press, 2022). Benedict Lin is Senior Lecturer in the Language and Communication Centre, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, where he teaches research writing to postgraduate and undergraduate science and engineering students. He has also taught in Japan, China, Cambodia, and other countries in Southeast Asia, and has been engaged in a number of studies on English-medium instruction (EMI) in higher education in the region. He is currently heavily involved in a number of EMI research and training projects in Taiwan. Ernesto Macaro is Emeritus Professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of Oxford in the Department of Education. For many years, his research has focussed on second-language learning strategies and on the interaction between teachers and learners in second-language classrooms. He now applies these foci to classrooms where academic content is being taught through English. He has published many articles on these topics, as well as a book-length volume entitled English medium instruction: Language and content in policy and practice (Oxford University Press, 2018). Guzman Mancho-Barés is Associate Professor at the Department of English and Linguistics at Universitat de Lleida (Catalonia, Spain). The focus of his research is on English for specific purposes, language learning, and support in English-medium instruction (EMI), genre-aware pedagogies in EMI teacher training, and the role of assessment in EMI. Charles Marfo is Associate Professor of Linguistics in the Department of Language and Communication Sciences at KNUST, Kumasi. He is also the current Provost of the College of Humanities and Social Sciences, KNUST. Professor Marfo received his Bachelor’s in Linguistics (with Philosophy) at the University of Ghana, Legon. He further pursued and received MPhil and PhD in Theoretical Linguistics (with a concentration on phonology and morphosyntax) from the University of Tromsø, Norway, and the University of Hong Kong S.A.R, China, respectively. He has been a Visiting Scholar at the University of Hong Kong (Centre for African Studies, xxii

Contributors

Department of Linguistics) and the Potsdam University (Department of English and American Studies), Brandenburg, Germany. His research focusses on various aspects of linguistics, literature, and communication studies, having published widely in these disciplines and their interfaces with others. He also enjoys commenting on sociopolitical and other national issues in the media, particularly on radio. Isabel Pefianco Martin is Professor and Chair of the Department of Educational Leadership and Management at the Ateneo de Manila University, Philippines. She is a leading figure in English language studies in the country, having published in various internationally recognised publications on topics ranging from world Englishes, Philippine English, English language education, English sociolinguistics, and forensic/legal linguistics. Professor Martin is currently the President of the International Association for World Englishes (IAWE) and Managing Editor of Asian Englishes, a Scopus-indexed journal. Špela Mežek is Senior Lecturer in English linguistics at the Department of English, Stockholm University. Her research interests include English for academic purposes (EAP), English-medium instruction (EMI), second-language reading, vocabulary learning, and genre studies. She has published in journals such as TESOL Quarterly, English for Specific Purposes, and the Journal of English for Academic Purposes. Susanne Mohr is Professor of English Sociolinguistics at the Department of Language and Literature at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. She holds a German postdoctoral degree in English and general linguistics from the University of Bonn and a PhD in general linguistics from the University of Cologne. In 2018–2021, she was awarded several grants to research the physical and digital tourist spaces of Zanzibar, for instance, from the Alexander von Humboldt foundation and the Cluster of Excellence ‘Africa Multiple’ at the University of Bayreuth. Her research interests include multilingualism, language contact, multimodality, politeness, linguistic epistemology, and research methodologies. Andrew Moody is Professor of English Linguistics and Head of the Department of English, University of Macau. His research interests are in sociolinguistics, world Englishes, and the history of the English language. He publishes mostly on either Macau English or the language of popular culture. He is the Editor of the journal English Today (Cambridge University Press). He is the author of Macau’s lLanguages in society and education: Planning a multilingual ecology (Springer, 2021) and the Editor of The Oxford handbook of Southeast Asian Englishes (Oxford, 2023). Mai Xuan Nhat Chi Nguyen is Senior Lecturer in Applied Linguistics and TESOL at Manchester Metropolitan University, UK, where she works with pre- and in-service English language teachers from diverse backgrounds in undergraduate and postgraduate language teacher education courses. Her research and teaching interests encompass language teacher education, teacher professional development, and issues related to English education in multilingual contexts, including Englishmedium instruction (EMI). Her research works have been published in various peer-reviewed journals, such as Teaching and Teacher Education, Modern Language Journal, TESOL Quarterly, TESOL Journal, RELC Journal, and Asian Englishes, among others. Dunlop Ochieng is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Linguistics and Literary Studies at The Open University of Tanzania. He received a PhD for his research on the indirect influence of xxiii

Contributors

English on Kiswahili from TU Chemnitz in Germany. He teaches and researches language contact, language and new media, communication skills, language and culture, language and technology, and language in contemporary literature. Dr Dunlop Ochieng also writes novels, and reviews and edits academic documents. Robert Phillipson studied at Cambridge and Leeds Universities, UK, and has a doctorate from the University of Amsterdam. He worked for the British Council in Algeria, Yugoslavia, and London, before emigrating to Denmark in 1973. His main books are Linguistic imperialism, English-only Europe? Challenging language policy, Linguistic imperialism continued, and Why English? Confronting the Hydra. For his work on these topics, he was awarded the UNESCO Linguapax prize. Prem Phyak is Associate Professor at Teachers College, Columbia University. His research focusses on social justice, critical pedagogy, multilingual education, decolonial turn, and language policy. He takes research as a transformative practice to build equitable communities. As a critical applied linguist and teacher educator, he sees education as a social space that represents sociopolitical and epistemological inequalities. In his research, Dr. Phyak questions the relevance of dominant ideologies and epistemologies that shape legitimate knowledge, language, and pedagogy and engages multiple stakeholders to understand sociopolitical implications of educational policies and practices. Piotr Romanowski is Associate Professor at the Faculty of Applied Linguistics, the University of Warsaw. His academic interests are at the intersection of multilingual education and sociolinguistics. His work has appeared in International Journal of Bilingualism, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, and International Journal of Multilingualism. He is the Chief Editor of Journal of Multilingual Theories and Practices and the book series Language Learning and Multilingualism. In the academic year 2022/2023, he will be a Research Professor at University College London working on a project devoted to the visibility of Polish and other immigrant languages in the urban spaces of London. Iris Schaller-Schwaner is a Lecturer in English as a Foreign Language in the English Department at the University of Fribourg/Freiburg in Switzerland and is also a member of university’s Language Centre. Her PhD looked at the development of English as a lingua franca in a multilingual university, and her current research looks at ELF in multilingual contexts. She has published widely on the topic of English as a lingua franca. Ute Smit is Professor of English Linguistics at the University of Vienna, Austria. Her applied linguistic research focusses mainly on English in, and around, education at the crossroads of classroom discourse, language policy, internationalisation, English as a lingua franca, and multilingualism. She is presently involved in various international research projects and a board member of ICLHE (Integrating Content and Language in Higher Education). Her publications include monographs and edited volumes (published by Benjamins, De Gruyter, and Palgrave) and numerous journal articles (in Applied Linguistics, System, International Journal of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education, and TESOL Quarterly). Shaila Sultana is Professor and the former Head of the Department of English Language, Institute of Modern Languages, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh. She has published extensively in different top-tiered peer-reviewed international journals. Her recent publications include a co-authored book Popular culture, voice and linguistic diversity, a co-edited handbook titled Routledge xxiv

Contributors

handbook of English language education in Bangladesh, and a Special Issue of Australian Review of Applied Linguistics titled ‘Translingual practices entangled with semiotised space and time’. Glenn Toh is Senior Lecturer in the School of Humanities of Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. He has taught EFL, ESOL, ELF, and EAP courses as well as teacher education courses in Hong Kong, Japan, New Zealand, Laos, Thailand, and Singapore. His research interests are in critical literacy, critical pedagogy, and cultural anthropology. His books and book chapters have been published by major academic publishers. Robert Wilkinson is Visiting Research Fellow in the Department of Philosophy at Maastricht University (Netherlands) and conducts research on English-medium instruction (EMI) and multilingualism. He worked at the Language Centre of the same university, and previously in Scotland, Czechoslovakia, and France. He has run training courses and consultancies in EMI and Languages for Specific Purposes in many countries. Wei Zhang is Professor of English in the English Department at Peking University, China. She has published internationally on topics including Chinese English, language and gender, and multilingual and digital literacy in journals such as English Today, Discourse & Society, Journal of Language & Politics, Journal of Pragmatics, and World Englishes. She was a Visiting Professor at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore (2016). She currently serves on the editorial boards of Computers & Composition, Linguistic Research, and World Englishes.

xxv

1 ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION WORLDWIDE Kingsley Bolton, Werner Botha, and Benedict Lin

Introduction This chapter presents an overview of key issues related to English-medium instruction (EMI) in higher education worldwide.1 It does so by reviewing a significant portion of the relevant research literature concerning this topic, with a particular emphasis on recent publications, especially over the last five years. The chapter then focusses on studies that have made substantial contributions at a conceptual and theoretical level before presenting a world Englishes model of EMI.

EMI as a field of study To our knowledge, there is limited information in the research literature concerning the origins of the term ‘English-medium instruction’ (EMI) within the fields of applied linguistics or ­educational linguistics. Our own research on this topic suggests that one of the early uses of the term was in South Africa, as found in a 1925 document on educational policy (Malherbe, 1925). Later, the term gained wider usage in the 1960s and 1970s, particularly during the decolonisation of British colonies in Africa and Asia, when attempts were made to formulate educational policies in the post-independence era (Dakin, Tiffin, & Widdowson, 1968; Gorman, 1970; Llamzon, 1978). More recently, English-medium instruction (EMI) has come into focus in the European context, notably in the years following the publication in 1999 of the Bologna Declaration, which promoted student mobility throughout the European Union (Dimova, Hultgren, & Jensen, 2015). Another factor that emerged in the early 2000s was the establishment of international rankings for universities by organisations like the Times Higher Education (THE) and Quacquarelli Symonds (QS). These ­rankings specifically recognised the importance of international faculty and students, and thereby, indirectly yet substantially, promoting the use of English as a lingua franca of higher education. Regardless of the historical origins of EMI as a field of study, it is undeniable that the ­emergence of EMI as a distinct sub-field of applied linguistics is very recent. In our own review of the ­literature, we identified a total of 59 book-length studies of EMI (including books, research ­reports, and journal special issues), using the phrases such as ‘EMI’, ‘English-medium ­instruction’,

1 DOI: 10.4324/9781003011644-1

Kingsley Bolton et al.

‘English-medium higher education’, and ‘English as a medium of instruction’. Among these, the earliest two were published in 2013, followed by one in 2014, two in 2015, two in 2016, five in 2017, three in 2018, seven in 2019, eleven in 2020, eleven in 2021, ten in 2022, and five in 2023. In other words, 75% of the books on this topic have appeared only in the last five years, reflecting the recent, growing interest in this field.

Previous research on EMI worldwide As mentioned earlier, research and publications on EMI worldwide have seen a significant increase in just the last five years, producing a substantial body of publications on this subject. In the forthcoming literature review, our focus will primariy be on discussing the most important books, research reports, and journal special issues in this field. By doing so, we acknowledge that this approach provides only partial coverage of what is now a rapidly expanding field. However, we justify this selectivity based on the simple necessity to narrow the scope of our discussion. Despite these limitations, we believe that the review of research that follows will offer a useful survey of the current field.

Areal and thematic studies of EMI Book-length studies of EMI have typically taken the form of areal studies in particular locations. In the European context, these include Henriksen, Holmen, and Kling (2019), focussing on Denmark; Molino, Dimova, Larsen, and Kling (2022), covering Croatia, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain; Block and Khan (2022), delving into Catalonia; Guarda (2022), examining Italy; and Carrió-Pastor (2020), exploring Spain. In the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), recent volumes consist of Curle, Alhassan, Ali, and Scatolini (2022), featuring chapters on Iran, Kuwait, Morocco, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Turkey; Kırkgöz and Karakaş (2022), focussing on Turkey; and Wyatt and El Gamal (2023), discussing Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates. Collections related to Asia and the Asia Pacific include Fenton-Smith, Humphreys, and Walkinshaw (2017) with reports on Brunei, Cambodia, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam; Barnard and Hasim (2018), with chapters on Brunei, Indonesia and Malaysia; and Tsou and Baker (2021), with contributions on China, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. Other volumes have adopted a country-specific approach. These include books by Zhao and Dixon (2018) with articles on policies and practices in mainland China; Tsou and Kao (2017) and Su, Cheung and Wu (2021) with articles on Taiwan, Hong Kong, and mainland China; and Han (2022), a monograph on EMI at Chinese universities. Coverage of different facets of EMI in Japan can be found in Toh (2016), Bradford and Brown (2017), Kojima (2021), and Ruegg (2021), while the edited collection by Pham and Barnett (2022) and the monograph by Thi Quynh Huong, Hing, and Chen (2022) focus on EMI in Vietnam. Another category of book on this topic comprises collections of ‘international’ perspectives on EMI across diverse countries and regions. Publications of this kind include Doiz, Lasagabaster, and Sierra (2013) with contributions from the Basque Country, Finland, Hong Kong, Israel, the Netherlands, South Africa, Spain, and the United States; Milligan and Tikly (2018) discussing Cameroon, East Africa, East Asia, Ghana, India, Rwanda, and Southern Africa; Murata (2019) with articles on Austria, Japan, South Korea, and Sweden; Bowles and Murphy (2020) featuring chapters on China, Denmark, Ethiopia, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, and the ­Netherlands; ­Kuteeva, Kaufhold, and Hynninen (2020) with contributions on such contexts as Denmark, 2

English-medium instruction in higher education worldwide

­ stonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, and Sweden; Lasagabaster and Doiz E (2021) with articles covering Argentina, the Basque Country, China, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, and Spain; and McKinley and Galloway (2022) with chapters on Austria, Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Columbia, Denmark, Estonia, Ethiopia, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Mexico, Nepal, the Netherlands, Poland, South Africa, Tunisia, Turkey, and Vietnam. Pun and Curle’s (2023) edited volume on research methods on EMI discusses various approaches to EMI research with reference to educational contexts in Hong Kong and Turkey. In addition to published books, there have also been several journal special issues and forums and symposia worldwide addressing EMI from both areal and thematic perspectives. These include a special issue on ‘At the crossroads of TESOL and English medium instruction’ edited by Malmström and Pecorari in TESOL Quarterly (2018); a special issue from Doiz and Lasagabaster on ‘The role of languages in English-medium instruction at university’ in The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (2020); a symposium on ‘English-medium instruction (EMI) in Asian higher education’, edited by Bolton, Botha, and Lin in World Englishes (2023); and a forum edited by Hillman, Li, Green-Eneix, and De Costa (2023), discussing ‘The emotional landscape of English medium instruction (EMI) in higher education’ in Linguistics and Education. It is worth noting that the British Council published a relatively large number of reports on EMI in higher education from 2013 until 2021. These reports cover various settings, including Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Brazil, China, Indonesia, Georgia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kurdistan, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Turkey, Turkmenistan, and Ukraine. Additionally, there are reports on various thematic topics (see final references under ‘British Council’). The authors and editors of these reports have included a number of UK-based scholars, including Julie Dearden, Ernesto Macaro, and Heath Rose, who have close associations with the EMI research group in the Department of Education at Oxford University; and Nicola Galloway from the School of Education at the University of Glasgow (British Council, 2013, 2014, 2015a, 2015b, 2016, 2017a, 2017b, 2019a, 2019b, 2019c, 2019d, 2020a, 2020b, 2020c, 2020d, 2020e, 2020f, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d, 2021e, 2021f).

Theoretical studies and models of EMI In addition to areal studies of EMI higher education focussing on language policies and practices in particular geographical settings, which have been numerous, some book-length studies have attempted to provide a theoretical analysis of EMI. These studies have gone beyond specific contexts in order to theorise approaches to EMI from a global perspective, and some have even attempted to present a meta-commentary on the field of EMI as a sub-discipline of language studies and applied linguistics. Studies of this type include Macaro (2018), Dafouz and Smit (2020, 2023), Richards and Pun (2022), Costa and Mariotti (2023), and Pun and Curle (2023). Although not limited to higher education alone, Macaro’s (2018) volume on English Medium Instruction: Content and Language in Policy and Practice deserves special mention for several reasons. It can be aargued that this was among the first volume of its kind to attempt a comprehensive worldwide survey of EMI in a multi-faceted fashion. Furthermore, it has set a benchmark for theorisations within the discipline, and has influenced many studies in the field over the last five years. Macaro’s book comprised 10 substantive chapters, tackling such topics as definitions of EMI, language policies and EMI, perspectives of teachers and students, varieties of English in EMI, the cost-benefit of EMI, interaction in the EMI classroom, the evolving roles of teachers in EMI, and learner strategies in EMI. Macaro identifies three main drivers of EMI worldwide. These are (i) competition between the private sector and public sector in secondary and tertiary 3

Kingsley Bolton et al.

education; (ii) the belief, in many societies, that teaching English as a subject promotes secondlanguage acquisition much less effectively than using English as a teaching medium; and (iii) the internationalisation of higher education. Finally, Macaro suggests several key partnerships in order to enhance the EMI project, or at least to ameliorate its worst effects. These include partnerships between the EMI content teacher and the EMI language specialist; between researchers and teachers; between applied linguistics and education; and between academics and policy makers (Macaro, 2018, pp. 297–300). Another influential framework for conceptualising and analysing EMI has been developed by Emma Dafouz (Complutense University of Madrid) and Ute Smit (University of Vienna). Dafouz and Smit (2020) present a framework of analysis that builds upon various conceptualisations relevant to the study of English-medium education in multilingual university settings (EMEMUS). EMEMUS (often abbreviated as ‘EME’) is claimed to be ‘conceptually wider’ because ‘it encompasses diverse research agendas, pedagogical approaches, and different types of education [including] online programmes and teacher pedagogical development’ (Dafouz & Smit, 2020, p. 3). One key element in their analysis of EME is the deployment of a key mnemonic to conceptualise the scope of EME issues, which is the ‘ROAD-MAPPING’ framework, where RO refers to ‘roles of English’; AD stands for ‘academic disciplines’; M represents ‘(language) management’; A signifies ‘agents’; PP denotes ‘practices and processes’; and ING addresses ‘internationalisation and glocalisation’. Dafouz and Smit (2023) is an edited volume that presents a collection of articles on various aspects of EME, together with case studies from specific societies, including Austria, China, Finland, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, and Taiwan. Interestingly, the major focus here is on Expanding Circle (English as a ‘foreign language’) contexts, rather than Outer Circle (English as a ‘second language’) settings. Another important reference work on EMI is the book-length volume by Richards and Pun (2022), which aims to provide a comprehensive overview of EMI education. The volume is divided into four parts. Part 1 deals with ‘foundations of EMI’, encompassing chapters on the emergence of EMI (Chapter 1), features of EMI (Chapter 2), and the implementation of EMI (Chapter 3). Part 2 focusses on ‘the nature of academic literacy in EMI’, featuring chapters on learning within the disciplines (Chapter 4) and the linguistic dimensions of learning academic content (Chapter 5). Part 3 concerns ‘teaching and learning in EMI’ and comprises chapters on the EMI teacher ­(Chapter 6), teaching in EMI (Chapter 7), preparing students for EMI (Chapter 8), and learning in EMI (Chapter 9). Part 4 discusses ‘professional development and evaluation’, comprising chapters on professional development (Chapter 10), the evaluation of EMI programmes (Chapter 11), and a concluding chapter on the topic (Chapter 12). In an appendix to Chapter 2 of the book, the authors present a ‘typology of English medium instruction’, identifying and explaining the key components of EMI (pp. 48–49). This typology is elaborated upon in a journal article by Richards and Pun (2023). This identifies 51 features across 10 curriculum categories: (1) Purposes; (2) Assessment; (3) Curriculum models; (4) Introduction of the EMI; (5) Access to EMI; (6) The English course and EMI; (7) The EMI teacher; (8) The EMI subject teacher; (9) The EMI learner; and (10) Instructional materials in EMI. The authors recognise the complexity of EMI in diverse international settings, and suggest that their typology helps ‘model’ the features of EMI in different contexts, and ‘raises issues that need to be considered in designing, implementing, and evaluating EMI approaches [for] different stakeholders such as school administrators, policymakers, researchers, language teachers, content teachers, teacher trainers, and students’ (Richards & Pun, 2022, p. 46). What is interesting here is the way in which several researchers, including Dafouz and Smit, and Richards and Pun, have sought to construct models that provide some kind of universal global application in discussions of EMI worldwide. Such model-making is undoubtedly useful if it 4

English-medium instruction in higher education worldwide

succeeds in expanding our understanding of this field of inquiry, but less effective if it limits the scope of our inquiry or the range of our perspective. A great deal of recent work on EMI over the last 10 years has taken place in the European context, with relatively limited coverage of other regions of the world. For their part, the three Co-Editors of this volume have been crucially influenced by their empirical research on EMI in Africa and across the Asian region (see chapters in this volume on Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Singapore, South Africa, and South Korea). In contexts such as these, we contend that the dynamics of EMI are not just those related to decontextualised applied linguistic or educational linguistic variables, but are influenced as much, if not more, by sociohistorical, sociolinguistic, and socio-political factors. Based on our own empirical research, we propose that a more comprehensive understanding of EMI in particular settings can only be achieved through ‘thick’ descriptions of the sociolinguistic realities within which such programmes operate. This approach is particularly valid in developing societies, which differ significantly from those found in the European context (Bolton, Graddol, & Meierkord, 2011). From this perspective, we advocate for a model of EMI in higher education capable of capturing the linguistic and sociolinguistic complexities of English-medium instruction in diverse multilingual societies worldwide, as discussed in the following section of this chapter.

A world Englishes approach to EMI Arguably, the most comprehensive attempt to present a model of EMI hitherto has been that of Richards and Pun (2023). They establish a ‘typology’ of EMI instruction worldwide, with the intention of providing ‘a model of the different learning situations in which content and language are at issue […] by providing a framework and terminology that can be used to profile the features of EMI across different contexts’ (Richards & Pun, 2023, p. 229). As mentioned earlier, their typology is nothing less than wide-ranging, describing 51 features across 10 curriculum categories. While the scope of this typology is impressive, it may be argued that the approach suggested is simply too comprehensive, in the sense that Richards and Pun appear to have included all possible factors related to EMI in their model, with only a limited attempt at evaluating which of these 10 categories and 51 features are most influential and most relevant to the prevailing rapid spread of EMI worldwide. While their typology of EMI is undoubtedly useful from a broad educational viewpoint, it only marginally addresses the complex realities of EMI in diverse contexts worldwide. An alternative perspective, as suggested here, is to adopt a sociolinguistic approach to EMI that recognises the localised complexities of EMI implementation in particular societies. Some elements of this approach were earlier outlined in Bolton et al. (2011), which described the realities of English in developmental sociolinguistic contexts such as India, the Philippines, and South Africa, and argued for increased collaboration between first world and developing world universities on English language education, research, publishing, and postgraduate education (Bolton et al., 2011, pp. 474–476). Turning to the specific issue of EMI instruction, a WE model would not attempt to cover all aspects of the EMI phenomenon, but would serve mainly to foreground the importance of the sociolinguistic context, where the Kachruvian distinction between Inner, Outer, and Expanding Circle contexts is of particular relevance (Kachru, 1985). Inner Circle EMI contexts include universities in regions such as the United Kingdom, North America, and other societies where English serves as the dominant language of the community. In recent decades, for example, many universities in countries such as the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom have recruited large numbers of overseas students, particularly from countries such as China and India. This influx had a major impact on the demographics of students at Inner Circle universities. So much so that EMI is now not just a concern for 5

Kingsley Bolton et al.

non-­Anglophone-dominant higher education, but also for institutions in the Inner Circle, including Britain, the United States, Australia, and Canada. The role of Inner Circle universities in EMI is not just limited to recruiting large numbers of overseas students and providing university programmes tailored to meet their needs, but such universities also serve as centres of research and consultation concerning EMI across the globe. For example, in the United Kingdom, the British Council has collaborated with several universities on initiatives in this area, aiming to establish itself as a leading authority on EMI in higher education. Outer Circle EMI contexts include many former Anglophone colonial societies such as India, the Philippines, Singapore, and South Africa. Typically, these are multilingual post-colonial societies where, after independence, English was retained as an official or co-official language of government, law, and education. In these regions, there are local communities of English users, and localised varieties of English have been recognised, including Indian English, Philippine English, and so on. In such settings, English-medium higher education has typically had a long history dating back to colonial education systems. For instance, in the case of Britain, by the early twentieth century, there was a system of colonial universities expanding from Hong Kong to India, to various African countries, and to the Caribbean. These Outer Circle societies differ significantly from Expanding Circle settings where English has been traditionally regarded as a foreign language. The latter include such contexts as China, France, and Germany, where EMI has a more recent history, and has often been promoted in response to various forms of internationalisation. In the European context, the Bologna Process has been promoting student mobility throughout European Union higher education since the early twenty-first century. However, the tripartite distinction between Inner, Outer, and Expanding Circle contexts is only the starting point for thicker (that is, fine-grained and multi-layered) sociolinguistic descriptions of EMI in particular societies. Our own empirical research on such Asian societies as Cambodia, Indonesia, Singapore, and South Korea bears witness to this central fact, as explained in a recent article where we asserted that ‘in addition to […] educational and pedagogical considerations’, it was also important to be aware of the sociohistorical and sociolinguistic backgrounds to each of these Asian societies, the complexities of which are only revealed by a close reading and understanding of the history, sociology, and linguistic ecology of the region and individual societies. The article then noted: One conclusion that emerges from all four case studies is that a full understanding of EMI in these contexts is only accessible through an understanding of their sociolinguistic histories. For example, Singapore’s higher education system was shaped by its post-independence leader, Lee Kuan Yew, who understood the crucial role of language in nation building; Cambodia’s enthusiasm for EMI developed in the post-Khmer Rouge era, when the country opened to the international world; Indonesia’s current EMI policies reflect a balancing act in a highly multilingual nation, which is the world’s fourth most populous nation; while South Korea’s adoption of EMI has been motivated by its development as an Asian engineering and manufacturing powerhouse. (Bolton, Bacon-Shone, & Botha, 2023, p. 403)

6

English-medium instruction in higher education worldwide

While the WE model of EMI may not compete in its complexity with the typology of Richards and Pun (2023), or the educational models presented by Macaro (2018), Dafouz and Smit (2019, 2023), and others, we would suggest that a WE model can play an important role in expanding one’s perspective. This shift moves away from narrowly applied and educational perspectives towards a wider view of context and interpretation. The point we would make here is that other models largely emphasise quasi-context-free approaches to EMI, highlighting issues of assessment, curriculum, teacher development, instructional materials, and so on, with little, if any, recognition of the local context. The apparent desire for context-free and sociolinguistically-neutered descriptions of EMI here is somewhat similar to the approach of those English for academic purposes (EAP) scholars who routinely self-censor the discussion of sociolinguistic realities in various Asian contexts where key issues of education may be deemed too sensitive for critical examination (Bolton & Jenks, 2022, p. 509). One emblematic, albeit extreme, example of the challenges faced by EMI in higher education is that of Myanmar, which is discussed in the following section.

English-medium instruction in Myanmar universities A number of the chapters in this handbook are based on original empirical research on EMI in the Asian region. These research initiatives originated at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore in 2016 and have continued to the present day. The research team focussed on EMI in Asian higher education includes the three Editors of this handbook and other researchers from institutions such as Ateneo de Manila University in the Philippines, Nanyang Technological University, and Peking University. Since 2016, the team has been collecting data on EMI in higher education in Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan. Two members of the team also actively researched EMI in Myanmar in collaboration with Myanmar educators in 2019 and 2020. One key strength of this research group lies in its engagement with locally-based researchers across the Asian region, and a strong commitment to collaborative research whenever possible. The immediate motivation for the Myanmar project arose from a visit in January 2019 by the Heads of English of the Universities of Yangon (YU) and Mandalay (MU), to Nanyang Technological University (NTU) in Singapore. The Myanmar delegation expressed interest in collaborative research on the needs and difficulties faced by Myanmar university students and faculty in dealing with EMI. Their interest reflected the changing political and societal landscape in their society. From 1962 until 2011, Myanmar was under the control of various military juntas. From the late 1980s onwards, many university programmes in Myanmar were suspended, causing much educational stagnation. It was only in 2013, following the end of military rule and the establishment of a civilian government, that Yangon University and Mandalay University reopened their undergraduate programmes. A year earlier, in 2012, a parliamentary committee chaired by Myanmar’s leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, was formed in order to ‘revitalise’ Yangon University, particularly to restore its former status as one of Asia’s leading universities (Howson & Lall, 2020). Yangon University then embarked on an ambitious programme ‘to renovate and upgrade’ the institution, to quote the University’s mission statement, which remains visible on its website. One of the four priorities of the university’s Revitalization Masterplan was to ‘enhance the use of English as a medium of instruction and research; improve academic staff’s English language capacity in research and presentation skills, concurrently with the development of modern teaching methods and resources’ (University of Yangon, 2023). At this time, the implementation of EMI was thus seen as an important strand of renewal and revitalisation of Yangon University.

7

Kingsley Bolton et al.

It is important to note that EMI has had a long history in Myanmar. Yangon University dates its origins from 1878 during colonial Burma when it was known as Rangoon College, and became affiliated with the University of Calcutta. Mandalay University was founded in 1925. Both institutions followed the Oxbridge model, and English served as the sole medium of instruction at both universities throughout the British colonial period. This practice continued even after the country achieved independence in 1948. During this period, the University of Yangon was regarded as one of Asia’s leading universities. However, after the military takeover of 1962, Burmese was mandated the sole medium of instruction at all levels of education, as part of the ‘Burmese Way to Socialism’ (Aye & Sercombe, 2014). English was subsequently taught as a foreign language in schools and universities, but the post-1962 period was characterised by the ‘slow and steady decay of Myanmar’s state education system’, often marked by the intermittent closing of universities. Extreme international isolation under a largely isolationist regime also contributed to ‘the quality of higher education (slipping) to dramatically low levels’ (Howson & Lall, 2020, p. 109). The Myanmar faculty members who visited Nanyang University in January 2019 were enthusiastic about the prospect of implementing EMI in their universities. They saw it not only as reasons to enhance prestige, but also as a means to open up and connect Myanmar with the international world. Interestingly, Myanmar may historically have been regarded as an Outer Circle context. However, for several decades, from the 1960s to the early 2010s, it more closely resembled an Expanding Circle setting. To gain first-hand information concerning these issues, two of the authors of this chapter visited the University of Yangon in March 2019. During the visit, we met with faculty from ­Yangon ­University and Mandalay University, as well as a panel from the National Education Policy Commission (NEPC), the National Accreditation and Quality Assurance Commission (NAQAC), and the Rector, the senior management and senior faculty members of YU. Throughout our stay, ­several broad issues were highlighted by various stakeholders. These included (i) the strong desire to promote EMI education at the two leading universities, as the key to accessing modern, up-to-date knowledge in various fields, especially in, but not restricted to, STEM disciplines; (ii) a clear consensus that many younger students entering university already had sufficient English skills to f­acilitate EMI programmes. The democratic and economic reforms that began in 2011 allowed them greater access to English learning both in and out of school; (iii) a concomitant concern that the cohort of university faculty that were employed during the era of military dictatorship lacked the necessary English skills to be able to teach through the language. Their own university education was Burmese medium with limited exposure to English as a foreign language. We also ­observed that nearly all the members of the NEPC, NAQAC, and senior management we met, most of whom were from the older generation, spoke impeccable British English and had ­evidently received an English-medium education themselves. Our discussions led to frame a collaborative research project with the Heads of English of ­Yangon University and Mandalay University, each of whom had responsibility for the implementation of EMI in their respective universities.2 This project aimed to investigate the specific linguistic needs of both undergraduate and postgraduate students with reference to the promotion of EMI at the two universities. The goal was that the research findings would help shape policy formulation and curriculum development within Myanmar higher education and provide data-driven research results that would be useful to major stakeholders within Myanmar, not least at the two universities concerned. As part of this initiative, an online survey of undergraduate and postgraduate students was conducted at both universities, receiving 624 undergraduate and 241 postgraduate responses. The results of the survey indicated that, at both levels of study, students were overwhelmingly supportive of EMI, with more than 80% indicating that they ‘Strongly agreed’ or ‘Agreed’ with 8

English-medium instruction in higher education worldwide

EMI instruction. In their qualitative responses to the survey, explaining their enthusiasm for EMI, postgraduate students often claimed that it was more challenging to communicate academic ideas relating to their disciplines through the medium of Burmese, and that they believed that English was necessary for the acquisition of advanced academic knowledge. The interviews captured similar results, but in greater depth. Universally, the students interviewed were greatly in favour of increased EMI, although some indicated a need for instruction in Burmese in some subjects, including the study of law. A prevailing concern that emerged from the interviews was how individual faculty members implemented EMI. A wide range of practices were reported: some teachers used English almost exclusively in spoken classroom instruction, with varying degrees of effectiveness, while others engaged in language mixing (or ‘translanguaging’) to enable students to understand disciplinary content. For some teachers, EMI meant reading aloud from textbooks in English, then translating the content into Burmese, often sentence by sentence, a practice seen as ineffective by students. Typically, these teachers had received education in Burmese during the post-1962 era and had limited proficiency in the English language. The research results generated significant interest among the Myanmar faculty connected with the project, and, following this, members of the Nanyang research group were invited to participate in discussions on curriculum reform with the two universities. At both universities, these initiatives on EMI instruction were seen in a highly positive light, as contributing to the modernisation and renewal of higher education in Myanmar, and, as mentioned earlier, to the ‘opening up’ of Myanmar to the international world. Abruptly, on February 1, 2021, the civilian government led by Aung San Suu Kyi and the ­National League for Democracy (NLD) was deposed through a coup d’état orchestrated by members of the Myanmar military. The NLD leaders, including Aung Sang Suu Kyi, were detained, as a significant number of students were engaged in protests the overthrow of the civilian government. Subsequently, our research collaborators at Yangon and Mandalay both left their positions at their respective universities. Many of their colleagues were either sacked or resigned, and, once again, university education seemed to have entered an era of closure and stagnation. It is believed that, following the coup, more than 3,000 protestors were killed, and 20,000 protestors were arrested (Thang, 2023). It has often been said that that ‘history doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme’, and one rather sad rhyme is that of 1988, when an earlier military crackdown led to the deaths of hundreds of students (including many from Yangon University) in similar fashion to the events of 2021. Over the last two years, the military government’s State Administrative Council (SAC) has begun to roll back the earlier reforms and enforce a tighter control of university education (Proserpio & Fiori, 2022). In this context, it is worth noting that in such other Asian countries as Cambodia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, which have historically experienced political repression, EMI education is now, in varying degrees, positively associated with political liberalisation and opening to the international world. This process was brutally curtailed in Myanmar in 2021. One can only hope that the repression of the current regime will eventually give way to a political liberalisation that will once again allow universities to freely develop and connect with the outside world. For the reader, it may be worth noting that the cover illustration chosen for this volume is that of the Yangon University itself, symbolising hope for the future of this institution, its faculty, and its students.

A world Englishes model of EMI The world Englishes model of English-medium instruction highlights the importance of the local context in determining the dynamics of EMI implementation in particular contexts worldwide. 9

Kingsley Bolton et al.

Inner Circle societies include those societies where, historically, the English language has been the dominant official language, spoken by the vast majority of the population, such as the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand. Outer Circle societies include such former Anglophone colonies as India, the Philippines, Singapore, and South Africa, where English currently co-exists with other official and non-official languages in diverse multi-

Figure 1.1  A world Englishes (WE) model of English-medium instruction.

lingual contexts. These societies typically have had a long history of EMI, dating back over 150 years in the case of Indian higher education. In contrast, the popularity and spread of EMI in such Expanding Circle contexts as China, France, Germany, and Japan, is of far more recent origin, and motivated by forces linked to globalisation and internationalisation. In addition, Inner Circle universities also play a role in shaping EMI in both the Outer and Expanding Circles through the promotion of applied linguistic research in this area, as well as the production of teaching materials, and the provision of academic consultancy and training courses. While the WE EMI model below highlights and valorises the importance of localised sociolinguistic dynamics, another strand of analysis might also include somewhat more ‘global’ applied linguistic issues relevant to EMI worldwide. These would include such factors as the language proficiency of students and teachers, as well as the range of subjects (STEM vs. non-STEM) taught through English in particular institutions. Other variables that are presented as global applied linguistic factors in some models (such as Richards & Pun, 2023) include access to EMI, curriculum design, instructional materials, and purposes of EMI. However, on examination, even these factors are subject to local influences 10

English-medium instruction in higher education worldwide

in response to the educational and sociolinguistic realities of the particular context. Taking a broad view of EMI worldwide, important elements based on our own empirical research include (i) language policies, (ii) where in education systems the introduction of EMI takes place, (iii) the linkage between subject teaching and English language teaching, (iv) the English proficiency of students and teachers, (v) support for both students and teachers, and (vi) the role of ­code-switching and code-mixing in EMI implementation (indeed, most of these factors are also highlighted by Dafouz and Smit [2020], and Richards and Pun [2023], with the exception of code-switching and mixing). An expanded WE model of EMI in higher education might, thus, include these factors in its representation of the key dynamics of EMI in higher education.3 The inclusion of the three Kachruvian circles in the figure highlights the importance of the Inner, Outer, and Expanding Circle distinctions in this context. Today, EMI instruction is particularly associated with educational systems in the Outer and Expanding Circles, and, as argued in some detail earlier, what is particularly important in such contexts are the sociolinguistic histories and contemporary realities of such societies. In this context, it is important to note that many of the universities now dealing with issues relating to EMI are developing societies from both Outer and Expanding Circle contexts (Lin & Bolton, 2023). From a global applied linguistic (or ‘educational linguistic’) perspective, one can also identify other factors that play an important role in many contexts, including the six dynamics (policies, introduction, subjects, proficiency, support, and code-switching) identified earlier. However, as the overlap in Figure 1.1 indicates, such global factors are also mediated by local contexts in complex and specific fashion. In the final analysis, the model in Figure 1.1 attempts to account for the tension between key sociolinguistic realities (in Outer and Expanding Circle contexts) and key applied linguistic issues of relevance to educational systems across a wide range of EMI contexts.

The scope of this volume This handbook aims to provide a comprehensive survey of EMI in higher education worldwide. Following this introduction, which constitutes Chapter 1, the volume is divided into four parts: Part I deals with ‘English-medium instruction in higher education: The scope of the field’; Part II focusses on ‘English-medium instruction in higher education in Europe’; Part III addresses ‘English-­medium instruction in higher education in the Middle East, North Africa, and Sub-­Saharan Africa’; and Part IV explores ‘English-medium instruction in higher education across Asia’. Part I comprises four chapters providing an overview of the field of EMI worldwide. Chapter 2, authored by Macaro, summarises a range of issues relating to EMI from a global perspective, including definitional questions, language acquisition, learning and teaching, professional development, and language policies. Chapter 3, contributed by Kirkpatrick and Knagg, focusses on language policies in relation to EMI, with coverage of transnational, national, and institutional language planning. Chapter 4, authored by Dearden and Beaumont, concentrates on the professional development of university teachers in the context of EMI education, and discusses key elements of pedagogy directly informed by the authors’ own experiences in teacher training in a wide range of international contexts. In Chapter 5, Phillipson and Kabel interrogate the field of EMI through the lens of critical analysis, with discussion on linguistic imperialism on higher education, the role of the British Council, and the politics of language in English-medium higher education (EMHE). Part II of the volume begins with Chapter 6 by Hultgren, offering an insightful overview of EMI in European higher education, analysing conceptualisations of EMI, drivers of EMI, language attitudes, and future prospects for EMI in Europe. Chapter 6 is then followed by 10 other chapters 11

Kingsley Bolton et al.

dealing with EMI in various European societies. Chapter 7, written by Smit and Grau, discusses EMI in Austria, with coverage of the Austrian EME landscape, stakeholder practices and perceptions, and the ‘road-mapping’ framework of Dafouz and Smit (2020, 2023). Chapter 8, authored by Lasagabaster, focusses on EMI in the Basque Country, covering the education system, official language policies, effectiveness of EMI, and problems and practices. In Chapter 9, Deneire and Benmokhtar deal with EMI in French higher education, with an analysis of policy and practices, which includes the presentation of their own survey research. Chapter 10, written by Bohlinger and Dang, explores EMI in Germany with a discussion of the national EMI situation, EMI educators, student characteristics, and challenges to EMI. Chapter 11, contributed by Costa, deals with EMI in Italy, discussing official language policies, previous research, and the realities of EMI programmes. Chapter 12, by Gabriëls and Wilkinson, surveys EMI in the Netherlands with reference to the development of EMI at undergraduate and postgraduate level, EMI research, and language debates. Chapter 13 by Romanowski discusses EMI in Poland with reference to official policies and current practices at leading Polish universities. Chapter 14, by Mežek and Björkman Nylén, discusses EMI in Scandinavia with reference to Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, and includes historical perspectives as well as the contemporary features of EMI across Scandinavia today. Chapter 15, authored by Cots and Mancho-Barés, focusses on EMI in Spain, discussing institutional policies as well as the beliefs of instructors and student, as well as current EMI practices. Chapter 16, by Schaller-Schwaner and Kirkpatrick, examines EMI in Switzerland, and provides a detailed analysis of the complexities of language policies and practices in the country’s universities. Part III of the volume addresses EMI in higher education throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and Sub-Saharan Africa, commencing with Chapter 17 by Botha, which provides an overview of contemporary trends in both regions of the world. Chapter 18, by Latif, discusses EMI in Egypt with reference to various types of EMI universities and study programmes, and the challenges to EMI in this context. Chapter 19, by Elyas and Al-Hoorie, provides an account of EMI in Saudi Arabian EMI higher education with reference to official policies, quality of outcomes, and the problems of EMI implementation. Chapter 20, by Kurt and Bayyurt, discusses EMI in Turkish higher education, considering official policies, international students, and the motivations for EMI. Chapter 21, written by Hopkyns, focusses on United Arab Emirates (UAE), discussing policies and practices, challenges, and the need for appropriate language support. The three chapters that follow delve into EMI in the Sub-Saharan African context. Chapter 22, by Mohr and Barasa, discusses EMI in East Africa with reference to Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda, paying particular attention to language policies as well as the realities of EMI implementation. Chapter 23, contributed by Coetzee-Van Rooy and Botha, deals with EMI in the Republic of South Africa, covering multilingual language policy, the demographics of higher education, and case study examples of policy implementation. Chapter 24, authored by Esimaje, Marfo and Ochieng, discusses EMI in West Africa, specifically in Cameroon, Ghana, Liberia, Nigeria, Senegal, and Sierra Leone. Part IV of the volume focusses on Asia, and Chapter 25, contributed by Bolton, Bacon-Shone, Botha, Lin, and Martin, provides an overview of current trends in EMI, in the light of research data from five Asian contexts, Cambodia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore, and South Korea. Chapter 26, by Hamid and Sultana, explores EMI in Bangladesh with reference to historical factors, official policies, types of universities, and the limitations of EMI in higher education. Chapter 27, written by Gargesh, deals with EMI in India and Sri Lanka, examining not only the differences, but also the similarities between the two contexts with reference to the language histories and current practices of the two nations. Chapter 28, authored by Azirah Hashim, discusses EMI in Malaysia with reference to the history of higher education and official policies, as well as current realities. Chapter 29, by Phyak, analyses EMI in Nepal with reference to the sociolinguistic 12

English-medium instruction in higher education worldwide

background, higher education, language policies, and pedagogical practices. Chapter 30, by Bolton, Botha, and Bacon-Shone, discusses EMI in Singapore with reference to language policy, and the practices of the six major universities in the city-state. Chapter 31, by Lin, Bolton, Khan, and Bacon-Shone, delves into EMI in Cambodia, influenced by the sociohistorical background, as well as original empirical research. Chapter 32, by Bolton, Botha, and Zhang, deals with the question of EMI in Chinese higher education, with specific reference to the history of China’s universities as well as the current politics of English within the People’s Republic of China (PRC), drawing on original data from Guangzhou and Beijing. Chapter 33, by Hill, Bolton, and Bacon-Shone, surveys EMI in Indonesian higher education, utilising empirical data from a student survey as well as interviews with 17 educators from private and public universities. Chapter 34, by Toh, discusses EMI in Japanese higher education from a critical sociolinguistic perspective that deconstructs the ideologies of EMI, and queries the credibility of recent initiatives to promote EMI in the Japanese context. Chapter 35, by Moody, reviews EMI in Macau’s higher education with reference to multilingualism, public and private universities, and current practices. Chapter 36, authored by Ahn, Bolton, Botha, and Bacon-Shone, explores EMI in South Korea with reference to the nation’s sociolinguistic history and contemporary development, informed by survey data collected at four elite universities. Chapter 37, by Huang, surveys EMI in Taiwan with reference to official policy, implementational realities, and current practices. Chapter 38, written by Nguyen and Dao, covers EMI in Vietnam with reference to international versus domestic programmes, as well as challenges to EMI at Vietnamese universities.

Conclusion This handbook compiles contributions on EMI in higher education from a wide range of settings worldwide, including Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Asian region. One notable omission from this volume is the region of South America, where EMI has only recently begun to expand as an area of academic activity (see British Council, 2019d, 2020d). On the basis of available evidence, it seems probable that the current spread of EMI is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. At the same time, the academic study of EMI as a sub-discipline of linguistics and applied linguistics has also expanded greatly over the last decade or so. Whether current theorisations of the field are sufficiently flexible and inclusive to account for the wide range of approaches documented in this volume remains open to debate, as are the various models of EMI found in the research literature. As noted in this chapter, there are currently various approaches and models of EMI adopted by researchers working in various contexts worldwide. While we may prefer the sociolinguistic approach and the WE model of EMI as discussed earlier, we would also recognise that other approaches are potentially valuable in illuminating other aspects of EMI across the globe. Regardless of the approaches adopted, we would also emphasise the need for appropriate and useful empirical research, which, ideally, would investigate the role of all stakeholders in this area, including policy makers, university administrators, faculty, and students. We would also argue for the importance of constructive and inclusive collaboration with locally-based scholars, particularly in what may be regarded as developmental contexts (Bolton et al., 2011). Research of this kind can then provide the type of accurate and relevant data necessary to inform our understanding of EMI as a global phenomenon, as clearly illustrated by the valuable contributions to this volume.

13

Kingsley Bolton et al.

Notes 1 The authors wish to thank Ms Charlotte Choo, Research Officer at Nanyang Technological University for all her invaluable administrative and support work on this current volume. 2 This research was facilitated by a Tier 1 grant (RG 44/19) from the Ministry of Education in Singapore in 2019. 3 The authors of this chapter are grateful for the insights and suggestions of Professor John Bacon-Shone of The University of Hong Kong.

References Aye, K. K., & Sercombe, P. (2014). Language, education and nation-building in Myanmar. In P. Sercombe & R. Tupas (Eds.), Language, education and nation-building (pp. 148–164). Palgrave Macmillan. Barnard, R., & Hasim, Z. (Eds.). (2018). English medium instruction programmes: Perspectives from South East Asian universities. Routledge. Block, D., & Khan, S. (Eds.). (2022). The secret life of English-medium instruction in higher education: ­Examining microphenomena in context. Routledge. Bolton, K., Bacon-Shone, J., & Botha, W. (2023). EMI (English-medium instruction) across the Asian region. World Englishes, 42, 392–404. Bolton, K., Botha, W., & Lin, B. (2023). Introduction to symposium on English-medium instruction (EMI) in Asian higher education. World Englishes, 42, 390–391. Bolton, K., Graddol, D., & Meierkord, C. (2011). Towards developmental world Englishes. World Englishes, 30, 459–480. Bolton, K., & Jenks, C. (2022). World Englishes and English for specific purposes. World Englishes, 41, 495–511. Bowles, H., & Murphy, A. (Eds.). (2020). English-medium instruction and the internationalization of universities. Palgrave Macmillan. Bradford, A., & Brown, H. (Eds.). (2017). English-medium instruction in Japanese higher education: Policy, challenges and outcomes. Multilingual Matters. British Council. (2013). The role of English in higher education: Issues, policy and practice (Three ­articles from John Knagg, Ernesto Macaro and Mark Levy). Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/ education/he-science/knowledge-centre/english-language-higher-education British Council. (2014). English as a medium of instruction – A growing global phenomenon: Phase 1 (­Authored by Julie Dearden). Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/ sites/default/files/english_ as_a_ medium_of_instruction.pdf British Council. (2015a). English as a medium of instruction – A growing global phenomenon (Authored by Julie Dearden). Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/education/he-science/knowledge-centre/ english-language-higher-education British Council. (2015b). The state of English in higher education in Turkey. Retrieved from https://www. britishcouncil.org/education/he-science/knowledge-centre/english-language-higher-education British Council. (2016). English medium instruction in Iraqi Kurdistan (Authored by Simon Borg). ­Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/education/he-science/knowledge-centre/english-languagehigher-education British Council. (2017a). Internationalisation, higher education and the growing demand for English (­Co-authored by Nicola Galloway, Jaroslaw Kriukow and Takuya Numajiri). Retrieved from https://www. britishcouncil.org/education/he-science/knowledge-centre/english-language-higher-education British Council. (2017b). The internationalisation of Ukrainian universities – The English language dimension (Co-authored by Rod Bolitho and Richard West). Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/ education/he-science/knowledge-centre/english-language-higher-education British Council. (2019a). Transition from secondary school CLIL to EMI at university (Co-authored by Ernesto Macaro, Jessica Briggs Baffoe-Djan, Heath Rose, Bruna di Sabato, Bronwen Hughes, Daniela Cuccurullo, Carmel Mary Coonan, Marcella Menegale and Ada Bier). Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/education/he-science/knowledge-centre/english-language-higher-education British Council. (2019b). 2019 International symposium on EMI for higher education in the new era (Edited by Deborah Bullock). Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/education/he-science/ knowledge-centre/english-language-higher-education

14

English-medium instruction in higher education worldwide British Council. (2019c). ‘I have completely changed my point of view concerning native speakers’: An EMI training project promoting emancipatory pedagogy (Co-authored by Paul Roberts, Volha Arkhipenka, Ursula Lanvers and Tetyana Lunyova). Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/education/he-science/ knowledge-centre/english-language-higher-education British Council. (2019d). Guide to EMI in Brazilian higher education institutions, 2018–2019 (­Co-authored by Telma Gimenez, Simone Sarmento, Renata Archanjo, Renée Zicman and Kyria F ­ inardi). Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/education/he-science/knowledge-centre/english-language-highereducation British Council. (2020a). Investigating implementation of EMI in HEIs in China (Co-authored by Heath Rose, Jim McKinley, Xin Xu and Sihan Zhou). Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/education/ he-science/knowledge-centre/english-language-higher-education British Council. (2020b). From English language learners to intercultural citizens: Chinese student sojourners’ development of intercultural citizenship in ELT and EMI programmes (Co-authored by Will Baker and Fan (Gabriel) Fang). Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/education/he-science/ knowledge-centre/english-language-higher-education British Council. (2020c). Investigating English for academic purposes provision in South Asian HE (­Co-authored by S. McCulloch, B. Indrarathne, A. Jahan, L. Gnawali, N. Hussain, S. Nauman, S. Jayawardena and W. Abeyawickrama). Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/education/he-science/ knowledge-centre/english-language-higher-education British Council. (2020d). The multifaceted role of English in the Argentine higher education system (­Co-authored by Adolfo M. García, Agustín Ibáñez, Eugenia Hesse, Boris Kogan, Sheila Sánchez and María Filippini). Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/education/he-science/knowledge-centre/ english-language-higher-education British Council. (2020e). English in higher education – English medium Part 1: Literature review (­ Edited by Nicola Galloway). Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/education/he-science/ knowledge-centre/english-language-higher-education British Council. (2020f). English in higher education – English medium Part 2: A British Council ­perspective (Authored by Ann Veitch). Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/education/he-science/ knowledge-centre/english-language-higher-education British Council. (2021a). The state of English as medium of instruction in HEIs in Indonesia (Co-authored by Martin Lamb, Dana Waskita, Kuchah Kuchah, Nilawati Hadisantosa and Nur Fauzan Ahmad). Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.id/en/programmes/education/emi-higher-education-institutions British Council. (2021b). The executive summary of the state of English as medium of instruction in HEIs in Indonesia. Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.id/en/programmes/education/emi-highereducation-institutions British Council. (2021c). Global mapping of English as a medium of instruction in higher education: 2020 and beyond (Co-authored by Kari Sahan, Agata Mikolajewska, Heath Rose, Ernesto Macaro, Mark Searle, Ikuya Aizawa, Siyang Zhou and Ann Veitch). Retrieved from https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/ publications/case-studies-insights-and-research/global-mapping-english-medium-instruction-higher British Council. (2021d). Context, experience and attitudes in the Republic of Armenia (Authored by Andrew Linn). Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.am/en/education/ higher-education-employability/ english-medium British Council. (2021e). English-medium instruction in higher education in the countries of the South Caucasus (Co-authored by Andrew Linn and Saida Radjabzade). Retrieved from https://www.teachingenglish. org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/EMI_Report_SouthCaucasus_v2.pdf British Council. (2021f). Current practice in English-medium education in higher education: Case studies from Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Bangladesh and Nepal (Co-authored by Andrew Linn, Prithvi Shrestha, Anastasiya Bezborodova and Anna Kristina Hultgren). Retrieved from https://oro.open.ac.uk/79649/1/ Current%20practice%20in%20English-medium_FINAL.pdf Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (Ed.). (2020). Internationalising learning in higher education: The challenges of English as a medium of instruction. Palgrave Macmillan. Costa, F., & Mariotti, C. (Eds.). (2023). Input in English-medium instruction. Routledge. Curle, S., Alhassan, A., Ali, H. I. H., & Scatolini, S. S. (Eds.). (2022). English-medium instruction in higher education in the Middle East and North Africa: Policy, research and practice. Bloomsbury. Dafouz, E., & Smit, U. (2020). ROAD-MAPPING English medium education in the internationalised university. Springer.

15

Kingsley Bolton et al. Dafouz, E., & Smit, U. (Eds.). (2023). Researching English-medium higher education: Diverse applications and critical evaluations of the ROAD-MAPPING framework. Routledge. Dakin, J., Tiffin, B., & Widdowson, H. G. (1968). Language in education: The problem in Commonwealth Africa and the Indo-Pakistan sub-continent. Oxford University Press. Dimova, S., Hultgren, A. K., Jensen, C. (2015). English-medium instruction in European higher education. De Gruyter Mouton. Doiz, A., & Lasagabaster, D. (Eds.). (2020). Special issue on ‘The role of languages in English-medium instruction at university’. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23, 257–346. Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (Eds.). (2013). English-medium instruction at universities: Global challenges. Multilingual Matters. Fenton-Smith, B., Humphreys, P., & Walkinshaw, I. (Eds.). (2017). English medium instruction in higher education in Asia-Pacific. Springer. Gorman, T. P. (1970). Language in education in Eastern Africa: Papers from the first Eastern Africa conference on language and linguistics. Oxford University Press. Guarda, M. (2022). Student perspectives on English-medium instruction: Insights from an Italian university. Routledge. Han, J. (2022). English medium instruction as a local practice: Language, culture and pedagogy. Springer. Henriksen, B., Holmen, A., & Kling, J. (2019). English medium instruction in multilingual and multicultural universities: Academics’ voices from the Northern European context. Routledge. Hillman, S., Li, W., Green-Eneix, C., & De Costa, P. I. (2023). The emotional landscape of English ­medium instruction (EMI) in higher education. Linguistics and Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. linged.2023.101178 Howson, C. K., & Lall, M. (2020). Higher education reform in Myanmar: Neoliberalism versus an inclusive developmental agenda. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 18, 109–124. Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. G. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literature (pp. 11–30). Cambridge University Press. Kırkgöz, Y., & Karakaş, A. (Eds.). (2022). English as the medium of instruction in Turkish higher education: Policy, practice and progress. Springer. Kojima, N. (2021). Student motivation in English-medium instruction: Empirical studies in a Japanese university. Routledge. Kuteeva, M., Kaufhold, K., & Hynninen, N. (Eds.). (2020). Language perceptions and practices in multilingual universities. Palgrave Macmillan. Lasagabaster, D., & Doiz, A. (Eds.). (2021). Language use in English-medium instruction at university: International perspectives on teacher practice. Routledge. Lin, B., & Bolton, K. (2023). English-medium instruction (EMI) in higher education (HE) in Asian developmental contexts: Comparative insights from Cambodia, Myanmar and other countries. Paper presented in the 25th Conference of the International Association for World Englishes (IAWE), Stony Brook University, June 15–17. Llamzon, T. A. (1978). English and the national languages in Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines: A sociolinguistic comparison. The Language Institute of Japan. Cross Currents, V, 87–104. Macaro, E. (2018). English medium instruction: Content and language in policy and practice. Oxford ­University Press. Malherbe, E. G. (1925). Education in South Africa: 1652–1922. Juta & Co. Ltd. Malmström, H., & Pecorari, D. (Eds.). (2018). Special issue on ‘At the crossroads of TESOL and Englishmedium instruction’. TESOL Quarterly, 52, 497–720. McKinley, J., & Galloway, N. (Eds.). (2022). English-medium instruction practices in higher education: International perspectives. Bloomsbury. Milligan, L. O., & Tikly, L. (Eds.). (2018). English as a medium of instruction in postcolonial contexts: Issues of quality, equity and social justice. Routledge. Molino, A., Dimova, S., Larsen, S., & Kling, J. (2022). The evolution of EMI research in European higher education. Routledge. Murata, K. (Ed.). (2019). English-medium instruction from an English as a lingua franca perspective: ­Exploring the higher education context. Routledge. Pham, M., & Barnett, J. (Eds.). (2022). English medium instruction practices in Vietnamese universities: Institutional, practitioner and student perspectives. Springer.

16

English-medium instruction in higher education worldwide Proserpio, L., & Fiori, A. (2022). Myanmar universities in the post-coup era: The clash between old and new visions of higher education. Torino World Affairs Institute. Retrieved from https://www.twai.it/articles/ myanmar-universities-post-coup-era/#_ftn1 Pun, J., & Curle, S. (Eds.). (2023). Research methods in English medium instruction. Routledge. Richards, J. C., & Pun, J. (Eds.). (2022). Teaching and learning English medium instruction: An introduction. Routledge. Richards, J. C., & Pun, J. (2023). A typology of English-medium instruction. RELC Journal, 54, 216–240. Ruegg, R. (2021). Supporting EMI students outside of the classroom: Evidence from Japan. Routledge. Su, L. I.-w., Cheung, H., & Wu, J. R. W. (Eds.). (2021). Rethinking EMI: Multidisciplinary perspectives from Chinese-speaking regions. Routledge. Thang, L. B. (2023, March 15). Understanding the military coup in Myanmar, two years later. East-West Centre. Retrieved from https://www.eastwestcenter.org/news/east-west-wire/understanding-military-coupmyanmar-two-years-later Thi Quynh Huong, L., Hing, H. W. S., & Chen, S. (2022). Cultural interactions of English-medium instruction at Vietnamese universities: The western proposition by the eastern implementation. Springer. Toh, G. (2016). English as medium of instruction in Japanese higher education: Presumption, mirage or bluff? Palgrave Macmillan. Tsou, W., & Baker, W. (Eds.). (2021). English-medium instruction translanguaging practices in Asia: ­Theories, frameworks and implementation in higher education. Springer. Tsou, W., & Kao, S. (2017). English as a medium of instruction in higher education: Implementations and classroom practices in Taiwan. Springer. University of Yangon. (2023). Master plan. Retrieved from https://www.uy.edu.mm/master-plan/ Wyatt, M., & El Gamal, G. (Eds.). (2023). English as a medium of instruction on the Arabian Peninsula. Routledge. Zhao, J., & Dixon, L. Q. (Eds.). (2018). English-medium instruction in Chinese universities. Routledge.

17

PART I

An overview of English-medium instruction in higher education

2 ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION Theoretical and applied perspectives Ernesto Macaro

Introduction English-medium instruction (EMI) in higher education (HE) is not a uniform and easily-definable concept. Although it is by now without question a worldwide phenomenon, it is constantly evolving in response to the demands of a changing world. In this chapter, I will attempt to identify the features of EMI that have garnered considerable research attention and those that require a greater research focus. In doing so, I will touch on several key themes which will be considered (albeit briefly) from both a theoretical perspective and in their current or potential applications to teaching and learning. These are as follows: 1 What are the problems associated with a definition of EMI? 2 To what extent does English improve as a result of EMI and, indeed, how should we go about measuring proficiency in EMI settings? 3 Does content learning through EMI ‘keep up’ with learning content through the students’ first language (L1)? 4 How should pedagogy change in an EMI setting? 5 What strategies might students use in order to support or enhance their learning in EMI settings? 6 What might be the social and economic impact of EMI? 7 What kind of professional development do teachers need and which is most likely to be successful? 8 Who ‘owns’ EMI research?

What is EMI? At the core of any definition of EMI is that English is being used to teach academic subjects, which traditionally would have been taught in the first language (L1) of the students in the classroom or lecture theatre. This core can be observed in the definition that my colleagues and I in the ­Department of Education at the University of Oxford have been using in many of our publications:

21

DOI: 10.4324/9781003011644-3

Ernesto Macaro

The use of the English language to teach academic subjects (other than English itself) in countries or jurisdictions where the first language of the majority of the population is not English. (Macaro, 2018; Macaro, Curle, Pun, An, & Dearden, 2018; Rose, Curle, Aizawa, & Thompson, 2019) It is by no means the only definition provided by authors in the field, but at its core, the fact remains that difficult academic concepts are being delivered or ‘negotiated’ (depending on the pedagogy adopted) in a language that is not the L1 or the ‘home language’ of most of the students in the class. Moreover, due to the geographical location of the teaching and learning, it is highly likely that the teaching is being carried out by a teacher whose L1 is also not English, as the following definition provided by Hellekjaer (2010), strongly suggests: English-medium instruction is when non-language courses in for instance medicine, ­physics, or political science are taught in English, to students for whom it is a foreign language. As often as not, it is also taught by a lecturer who does not have English as a first language (L1). (Hellekjaer, 2010, p. 11) Now, if we take Hellekjaer’s definition, it could be argued that some classrooms do exist in most Anglophone countries (for example, the UK or Australia) where a subject such as physics is being taught to many students whose L1 is not English by a physics specialist whose L1 is also not English. Therefore, these are EMI classrooms. This is not (as far as I know) Hellekjaer’s position. I am merely using his definition in contrast to mine to highlight a problem: Does EMI only take place in a non-Anglophone country? Some argue against the majority non-Anglophone L1 criterion and in favour of a broader conceptualisation of EMI. For example, Pecorari and Malmström (2018) do so by highlighting countries such as South Africa, where the concept of the language of the majority population is not clear-cut. They also try to diminish the difference between Anglophone and nonAnglophone contexts by (inter alia) suggesting that a student from China studying engineering at a US university may not have the benefit of much greater exposure to English because s/he might spend much of the time ‘associating with compatriots’ (p. 503). Similarly, Baker and Hüttner (2017) point to the ‘increasingly multilingual and multicultural nature’ (p. 502) of universities in Anglophone countries and draw parallels between these and HE institutions in non-Anglophone countries. These parallels do of course exist. Baker and Hüttner (2017) therefore take the ‘inclusive’ definition of EMI by investigating the role of English and other languages in Thailand, Austria, and the UK. Interestingly, their interviews in Austria were conducted in German for the L1 German participants, in Thailand they were conducted using a mixture of Thai and English, but in the UK, they were conducted in English regardless of the L1 of the respondents, already suggesting a divergence between language-majority contexts. The issue then is: Are there sufficient parallels for Anglophone universities to be labelled EMI universities? Or, as the above, albeit brief discussion would suggest, are these parallels worthy of investigation by virtue of what each context can learn from the other, whilst nonetheless keeping the criterion in the definition as it currently is? My preference would be for the latter based on a number of differences without which a true investigation of the contexts might otherwise be obscured. The most important of these differences is policy. In non-Anglophone countries (and indeed, also those where the majority criterion is not clear, such as Singapore and South Africa), someone somewhere has had to make a policy decision to offer students a programme of content learning, some or all of which is taught through English. That 22

English-medium instruction: Theoretical and applied perspectives

policy decision will have been based on a belief (perhaps based on research evidence) that offering the content programme through English will bring about some or all of the following benefits: an enhanced reputation for the institution internationally; a higher number of international students and, perhaps, international faculty; access to academic material only published in English; opportunities for home students to obtain future high quality employment; a higher level of English language proficiency for the institution and/or for the country in general. Indeed, in terms of the last of these, the policy decision may have been taken in the belief that teaching content subjects through EMI diminishes the need for English to be taught as a language subject in its own right. It is highly unlikely that such a policy decision will have been taken in an Anglophone country. So, what is the research evidence so far that EMI settings provide a substantial English language boost for students?

EMI and improving students’ English There is some research evidence that studying content through the medium of English in higher education improves a student’s proficiency in English, but it is not, in my estimation, overwhelming. Nor is it easy to come across research projects whose design might provide the evidence. For example, Rogier (2012) in the UAE found that students only gained (on average) a half-band gain in an IELTS-level test after two years of EMI exposure, and surprisingly, this improvement was observed in speaking skills rather than listening. No significantly positive effects were found in a study by Lei and Hu (2014) in China. Yang (2015), on the other hand, in Taiwan, did find a significant improvement in receptive skills after two years of EMI, but the improvement seemed to be more pronounced in those students who had already performed well in the pre-test, suggesting that EMI did not provide a catch-up mechanism. In Italy, Bosisio (2015) reports minor gains for EMI students in speaking and listening over an English as a Foreign Language (or ‘Expanding Circle’) control group. The control group did better on pronunciation and discourse but showed no differences in grammar, vocabulary, and reading (p. 141). In Greece, Chostelidou and Griva (2014) provide some evidence of minor gains in reading for an EMI group over a non-EMI languagebased group. Other studies have published results of self-reported gains by students (Hernandez-Nanclares & Jimenez-Munoz, 2017), and these students generally express a favourable view of EMI. Moreover, these studies would appear to provide optimism in response to research that has documented the many linguistic challenges students report when embarking on EMI programmes (Sultana, 2014; Tsuneyoshi, 2005). Nonetheless, the hard numerical evidence, based on actual tests, of EMI delivering the hoped for major advances in English proficiency remains to be discovered. Generally, these are not conclusive results in favour of EMI over EFL, and it should also be noted that many EMI students continue to take EFL lessons as well, raising questions about the validity of the research design in terms of its participants. This challenge of arriving at a valid and reliable research design is a tricky one. Besides the issue of the concurrent EFL class attendance, there is the likelihood that EMI students may voluntarily or otherwise attend English for Special Purposes (ESP) support classes. Thus, without having a clear measurement of what they are learning in ESP as opposed to what they are solely learning in the EMI classroom, a comparison with EFL-only attendance becomes problematic. Another validity concern revolves around deciding which aspects of language to measure when comparing learning language through EMI and language-specific classrooms. Given that the lecture format is prevalent in EMI settings, and that students also engage in substantial subject-­related reading, one might expect that EMI students would develop higher levels of 23

Ernesto Macaro

listening and reading skills than their EFL counterparts. On the other hand, EFL students might demonstrate greater improvements in areas such as speaking and grammar. Thus, a research design that does not take these different aspects of language improvement into account probably lacks sufficient validity. What about vocabulary? Both groups of students would be expected to expand vocabulary, but it clearly could not be the same type of vocabulary given that EMI students would likely be focussing on technical and academic vocabulary more than their EFL counterparts. These validity concers, and to some extent, issues of reliability, must be resolved before policy makers can have confidence in whether EMI really provides the linguistic benefits that some claim it does.

EMI and content learning A number of authors have expressed concern that content learning might suffer when students are taught in a language which they may not be sufficiently proficient in (Bolton & Kuteeva, 2012; Hellekjaer, 2010; Vinke, 1995; Wilkinson, 2013; Yip, Tsang, & Cheung, 2003). To date, two groups of research findings on this issue have emerged. The first group concurs with these concerns as expressed by both students and teachers, who list the many challenges that EMI students face in learning content (Kamaşak, Sahan, & Rose, 2021). In most studies, students claim that they do not have sufficient levels of proficiency in order not to struggle with their content learning. For example, in Korea, Cho (2012) particularly lamented a lack of listening skills leading students to perhaps not understanding 40% of what was being said in lectures. Additionally, Ellili-Cherif and Alkhateeb (2015) claimed in respondents in Qatar that learning was adversely affected compared to if they had been studying their subject (Business Studies) through Arabic. The second group of research findings involves attempts to measure content learning. For example, Zaif, Karapınar, and Eksi (2017), whilst investigating business administration students’ achievement in their content learning, found no significant differences between those taught through English and those taught in their native language, Turkish. However, the authors do point out that students’ enrolment scores were much higher for those accepted on the EMI programme, suggesting that, as it were, students instructed through Turkish had perhaps ‘caught up’ with their EMI counterparts. Similarly, Dafouz and Camacho-Miňano (2016) found no significant difference in content learning of accounting students in Spain. Several theoretical and practical issues arise from research into EMI and content learning. First, why does there appear to be a discrepancy between the reported challenges that students face in relation to content learning (challenges also envisaged by their teachers) and the actual results? Is it the case that EMI students have been accepted onto an EMI programme because of their higher level of English proficiency, their higher achievement in previous content knowledge, or both? Or is it the case that, for some subjects, the content literature that students have to read is overwhelmingly written in English and this gives them an advantage over their L1 medium of instruction (L1MOI) counterparts, which helps counter the linguistic challenges? Or, is it the case that EMI students have to work much harder in order to achieve the same content grades as their L1MOI counterparts? If the latter is the case, then it would be important to establish in what ways the students work harder and what strategies they use in order to compensate for language deficiencies (see the text that follows). Another theoretical aspect of content learning, one that also holds important practical considerations, pertains to the following: If there is a slowdown in content learning by studying the academic subject through EMI, but there is evidence of eventual catching up, how long is it acceptable for that catching up process to take place? I have discussed costs versus benefits at greater 24

English-medium instruction: Theoretical and applied perspectives

length in Macaro (2018) and space limitations do not allow an in-depth discussion here. However, it would seem self-evident that research should provide an insight into how long it takes for EMI students to catch up with their content learning. This information is crucial for policy makers and heads of institutions to establish what constitutes an acceptable period for catching up. Moreover, an important empirical question to factor into the overall inquiry is why there is a need for a catch-up period in the first place. Is it because of a transition problem from secondary education to university whereby in the former the content subject was taught through L1MOI? Or is it the case that both phases of education are being taught through EMI (Macaro et al., 2019) but the nature of the instruction changes substantially from small classes with opportunities for interaction to monologic lectures in large lecture rooms? Carrying out research into actual content learning poses several challenges. At what point is the content learning to be measured? How does one go about standardising the starting point for the research? In other words, how can researchers achieve greater parity at research-time 1 of a research design given that randomisation to conditions is invariably out of the question? Then there is the issue of fidelity to condition, which requires observers ensuring that the EMI teacher really is teaching overwhelmingly through English and that broadly speaking the pedagogies adopted in both classrooms are the same, a theme which we now delve into.

Pedagogy in EMI There is now a considerable body of research in EMI which has considered how pedagogy in HE has to change in order for student content learning to take place alongside language improvement (Dimova & Kling, 2018; Sahan, Rose, & Macaro, 2021). Indeed, studies of teacher beliefs have provided evidence that EMI teachers in HE themselves concede the need for pedagogical changes to ensure effective content learning (Macaro, Akincioglu, & Han, 2019). Much of this interest in a changing pedagogy has focussed on language use and interaction between teachers and students (Macaro, 2020), reflecting an established interest in subject education research (for example, science) in the value of higher-order questioning and student-facilitative interaction (Mortimer & Scott, 2003). Although it would seem to be intuitive that a focus on the language being used and more student-centred interaction would lead to better learning, the field has yet to establish this as a fact in EMI higher education contexts. In other words, different models of EMI pedagogies have not been tested empirically for their effectiveness. Nonetheless in Sahan et al. (2021), we attempted to identify these models which future researchers may wish to test empirically. In that study, the parameters chosen to determine the different pedagogical models being used in Turkish universities were as follows: (1) English-dominant, teacher-centred; (2) English-dominant, interactive; (3) L1-dominant interactive; and (4) L1 dominant teacher-centred. Put differently, our observations of interaction in HE classes suggested a powerful connection between the amount of L1 use (by the teacher and students) and the level of interactivity. Importantly, however, use of L2 and interactivity were not mutually exclusive. In other words, it was not impossible for a teacher to be highly interactive whilst maintaining high levels of English (L2) use. A number of other studies have described teacher use of the L1 or translanguaging strategies in EMI contexts. For example, Chen, Han, and Wright (2020) describe how Chinese lecturers used translanguaging strategies to (according to the authors) achieve ‘students’ cognitive understanding’ (p. 12). Tarnopolsky and Goodman (2014) found that EMI teachers used the L1 to establish rapport with the students and enhance their comprehension of terminology in the subject. However, in neither case was this understanding measured through some kind of test or on the spot teacher evaluations. The theoretical question that arises is: How is cognitive 25

Ernesto Macaro

understanding achieved through L1 use in interaction? Is it the case that by linking L2 terminology to conceptualisations in the students’ L1, they achieve a deeper understanding of the concept than if they were only provided with L2 descriptions of that concept? Studies such as these, though highly important to the field, describe how understanding appears to be achieved through L1 use but not how it is achieved and particularly in the long term – how that understanding becomes functionally available to the students. For this understanding to become functionally available to the students, they would have to demonstrate that understanding through language production (either oral or written). In turn, that language production would require a concept to be thoroughly developed in their schema, then formulated in (at least) the L2, if not in both languages, and then articulated appropriately for the genre in the L2, which is the language of EMI tests and exams. In a study set in China (Macaro, Tian, & Chu, 2018), the vast majority of the teachers’ talk was in English although there was considerable variation among the teachers observed. The most frequent function of teachers switching to the L1 was in order to render certain aspects of their talk more understandable. As analysts of the data, we concluded that some of the switches might be justified, for example, because of cultural dissimilarities. In other cases, we could not detect an obvious reason for the language switch. Interestingly, whilst students overwhelmingly did not advocate that the L1 should be banned from the EMI classroom, there was quite a strong sentiment that teachers could use even more L2 than they were using and that they should ask questions in English rather than Chinese. Thus, returning to the Sahan et al. (2021) models, these need to be put to the test in terms of long-term student learning. The hypothesis based on previous subject literature would suggest that interactivity is essential but to what extent that interactivity should be English-dominant or L1-dominant needs further exploration. Indeed, that exploration should consider social factors that might determine why students might be reluctant to participate in EMI classes (Lee, 2014). The debate as to the widespread use of the L1 in EMI in higher education is also affected by the overall composition of the students in the class. Given the desire for internationalisation of HE institutions, increasingly, classes are composed of students from diverse linguistic backgrounds. In a recent study in Sweden by Kuteeva (2020), some international students expressed feelings of exclusion because they could not speak the first language of the local students, particularly in situations when the teacher had organised group work.

The EMI student and their learning strategies In an earlier section, I put forward the possibility that EMI students catch up with their content learning (relative to students on L1MOI programmes) because they work harder. If that is the case, we now need to try to unpick what ‘working harder’ might entail. In the literature related to language learning, the concept of learning strategies (or language learner strategies) tends to be divided into cognitive strategies and metacognitive strategies. Cognitive strategies are (usually) mental actions that learners adopt during a language learning task. In reading, for example, this might involve focussing on an unfamiliar word and trying to deduce its meaning from the context surrounding it or from the learner’s own knowledge of the topic. In listening, it might be trying to selectively focus on aspects of a recording because they think it holds the key to the topic of the text as a whole. Metacognitive strategies, on the other hand, involve actions (sometimes physical actions with underlying mental actions) relating to organising and evaluating an individual’s language learning. Some authors have also classified strategies as social strategies (such as asking a classmate for help with an aspect of language learning) and affective strategies (such as controlling 26

English-medium instruction: Theoretical and applied perspectives

one’s emotions when the language learning gets tough) (Naiman, Frohlich, Stern, & Todesco, 1996; Oxford, 1990). In an attempt to make the theoretical leap from language learner strategies to EMI learner strategies, I will mostly focus on cognitive and metacognitive strategies – for a more extensive account of this ‘leap’, refer to Macaro (2022), in which I present the following definition: strategies are the conscious, goal-oriented, mental actions that learners deploy, often in interacting clusters, in relation to a language use or a language learning task. These clusters of mental actions may need to be adapted as and when different task-types are encountered by the student. The strategic behaviour adopted, will have varying degrees of intensity according to the difficulty of the task and relative to a learner’s linguistic knowledge. Contributing to the level of difficulty of the task is the learner’s knowledge of the topic. (Macaro, 2022, p. 64) Let us therefore consider a typical EMI situation in which a student is attending, for example, a science lecture involving some 50 other students. In this situation, the teacher uses slides extensively, talks 90% of the time, and dedicates the remaining 10% to throw out questions at random to the class. In this kind of scenario, the opportunities for strategic behaviour on the part of our student are very much constrained due to the educational environment in which the student is operating. It is unlikely that the student will have the confidence to stop the teacher and ask for clarification of an unfamiliar word or concept. Consequently, the strategic efforts of the student will be focussed on trying to understand the teacher’s ongoing speech. However, the understanding of the teacher’s ongoing speech will itself be influenced by several other factors alluded to in my definition cited earlier. The first factor is the speech rate (an aspect of task difficulty). The ability for the student to deploy, say, inferencing strategies to unknown words will depend on whether the speech rate (and any concomitant repetition) is slow enough for her to focus sufficiently on the unknown word in order for her to give it due selective attention and deploy those inferencing strategies. The second factor is the use of the slides. Depending on the relationship between the content of the slides and what the teacher is saying, the student will need to make strategic decisions as to what to concentrate on. For example, if the teacher is merely ‘reading the slides’ with little or no elaboration of them, then the student may just as well focus on the written language, take notes, or make links to any handouts given. If, on the other hand, the teacher uses the slides as ‘triggers’ or ‘concept labels’, the student will have to give a great deal of attention to the speech stream to identify how the elaboration in the aural mode provides explanation to the succinct visual mode. The development of skilled strategy deployment over time will therefore include metacognition (in this case evaluation) of whether the adoption of a particular strategy or set of strategies works. Linked to this deployment in relation to teacher speech and slides is the concept of prior knowledge, as reiterated in my earlier definition of learner strategies. Prior knowledge of the topic presented by the teacher in a language learning class will be quite different from that presented by a teacher in our student’s EMI science class. Generally, language teachers do not present outlandish and esoteric topics to their beginner and lower-intermediate language students. In other words, the familiarity of the topic will usually be related to the language level of the students. In the case of EMI, the topic is not selected based on the language level of the students but on the demands of the curriculum. This curriculum is very likely to have been (at least in part) devised with L1MOI learners in mind. So, our student’s ability to deploy prior knowledge of the topic in order to understand a word in the teacher’s speech stream, or a whole explanation, will be in part dependent on how new the science topic is to her. 27

Ernesto Macaro

Another aspect of strategic behaviour in EMI, which may differ from a language learning class is the general objectives that a student brings to the class. For example, is a student’s primary focus on learning the content or on learning content and simultaneously gaining higher proficiency in English? In our study of Italian undergraduate students in Italy (Macaro et al., 2019), they reported overwhelmingly that their objective when embarking on an EMI course (and therefore when entering an EMI classroom) was on learning the content. Of course, one might object that in an EMI classroom it is impossible to learn the content without also making language proficiency gains (see earlier) but I would argue that a strategic intention of making progress with the language requires a cognitive and metacognitive strategic commitment. A similar finding is reported in Wilkinson and Gabriëls (2017) among arts and social sciences students in the Netherlands, whose interview data clearly showed that they placed strategically much less emphasis on language and more on content. In our Italy project, the strategies that the students reported being most likely to deploy in order to aid their learning usually occurred during the lesson. These included making notes of the keywords used by the teacher, making notes of the explanations given by the teacher, trying to remain aware of the difference between the types of vocabulary they heard, and trying to infer (guess) the meaning of an English word they did not know from the context. There were a few strategies that they deployed after the lesson, such as reviewing materials they had been given or reviewing notes that they themselves had made. However, the strategies they reported as using very rarely fell into the category that researchers might call ‘preparation for a lesson’, which would be placed in the metacognitive category. These included previewing notes they had been given or accessing lecture materials related to the topic on the Internet. Also, very importantly, they rarely used the kinds of strategies that required interaction with the teacher, such as asking for repetition, additional explanations, clarifications of different vocabulary types, or translations of words or phrases into Italian that they had not understood. Probably, due to the theoretical leap that needs to be bridged between language learner strategies and EMI learner strategies, there is still limited research on EMI learner stategies. Considering the relatively new nature of the EMI phenomenon and its complexity in terms of learning contexts, cognateness of L1s to English, the various models of EMI adopted (Macaro, 2018) and, as I have argued (Macaro, 2020), the different challenges imposed by different disciplines, it is vital that more research focusses on the EMI student, their strategies and/ or their general approaches to learning. A clear need for such research was identified by Malavska (2017), who observed in a study of student note-taking that they were experiencing major difficulties in transitioning from L1MOI contexts to EMI ones. I would question the suitability of adopting the widely used Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (Oxford, 1990) for EMI contexts. Whilst it may be applicable in settings described as CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning), I would argue for an adaptation rather than wholesale adoption (Yang, 2017). The limited research on EMI strategies has been conducted in secondary school settings. For example, Menegale (2019) investigated whether secondary school students studying Earth Science and Biotechnology were susceptible to strategy instruction in concept mapping, note-taking methods, training in visual and verbal memory recall, and checking comprehension in reading tasks. The researcher obtained promising results which, with modifications, could be adopted at the tertiary level.

The impact of EMI Despite EMI’s steady growth over the past 20 years (much longer in places where it is well established such as Hong Kong and Singapore), there is still no consensus on whether it should 28

English-medium instruction: Theoretical and applied perspectives

be embraced or resisted. Indeed, I have not come across a study that poses a general question to stakeholders such as ‘Do you generally think that EMI is beneficial for your institution/country?’ Certainly, among academic commentators (Kirkpatrick, 2011; Phillipson, 2008), there is concern that its unbridled and, in many cases, insufficiently planned expansion brings with it a form of Englishisation which undermines national, cultural, and, most importantly, linguistic diversity. Certainly, the negative impact on home languages for the purposes of education cannot be denied in that they become devalued as vehicular languages and may even lead to ‘domain loss’, whereby, for example, text books are no longer published in the home language because of a lack of demand. The benefits of EMI in relation to HE, as listed at the beginning of this chapter, have yet to be convincingly documented. For example, the extent to which EMI spreads the benefits of internationalisation evenly across the globe is in doubt. A recent study conducted for the British Council (Sahan et al., 2021) found that Official Development Assistance (ODA) countries (those receiving official aid) were not managing to retain their home students by adopting EMI. Instead, they were losing them to Anglophone institutions or to non-Anglophone but long-time-established EMI universities. Moreover, they were not attracting students from the global north. One potential area for optimism in EMI is revealed in a study conducted in Turkey (Macaro & Akincioglu, 2017), where female students expressed more favourable attitudes towards EMI compared to their male counterparts. This suggests that they could be more inclined to pursue prestigious STEM subjects, which are typically dominated by males. According to Cin, Gümüş, and Weiss (2021), an increase in female students in Turkish universities has contributed to greater gender equality in accessing the labour market. However, this area of gender research, as related to EMI, is still in its infancy. It has been argued that access to English, in countries such as Nepal, might be a powerful measure of academic success for females (Upadhaya & Sah, 2019). In other words, gender parity of opportunities for English language proficiency are almost certainly a sine qua non of accessing higher education in general and EMI in particular. Taken as a whole, moreover, empirical studies on the impact of EMI tend to describe a situation where the Matthew Effect is in operation (where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer). For example, Sultana (2014), studying the situation in Bangladesh, observed that students who entered English-medium higher education and originated from Bangla-medium secondary schools faced much greater disadvantages than those originating from private schools that taught at least some subjects in English. These disadvantages were not only academic but also social ones, for example, by feeling excluded from groups of students who spoke English among themselves. They also claimed to be less noticed by teachers.

EMI and the professional development of teachers The issues raised in the previous sections of this chapter all converge onto a further issue: How to ensure that teachers in higher education, some of whom may be engaging with EMI for the first time, possess the adequate knowledge, understanding, and skills to carry out their functions for the maximum benefit of their students. Before delving into a brief overview of research on professional development, let us consider some practical issues. First, in general, teacher professional development (PD), whether it be pre-service or in-service, has not been a key feature of higher education (Peat, 2015). For example, in our study of professional development in China (Macaro & Han, 2019), most respondents stated that their institutions had no clear set of requirements or list of teacher competencies for them to teach through the medium of English and only 33% had actually been involved in some kind of professional development programme. Most teachers entered EMI instruction because they simply had a personal desire to do so, had spent time in an Anglophone country, or encountered 29

Ernesto Macaro

an increasing number of international students in the class who did not speak Chinese at a sufficiently high level. Yet the majority also saw a need for a standardised way of selecting those teachers who could offer their courses through EMI. As in our more global study of teacher professional development and certification (Macaro, Akincioglu et al., 2019), teachers felt that teaching through English required a change in pedagogy. A major component of that pedagogy was a shift towards studentcentredness (Trigwell, 2001). To facilitate this change, they recognised that the level of proficiency in English and the competencies needed were quite different from those needed for presenting and interacting at conferences where English was usually the lingua franca among experts in the field. However, these positive attitudes towards student-centredness and a need for professional development are tempered by at least two major factors. The first of these is that content teachers are required, by their institutions, to carry out research as well as teaching. In some institutions, research may indeed take a higher priority over teaching. It is not surprising therefore that an additional finding in our study was that teachers would be reluctant to devote much of their time to acquiring the kind of competencies that, say, an applied linguistics teacher may want to or indeed must have to acquire. These competencies include an understanding of genre, an awareness of research into vocabulary breadth and depth and its different frequency levels, skills in whole-class interaction, input modification, negotiation of meaning, feedback, groupwork organisation, and so on. They simply may not have the time, which explains why, when asked about their professional development programme, most respondents opted for a short, intensive course rather than a protracted one (Macaro, Akincioglu, & Han, 2019). An attempt at a more protracted model of professional development was conducted by Macaro and Tian (2020) in China, based on the notion of collaboration and distributed expertise (PavonVasquez, Avila, Gallego, & Espejo, 2015). In this model, an applied linguist worked with two content teachers (Human Resources and International Relations experts), who had both gained their doctoral degrees from English-speaking countries and had volunteered to embark on EMI. The programme consisted of the applied linguist recording a series of lectures given by the teachers, analysing them (primarily for their interactional features), and then asking the content teachers to state their reactions to both the recordings of their lectures and the detailed analysis. The emphasis was on the applied linguist not making any value judgements regarding the teachers’ pedagogy other than to highlight (through the analysis) the interaction. The findings are interesting in that they point to a further factor which may inhibit professional development. One teacher reacted extensively and positively to the analyses and set about changing their interactional features in subsequent lessons. The other teacher simply did not. Therefore, this suggests that a teacher’s underlying theoretical position on pedagogy needs to be confronted by actual student outcomes, as previously suggested through the different models of pedagogy being put to the test.

Who owns English-medium instruction? The last section of this chapter delves into the question of who is responsible for the introduction and development of EMI in educational settings. In terms of its introduction, as we have seen, there appear to be two approaches and these depend on the educational context. The first is a top-down approach, either at the institutional level or at the national level. For example, in Japan the education ministry announced a 10-year initiative with multimillion dollar investment in order to internationalise Japanese universities (Aizawa & Rose, 2019). Similar top-down approaches to policy have been described in Korea (Byun et al., 2011), Indonesia (Zacharias, 2013), and China (Hu, 2009). The second approach, as already mentioned, is a laissez-faire approach, whereby teachers who feel confident to switch from L1MOI to EMI do so on an individual basis. 30

English-medium instruction: Theoretical and applied perspectives

However, there is a different kind of ownership of EMI that I consider important to raise here and to pursue in the future: Who owns the research and development on EMI? In Macaro and Aizawa (2022) we documented this notion of ownership by examining hundreds of publications on EMI. What we found was that the vast majority of authors who have carried out research into EMI are applied linguists or language pedagogy specialists, as are writers of books on the topic. Nearly all EMI journal articles are published in journals which have traditionally been considered applied linguistics or language pedagogy journals. Most offers of professional development (as far as we can tell from websites) are made by departments or units whose main characteristic is a background in applied linguistics, and most ‘EMI tutors’ have an applied linguistics background, with many of them being native speakers of English. This is, in my view, not a particularly positive state of affairs. As an applied linguist myself, of course, I can see that I am adding to the problem. I will therefore end this chapter with a call for a radical rethink in what we mean by collaboration in EMI. We need to start at the research level. In other words, we need to find ways to encourage content specialists to take a much more leading role in devising the future research agenda for EMI both in general and within their own disciplines. Perhaps this process could be situated in university departments of education (such as my own), where there are already language specialists working alongside specialists in other subjects (science, mathematics, geography). Additionally, those universities which have a general professional development programme for their institution’s teachers could find ways of ensuring collaboration in pedagogy research between content and language specialists in relation to EMI. Until we arrive at a synthesis of the theories and practices of the different disciplines through collaborative research, it is difficult to see how content and language can be truly integrated in higher education EMI.

Conclusion The exponential growth of English-medium instruction in higher education has been met with a similar growth in EMI research. Much of this research has laid strong foundations for understanding the phenomenon by investigating the beliefs of teachers and learners, and by exploring who are the decision-makers in its implementation. We now need to move the research agenda on to what the actual academic and socio-cultural outcomes of EMI are. In doing so, we need to continue to explore the effectiveness of the different pedagogical approaches that teachers take and how developed those student behaviours are, which appear to facilitate various transitions: From secondary to tertiary education; from learning a subject through their first language to learning it in a second language. Without this better-informed research perspective, it is difficult to see how policy makers and commentators can make effective judgements about its value as an educational offer.

References Aizawa, I., & Rose, H. (2019). An analysis of Japan’s English as medium of instruction initiatives within higher education: The gap between meso-level policy and micro-level practice. Higher Education, 77, 1125–1142. Baker, W., & Hüttner, J. (2017). English and more: A multisite study of roles and conceptualisations of language in English medium multilingual universities from Europe to Asia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38, 501–516. Bolton, K., & Kuteeva, M. (2012). English as an academic language at a Swedish university: Parallel language use and the ‘threat’ of English. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33, 429–447. Bosisio, N. (2015). CLIL in the Italian university: A long but promising way to go. EL.LE, 4, 133–154. Byun, K., Chu, H., Kim, M., Park, I., Kim, S., & Jung, J. (2011). English-medium teaching in Korean higher education: Policy debates and reality. Higher Education, 62, 431–449.

31

Ernesto Macaro Chen, H., Han, J., & Wright, D. (2020). An investigation of lecturers’ teaching through English medium of instruction—A case of higher education in China. Sustainability, 12, 4046. Cho, D. W. (2012). English-medium instruction in the university context of Korea: Tradeoff between teaching outcomes and media-initiated university ranking. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 9(4), 135–163. Chostelidou, D., & Griva, E. (2014). Measuring the effect of implementing CLIL in higher education: An experimental research project. Procedia, Social and Behavioural Sciences, 116, 2169–2174. Cin, F. M., Gümüş, S., & Weiss, F. (2021). Women’s empowerment in the period of the rapid expansion of higher education in Turkey: Developments and paradoxes of gender equality in the labour market. Higher Education, 81, 31–50. Dafouz, D., & Camacho-Miňano, M. (2016). Exploring the impact of English-medium instruction on university student academic achievement: The case of accounting. English for Specific Purposes, 44, 57–67. Dimova, S., & Kling, J. (2018). Assessing English-medium instruction lecturer language proficiency across disciplines. TESOL Quarterly, 52, 634–656. Ellili-Cherif, M., & Alkhateeb, H. (2015). College students’ attitude toward the medium of instruction: Arabic versus English dilemma. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 3, 207–213. Hellekjaer, G. O. (2010). Lecture comprehension in English-medium higher education. Hermes, Journal of Language and Communication Studies, 45, 11–34. Hernandez-Nanclares, N., & Jimenez-Munoz, A. (2017). English as a medium of instruction: Evidence for language and content targets in bilingual education in economics. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20, 883–896. Hu, G. (2009). The craze for English-medium education in China: Driving forces and looming consequences. English Today, 25(4), 47–54. Kamaşak, R., Sahan, K., & Rose, H. (2021) Academic language-related challenges at an English-medium university. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 49, 100945. Kirkpatrick, A. (2011). English as a medium of instruction in Asian education (from primary to tertiary): Implications for local languages and local scholarship. Applied Linguistics Review, 2, 99–120. Kuteeva, M. (2020). Revisiting the ‘E’ in EMI: Students’ perceptions of standard English, lingua franca and translingual practices. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23, 287–300. Lee, G. J. (2014). Why students don’t participate in English medium instruction classes in a Korean university: A case study. English Teaching, 69, 91–117. Lei, J., & Hu, G. (2014). Is English-medium instruction effective in improving Chinese undergraduate students’ English competence? IRAL, 52(2), 99–126. Macaro, E. (2018). English medium instruction: Language and content in policy and practice. Oxford University Press. Macaro, E. (2020). Exploring the role of language in English medium instruction. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23, 266–276. Macaro, E. (2022). Learner strategies in English medium instruction contexts. In B. Di Sabato & B. Hughes (Eds.), Multilingual perspectives from Europe and beyond on language policy and practice (pp. 63–82). Routledge. Macaro, E., & Aizawa, I. (2022). Who owns EMI? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2022.2136187 Macaro, E., & Akincioglu, M. (2017). Turkish university students’ perceptions about English medium instruction: Exploring year group, gender and university type as variables, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 39, 256–270. Macaro, E., Akincioglu, M., & Han, S. (2019). English medium instruction in higher education: Teacher perspectives on professional development and certification. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 30, 144–157. Macaro, E., Briggs Baffoe-Djan, J., Rose, H., di Sabato, B., Hughes, B., Cuccurullo, D., Coonan, C. M., Menegale, M., & Bier, A. (2019). Transition from secondary school CLIL to EMI at university: Initial evidence from research in Italy. London: The British Council. Retrieved from https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/ article/transition-secondary-school-clil-emi-university-initial-evidence-research-italy Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J., & Dearden, J. (2018). A systematic review of English medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching, 51, 36–76. Macaro, E., & Han, S. (2019). English medium instruction in China’s higher education: Teachers’ perspectives of competencies, certification and professional development. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 41, 219–231.

32

English-medium instruction: Theoretical and applied perspectives Macaro, E., & Tian, L. (2020). Developing EMI teachers through a collaborative research model. International Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, Early View. https://doi.org/10.1080/0143 4632.2020.1862131 Macaro, E., & Tian, L., & Chu, L. (2018). First and second language use in English medium instruction contexts. Language Teaching Research, 24, 382–402. Malavska, V. (2017). Problems students encounter with note-taking in English medium instruction. Baltic Journal of English Language, Literature and Culture, 7, 121–138. Menegale, M. (2019). Learning strategy instruction in Content and Language Integrated Learning programs. In A. U. Chamot & V. H. Harris (Eds.), Learning strategy instruction in the language classroom: Issues and implementation (pp. 81–106). Multilingual Matters. Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Open University Press. Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H. H., & Todesco, A. (1996). The good language learner. Multilingual Matters. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Heinle. Pavon-Vasquez, V. V., Avila, L. J., Gallego, S. A., & Espejo, M. R. (2015). Strategic and organisational considerations in planning Content and Language Integrated Learning: A study on the coordination between content and language teachers. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18, 409–425. Peat, J. (2015). Getting down to the nitty-gritty: The trials and tribulations of an institutional professional recognition scheme. Perspectives Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 19(3), 92–95. Pecorari, D., & Malmström, H. (2018). At the crossroads of TESOL and English medium instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 52, 497–505. Phillipson, R. (2008). Lingua franca or lingua frankensteinia? World Englishes, 27, 250–267. Rogier, D. (2012). The effects of English-medium instruction on language proficiency of students enrolled in higher education in the UAE (PhD thesis). University of Exeter. Rose, H., Curle, S., Aizawa, I., & Thompson, G. (2019). What drives success in English medium taught courses? The interplay between language proficiency, academic skills, and motivation. Studies in Higher Education, 45, 2149–2161. Sahan, K., Mikolajewska, A., Rose, H., Macaro, E., Searle, M., Aizawa, I., Zhou, S., & Veitch, A. (2021). Global mapping of English as a medium of instruction (EMI) in higher education: 2020 and beyond. British Council. Sahan, K., Rose, H., & Macaro, E. (2021). Models of EMI pedagogies: At the interface between language use and interaction. System, 101, 102616. Sultana, S. (2014). English as a medium of instruction in Bangladesh’s higher education: Empowering or disadvantaging students? Asian EFL Journal, 16, 11–52. Tarnopolsky, O., & Goodman, B. A. (2014). The ecology of language in classrooms at a university in Eastern Ukraine. Language and Education, 28, 383–396. Trigwell, K. (2001). Judging university teaching. The International Journal of Academic Development, 6, 65–73. 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. Upadhaya, A., & Sah, P. K. (2019). Education, English language, and girls’ development: Exploring genderresponsive policies and practices in Nepal. In S. Douglas (Ed.), Creating an inclusive school environment (pp. 105–114). British Council. Vinke, A. A. (1995). English as the medium of instruction in Dutch engineering education (PhD thesis). Delft University of Technology. Wilkinson, R. (2013). English-medium instruction at a Dutch university: Challenges and pitfalls. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster, & J. M. Sierra (Eds.), English-medium instruction at universities: Global challenges (pp. 3–24). Multilingual Matters. Wilkinson, R., & Gabriëls, R. (2017). Adapting to EMI in higher education: Students’ perceived learning strategies. L’analisi Linguistica e Letteraria, XXV, 341–360. Yang, W. (2015). Content and language integrated learning next in Asia: Evidence of learners’ achievement in CLIL education from a Taiwan tertiary degree programme. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18, 361–382.

33

Ernesto Macaro Yang, W. (2017). The deployment of English learning strategies in the CLIL approach: A comparison study of Taiwan and Hong Kong tertiary level contexts. ESP Today, 6, 44–64. Yip, D. Y., Tsang, W. K., & Cheung, S. P. (2003). Evaluation of the effects of medium of instruction on the science learning of Hong Kong secondary students: Performance on the Science Achievement Test. Bilingual Research Journal, 27, 295–331. Zacharias, N. T. (2013). Navigating through the English-medium-of-instruction policy: Voices from the field. Current Issues in Language Planning, 14, 93–108. Zaif, F., Karapınar, A., & Eksi, G-Y. (2017). A comparative study case, on the effectiveness of Englishmedium and Turkish-medium accounting education: Gazi University. Journal of Education for Business, 92(2), 73–80.

34

3 LANGUAGE POLICIES AND ENGLISH-MEDIUM HIGHER EDUCATION WORLDWIDE Andy Kirkpatrick and John Knagg

Introduction We understand a policy to be a statement of rules, guidelines, or intentions as to how people should behave in certain contexts, issued by some person or office with the authority to do so. A policy can vary in its level of explicitness, sometimes being clearly written down in a document, and at other times less clear, or even entirely unwritten, and expressed verbally. It can also be assumed based on our understanding of how a society operates. A policy may carry the force of law, or be part of an institution’s regulations, or simply represent a common understanding among a group of people about how to behave in a certain setting. Language policies can range from the international or national level (‘all speeches in parliament must be given in French’) to the personal (‘I only speak Hungarian to my children’). In this chapter, we are restricting our interest to policies related to the use of English in higher education, within a context of the rapid global growth of English-medium instruction or education (EMI/ EME) in universities in non-anglophone settings. Our starting point is that we believe that this expansion has outstripped research in the area of EMI. Much EMI practice in higher education (EMHE) is not governed by well-considered policy-making, and this leads to a variety of problems that impact negatively on stakeholders, especially students and teachers. In particular, there seems to be an assumption that EMI programmes both enhance the students’ English proficiency and impart content knowledge (Rose, Curle, Aizawa, & Thompson, 2020). However, we feel that research is still needed to investigate to what extent, if at all, these assumptions are accurate. Spolsky (2018) talks of the value of thinking of language management rather than language policy. We find this a useful concept. Language management suggests an ongoing process of controlling (or attempting to control) the language practices (and beliefs) of ourselves and others, as opposed to one conception of a language policy as a (static) document giving rules or guidelines. At what levels does EMHE policy, or EMHE management operate? We attempt to simplify a complex situation by suggesting that policy-making and management take place at four levels: The supranational, the national, the institutional, and the classroom. We hope that this four-level distinction will give us a framework to understand how EMHE language policy works, does not work, and might work. At each level, we aim to examine the interests or agendas of the policymakers or managers, the problems that they might be trying to solve, and the types of decisions 35

DOI: 10.4324/9781003011644-4

Andy Kirkpatrick and John Knagg

that they make. We aim to give examples of how this has played out in different global contexts, although it is impossible to give a full description of the vast range of EMHE policy-making initiatives (or very often lack of them) at all levels. Our aim is rather to offer a checklist of questions that might be of help to policy-makers, managers and practitioners of EMHE in thinking through policy and practice in their own contexts. This checklist is provided in the Appendix. We acknowledge several caveats that apply across all levels of EMHE language policy and management. Firstly, there is the issue of the difficulty, even sometimes the futility, of managing the language practices of others. Spolsky provides the examples of the use of failed national-level policies in France and Russia to resist the introduction of English or Englishised words into the national language. There are also numerous instances of failed attempts to suppress the use of local languages in favour of a national language, often in the name of nation-building. When such policies have succeeded, it has often been at a great cost in terms of lost culture and even lives. Teachers in schools and parents constantly attempt to manage the language of their children with mixed results. These failures of language management usually arise from a lack of consideration of the interests and agendas of those whose practice the authorities are attempting to manage. Those who aim to manage the language practices of universities, teachers and students would do well to bear this in mind. Secondly, we draw attention to the importance of the process of policy-making, which is closely related to the chances of a policy’s successful implementation. The value of a policy can be radically reduced or increased depending on the process through which it was produced. The reason for this is that buy-in to the agreed policy and practice from a range of stakeholders who are in a position to undermine a policy is a necessary condition for successful implementation. We should recognise that policy-making is not the unique prerogative of an elite class of ‘policy-makers’, and that the stakeholders who make the final decisions that determine actual practice are very often teachers and students. In short, ‘[p]utting policies into practice is a creative, sophisticated and complex process that is always also located in a particular context and place’ (Braun, Maguire, & Ball, 2010, p. 548). Thirdly, we should exercise caution when using the often-used phrases ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-­ ­up’ in the development of EMHE policy. The usage of these terms is extremely variable, usually dependent on the context and perspective of the author, and requires clarification. If the Rector and Management Board of a university decides that the university should conduct all postgraduate courses in English in order to attract more international students, then the Minister of Higher Education might describe this as a ‘bottom-up’ decision. However, the Head of the Department of Chemistry will almost certainly describe that same decision as ‘top-down’. After these cautionary words, we now move on to consider the language policies associated with EMI at the supranational level.

The supranational level Here, we focus on two supranational bodies, the European Union (EU) and the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), which have substantially influenced EMHE policy and practice, and hold the potential for further influence. The main interest of these bodies with regard to HE and its languages is to facilitate cooperation between the countries concerned, especially in terms of standardisation, mutual recognition, and mobility of staff and students. Macaro (2018) has identified two programmes initiated by the European Union that have led to an increase in the uptake of EMI programmes in higher education across Europe. The first of these is the European Region Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students (ERASMUS), which provides free movement and educational exchange among universities and institutions for 36

Language policies and English-medium higher education worldwide

eligible students. One aim of the programme was to develop a student’s second or third language through studying content subjects in it. Thus, a French ERASMUS student would go on exchange to a German university to study his or her subject in German. As Macaro notes, however, the question is whether these exchange programmes are now offering courses in English rather than other languages. It is worth noting that Maastricht University in the Netherlands, one of the pioneers of internationalisation, now offers more than half of its programmes in English (Wilkinson, 2018). Wilkinson also notes that Maastricht has, over the years, transitioned in its international programmes from Mother Tongue +2 to Mother Tongue + English +1 to English + Mother Tongue (±1). A policy that has indubitably contributed to the increase in EMI courses was the establishment of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), coupled with the Bologna Process or Declaration of 1999. The EHEA policy aimed to make Europe more competitive in the global economy (Hultgren, 2015), and the Bologna Process aimed to standardise course offerings to facilitate and increase staff and student mobility. The consequent increase in EMI may not have been the primary aim of these policies, but the need to establish a common framework has inevitably led to an increase (Wachter & Maiworm, 2014). This was recognised by Phillipson, who noted that ‘[w] hat emerges unambiguously is that, in the Bologna Process, internationalisation means Englishmedium higher education’ (2009, p. 37). And as Coleman presciently argued more than 15 years ago, ‘it seems inevitable that English, in some form, will definitely become the language of education’ (Coleman, 2006, p. 11). The second supranational group we shall consider is the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), group, especially the 10 countries that constitute the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Following the example set by the Bologna Process, during their 2012 summit meeting, the 21 countries that make up APEC agreed to seek ways to increase staff and student mobility between APEC universities. At the same time, the ASEAN Universities Network was promoting staff and student mobility across its 30 universities. While both these initiatives encourage the development of EMI programmes, both APEC and ASEAN, in contrast to the EU, also actively promote the use of English across all sectors. Nearly 20 years ago, the APEC Ministerial Meeting (AMM) ‘encouraged member economies to undertake measures to provide adequate knowledge and practical use of English as a working language within the APEC region’ (Lazaro & Medalla, 2004, p. 278). Meanwhile, ASEAN has legislated English as the group’s sole working language. As Article 34 of the 2009 ASEAN Charter reads, ‘The working language of ASEAN shall be English’ (Kirkpatrick, 2011). This decision to designate a colonial language the sole working language of the group may seem extraordinary, but it should be remembered that English has become institutionalised in many of the countries of ASEAN owing to their colonial history (Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore, and the Philippines can all lay claim to indigenous varieties of English), and English can be seen as an Asian language (Kirkpatrick, 2020). Dewi (2017) reports that Indonesian academics, who are working to implement their government’s 2016 policy of making all Indonesian universities bilingual in English and Bahasa Indonesia, view English as a tool for both international advancement and identity formation. In other words, the transition to EMI in higher education across ASEAN is not only driven by the desire for its universities to internationalise, but also by ASEAN’s official designation of English being the sole working language of the group. These policies at supranational level illustrate that policies often lead to unintended consequences. As Hultgren has noted, the linguistic consequences of the EHEA and the Bologna Process have led to an increase in the use of English at university level in teaching, research, and administration (2015). In ASEAN, the growing prevalence of EMI in higher education has had, as we will discuss later, a significant washback effect on secondary education. We now turn to the national level. 37

Andy Kirkpatrick and John Knagg

The national level EMHE may be seen as a solution to several problems from the perspectives of a President, Prime Minister, or even, a Minister of Education. Some of the following issues might apply: • • • • • •

The nation does not participate actively enough in the international knowledge economy; Universities in the country lack prestige and do not figure highly in international rankings; National researchers do not engage enough in international research; Overseas students and faculty do not want to study in the country; Universities do not produce employable graduates; English language proficiency levels among graduates leaving school or university are low.

It is often assumed that the adoption of EMI will contribute to solving these problems as it will increase the levels of English proficiency while imparting up-to-date content knowledge. However, as the following national examples illustrate, these assumptions may be wrong. Within Europe, the adoption of EMI courses has not been comparable across the EU, with the countries of Northern Europe offering many more EMI courses than those of Southern Europe (Hultgren in Macaro, Hultgren, Kirkpatrick, & Lasagabaster, 2017). Different contexts provide different problems and different solutions. The Nordic countries have developed national language policies to ensure that local languages are used as languages of scholarship alongside English. Preisler (2009, p. 26) has advocated for the use of ‘complementary languages’, involving the use of English and the relevant language in some form of complementary distribution (Haberland, 2011). A similar solution will be seen at the institutional level later with the case of the Hong Kong Education University. While the incidence of EMI may not be as widespread, countries such as Italy and Spain are also now increasingly adopting EMI. Macaro (2018) reports that 81 Italian universities offer some form of EMI programme. Spain is also seeking to expand its EMI programmes (Doiz, Lasagabaster, & Sierra, 2013). In 2013, Jorge Sainz, the then General Director for university policy in the Spanish Ministry of Education, was quoted as saying ‘we are working to internationalize our universities. We are trying to promote the courses we offer in English and ensure the quality of both materials and language taught’ (Rigg, 2013, n.p.). Sainz’s comments reiterate a major driver for the increase in EMI programmes worldwide, namely the internationalisation of higher education. Internationalisation has become a key indicator or benchmark against which universities are currently ranked in international league tables. The QS World University Rankings, in describing its methodology, states: ‘A highly international university acquires and confers a number of advantages. It demonstrates an ability to attract faculty and students from across the world, which in turn suggests that it possesses a strong international brand. It implies a highly global outlook: essentially for institutions operating in an internationalised higher education sector. It also provides both students and staff alike with a multinational environment, facilitating exchange of best practices and beliefs. In doing so, it provides students with international sympathies and global awareness: soft skills increasingly valuable to employers’ (QS World University Rankings, 2021). The Times Higher Education (THE) World University rankings take into account the proportion of international staff and students and international collaboration. Its methodology states, [t]he ability of a university to attract undergraduates, postgraduates and faculty from all over the planet is key to its success on the world stage. […] In the third international indicator, we calculate the proportion of a university’s total relevant publications that have at least one international co-author. (THE World University Rankings, 2021) 38

Language policies and English-medium higher education worldwide

Financial considerations also drive internationalisation and thus the increase in the provision of EMI programmes. Malaysia, one of the ten member states of ASEAN, is noteworthy for in-depth discussion because it has attempted to reduce the outward flow of Malaysian students studying overseas by positioning itself as an education hub to attract international fee-paying students to Malaysia and to encourage local students to continue their education at home. The tension between the use of English as a medium of instruction (MOI) and the use of the national language is keenly felt and hotly debated. As Ali (2013, p. 75) notes, this struggle between global and local imperatives is captured in the ‘perceived need for English for international ambitions through the internationalization of higher education and the need to preserve the local language’. The push to promote English as the MOI stemmed from the then Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir’s, desire to see Malaysia develop as an education hub. As a result, the 1996 Education Act allowed the establishment of private universities, which often used EMI. At the same time, Dr Mahathir planned to get the public universities to increase their EMI programmes. However, his move was blocked by Malay nationalists who fought for the retention of Malay as the medium of instruction in higher education. There then arose a significant distinction between graduates from the public universities and the private ones. Graduates from the public universities were primarily of Malay ethnic background and were graduating monolingual in Malay. In contrast, the graduates from the private universities tended to be of Chinese or Indian ethnicity and were graduating multilingual. Graduates from the public universities were thus disadvantaged in the job market. This led the Ministry of Education to decree, in 2005, that the public universities would have to adopt EMI for science and technology courses starting in 2006. The policy to adopt EMI in Malaysian public universities was thus not solely driven by the need to internationalise higher education, but was also motivated by competition from the private universities and the need to increase the employability of graduates in the local job market. During this debate over the choice of MOI in higher education, Malaysia emerged as a forerunner of transnational education whereby foreign Anglophone universities formed alliances with local tertiary institutions to establish degree programmes, where part of the curriculum was taught in Malaysia and part was taught in the home country of the foreign university. These programmes were often called 1 + 2, 2 + 1 or 2 + 2 degrees, referring to the number of years spent in Malaysia and overseas (Gill & Kirkpatrick, 2013). These degrees are all taught using EMI. Foreign universities also established branch campuses in Malaysia, again using EMI. This policy has been successful in retaining local students. There are now more students pursuing British qualifications in Malaysia than anywhere else, barring Britain itself (The Economist, 2018). Transnational education, involving the setting up of branch campuses of Anglophone universities using EMI in different parts of the world, is becoming increasingly common. Several such universities are now established in China, for example (Perrin, 2017). We now transition from an early adopter of transnational education to Japan, a country where the internationalisation of education has taken some time to be pursued. The Japanese Ministry of Education (MEXT) has, however, recently been promoting the internationalisation of higher education. An attempt to establish internationalisation was seen with the Global 30 Project, which ran between 2009 and 2014. However, the policy was not successful as it failed to attract the numbers of international students hoped for. Following the Global 30 Project, Japan initiated the current Top Global Universities Project (TGUP), scheduled to run until 2023. According to the Japanese Ministry of Education website, the aim of the policy is to carry out ‘comprehensive university reform and internationalisation’ (MEXT, 2021). The project has identified 13 ‘top type’ universities with the aim of being ranked in the world’s top 100 universities along with 24 ‘Global Traction Type’ universities which, according to the website, will ‘make pioneering trial runs based on their 39

Andy Kirkpatrick and John Knagg

performance thus far and that will lead the push of Japanese society towards globalisation’. MEXT provided funds to the universities in the TGUP with the express aim of implementing internationalisation by encouraging international students and staff through the establishment of EMI programmes. Universities had to apply for this funding by addressing specific criteria, including the need for all administrative staff involved in the programme to obtain a score in the Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC). As we later discuss when examining individual Japanese institutions, the implementation of this policy is encounterin significant challenges. The third Asian jurisdiction we will consider is Hong Kong, as it provides a cautionary example of the washback effect into secondary education that tertiary language education policy can exert. Hong Kong’s language policy is officially expressed as ‘biliteracy and trilingualism’. In this policy, the government wants its citizens to be trilingual (proficient in Cantonese, Mandarin, and English) and biliterate (proficient in Chinese and English), but gives no guidelines on how to achieve this. Primary schools are developing their own methods to achieve the biliterate-trilingual goal (Wang & Kirkpatrick, 2019). However, it is at the other end of the educational scale – the universities and tertiary institutions – that policies inimical to the biliterate-trilingual goal are operating. All of the private universities and tertiary institutions are English medium as are six of the eight government-funded universities. Even the Chinese University of Hong Kong, which was founded expressly to be a Chinese-medium university has, over the past decade, increased the number of courses taught through EMI in its desire to rise in the international university rankings (Li, 2013). The only government-funded university with a language policy that dovetails with the biliterate-trilingual policy is the Hong Kong Education University, which aims to graduate students who are functionally biliterate and trilingual. We will discuss the Education University’s policy in more detail when we consider policies at the institutional level later. The widespread adoption of EMI policies in almost all the tertiary sector in Hong Kong has had a profound washback effect upon the secondary sector. Parents have demanded more EMI courses, resulting in an increase in the number of classes in those schools designated as Chinese-Medium Instruction (CMI) being taught in English, and while classes taught in Chinese have correspondingly reduced (Kan, Lai, Kirkpatrick, & Law, 2011). These events serve to illustrate how a national language policy can be undermined if one of the educational sectors does not buy into it and if it is not supported by key stakeholders, in this case, parents. They also serve to illustrate how important it is for a language policy to be coherent and articulate across all sectors of education. In the case of Hong Kong, not only has the EMI policy of the universities undermined the government’s language policy, but it has also undermined the position of Chinese as a language of education and scholarship, with the universities favouring EMI and more classes being taught in English even in Chinese-medium secondary schools. China itself has launched several initiatives to increase the internationalisation of its universities. Consequently, this has led to an increase in the use of EMI in those universities, adopting projects not dissimilar to those in Japan, as discussed earlier, but on a much larger scale. In 1995, The Chinese Ministry of Education launched ‘Project 211’, which provided funding to 199 universities to increase their international profile. Four years later, Project 985 was initiated (named for its announcement in May 1998), which offered funding to 39 top universities with the aim of increasing their international profile and standing (Rose, McKinley, & Galloway, 2021). Since then, further funds have been distributed, with 33 more universities added to Project 985 in 2006. The current scheme is the Double First Class University project, which has identified 42 ‘Double First Class’ universities, along with 465 first-class disciplines with the aim of making all these world-class by 2050. In 2001, Zhu Rongji, then the Chinese Premier, expressed the wish that all classes at his alma mater (Tsinghua University’s School of Economics and Management) would in 40

Language policies and English-medium higher education worldwide

future be taught in English, as China needed to be able to exchange ideas with the rest of the world. Tsinghua is a Double First Class University – indeed it is often ranked as China’s best. In the ‘International Vision’ section of Tsinghua’s website, it is announced that, regarding its undergraduate courses, ‘Textbooks for all courses are internationally renowned. Over half the courses are taught in English. All students will be provided with exchange or visiting experiences with partnered universities overseas’. Therefore, Zhu Rongji’s wish would appear to have been, at least partly, met. Indonesia, the world’s fourth largest country in terms of population with 280 million people and one its most linguistically diverse, with more than 700 languages, announcedin 2016 that it would implement a bilingual programme (using the national language, Bahasa Indonesia, and English) within its universities. The policy aims to increase English fluency among staff and students so that they will ‘communicate in English and all academic references would use English terms’ (The Jakarta Post, 2015, cited in Fenton-Smith, Humphreys, & Walkinshaw, 2017, p. 4). A British Council report on EMI in higher education institutions in Indonesia (British Council, 2021) states that ‘[of] the 24 universities which responded to the Manager’s survey, 13 stated that EMI programmes were already in place while 11 said that they would be implemented in the future.’ Additionally, the report notes that ‘almost every conceivable subject area in the HE curriculum is being taught in English somewhere’. What lessons can be drawn from these national-level examples? First, a national policy needs clear articulation at all levels of education. As we saw with Hong Kong, the university sector policy of EMI has undermined the national policy of trilingual and biliterate education. Second, the private sector can influence the public sector significantly. As has been observed, ‘[t]o actually forsake the public school system that teaches in your own language for the private one that teaches in English is an increasingly common phenomenon’ (Wang, 2007, p. xiv). Most regional private universities and private schools offer EMI, which is their main drawing point. They often charge high fees, immediately making them accessible only those who can afford them, and usually compete amongst themselves. Public sector schools and universities may, in turn, adopt EMI to stem the flow of students to the private sector. Often, however, there are insufficient teachers who are proficient enough in English and/or who can teach content subjects through English in both sectors. There are not enough English teachers to teach it as a subject in primary level, let alone use EMI. At the same time, the students do not have enough proficiency in English to be able to learn content through it. Far from resulting in an equitable policy, EMI can therefore heighten the divide between the wealthy and the poor (Mahboob, 2020). The Constitutional Court of Indonesia ruled so-called ‘International Standard Schools’ which were EMI and fee-paying unconstitutional for precisely this reason (Kirkpatrick, 2015). Nevertheless, as noted earlier, the government has recently encouraged Indonesian universities to teach bilingually (in Bahasa Indonesia and English) (Dewi, 2017). The EMI classes are called ‘international’ and the Bahasa-medium ones are called ‘regular’. This promotion of EMI would appear both to undermine the status of Bahasa Indonesia as a language of education and to favour the wealthy who have regular access to English. It will therefore be interesting to see if the Constitutional Court will become involved. In any event, the legal considerations are essential for anyone planning to implement EMI policies. Adoption of EMI at the national level can weaken the position of the local language as a language of education and scholarship throughout the education system, as ‘[a] very effective way of killing a language is to deny it any place in the education system’ (Coleman, 2010, p. 17). In the case of Hong Kong and China, for example, the promotion of EMI is eroding the role of Chinese as a language of scholarship. University staff often need evidence of English language publication for promotions, which carries a greater financial and prestige rewards than publishing in Chinese. In short, any Minister planning to adopt EMI should be able to answer the following question 41

Andy Kirkpatrick and John Knagg

(paraphrased from Macaro, 2018, p. 290): Why should the country/institution decide to change its educational system from one in which its students are learning academic subjects through the home language to one where they are learning it through the medium of a second language? We now move on to discuss EMI at the institutional level.

The institutional level It is too simplistic to characterise EMI decision-making in a university as taking place at a single level. Certainly, different stakeholders within a university, such as the Rector, the Head of the Chemistry Department, and the teachers, will have different agendas, problems, and decisions to make. The Principal/Rector might be considered as a policy-maker, with some of the same interests aligned with national policy-makers though focussed on the wider interests of the university at heart rather than the nation. The Rector is unlikely to have day-to-day contact with individual EMI programmes or teachers. Meanwhile the classroom teacher is ranked at a different level, addressed below. This institutional level is therefore characterised typically by what we can call programme managers responsible for the management of one or more courses, programmes, and degrees within a department or faculty. They are responsible for establishing systems that will satisfy students, teachers, and other stakeholders. A programme manager may face issues such as the following: • • • • • •

Conflict between perceived goals of programme between students and teachers; Conflicting ideas of correct methodology concerning English use; Lack of language and development support for students and teachers; Need to retain student satisfaction via learning outcomes; Pressure to attract/admit increasing number of students in inclusive fashion; Scarcity of willing EMI-competent teachers.

These issues lead to the need for decisions including those in our decision checklists below. In our discussion at the institutional level, we will compare one institution that has developed a language policy around EMI in consultation with key stakeholders with others where no such consultation has taken place. We feel the latter type is more typical. As noted earlier, the Hong Kong Education University has developed a language policy that dovetails with the government’s biliterate and trilingual policy. As the way this policy was developed might serve as a guide to others who are planning to develop an institutional language policy, we shall briefly recount the steps involved. The first point to stress is that the policy took three years to develop as key stakeholders, including academic staff, management, and administrative staff and students, were all consulted. A Language Policy Committee was established with representatives from the three groups of stakeholders. It was agreed that the policy should aim at developing functional trilingualism in its students. The aim, for example, with regard to English, was that students should develop functional proficiency in the language. ‘Native-speaker’ benchmarks were not used, although the Hong Kong government encourages graduating students to sit the International English Language Testing System [IELTS]. Regarding the choice of MOI, lecturers could choose Cantonese, Mandarin, or English, depending on the nature of the particular course. This allows a place for local languages. An important distinction was made between the MOI and classroom language (CL). As Xu (2014) recounts: The MOI, to be adhered to strictly in all undergraduate and postgraduate programmes, bears on the following: (a) the course outline, including synopsis, aims and objectives, main 42

Language policies and English-medium higher education worldwide

assigned readings, teaching and learning activities, and course intended learning outcomes; (b) formative assessment in writing, including major assignments and quizzes; and (c) summative assessment such as the final exam. Accordingly, all assessed activities of an EMI course should be in English, while those in a CMI course should be in Chinese. […] ‘Classroom language’ (CL) refers to the language of interaction between teacher and students and among students in the classroom (lectures, tutorials, labs and so on). While the CL of an EMI course is English by default, a CMI course may be conducted in Cantonese or Putonghua, subject to the teacher’s preference after considering all relevant factors, such as the students’ language backgrounds and abilities. (Xu, 2014, p. 218) Given that a key question often raised is whether an EMI course should or should not allow the use of languages other than English, we feel that the distinction made here between the MOI – which includes the more formal aspects of the course – and classroom language, is a useful one. At the Education University, lecturers and students may code-switch and use languages other than the one specified as the MOI when this is felt necessary or helpful to ensure students understand content. Rose, Curle, Aizawa, and Thompson (2020, p. 3) also report that, in China itself, while there has been a shift from bilingual models to an English-only policy in the delivery of content, Chinese is predominately used for interaction. There is not space here to discuss the Education University language policy in more detail (see Xu, 2014, for a full account) except to raise the question of the students’ evaluation of the courses and teaching. It became apparent that EMI classes were always graded below CMI classes. The assumption was that students, not being first language speakers of English, found these classes more difficult. Lecturers also commonly reported that they found EMI classes more stressful to deliver and far more time-consuming to prepare. It is vital, therefore, that any lecturer evaluation system takes this into account. All things being equal, lecturers should be rewarded for teaching in a language that is not their first, not penalised. To turn now to institutions in Japan, Davila (2022) has surveyed staff, both academic and administrative, who are involved in the implementation of EMI programmes at four universities in Japan, which belong to the TGUP mentioned earlier. Yet administrators from all four universities reported that MEXT had stopped or decreased promised funding after the first year of the project, leaving universities to find extra money in order to be able to implement their original plans. This has caused great anxiety and stress among the administrators. As one administrator reported: We are now, is struggling because we don’t have the money. We do have the pressure from the ministry of education we need to carry on with our promise so it is a stressful but this is a project so no choice we have to follow because we’re national university so we have to follow the minister (Ministry) of education it is as very strong institution. Other problems with the implementation of the policy were reported. With regard to the TOEIC requirement for administrative staff, the universities set benchmarks but these were not always observed. The communication of the policy to academic staff was also a cause for concern. Administrators noted that the procedures undertaken to achieve internationalisation should remain a task to be executed by the relevant administrative departments rather than the faculty members. Academic staff confirmed that the policy was not communicated directly to them and they certainly had no say in the development of the policy itself. 43

Andy Kirkpatrick and John Knagg

The English proficiency skills of the Japanese students were reported as being between low intermediate and upper intermediate (CEFR B1; IELTS 4.5-5; TOEFL paper test 470–510; TOEIC 405–600). The inadequate levels of English are the most commonly cited complaint voiced by EMI lecturers, not just in Japan but elsewhere (Galloway, 2020; Rose, McKinley, Xu, & Zhou, 2020). What comes across from this study of the implementation of EMI across four universities is that the policies were developed and imposed by the Ministry upon the universities concerned. The policies were not communicated to the relevant academic staff who were simply told to teach their courses in English. We earlier cautioned against the use of the terms ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’, and here we note how two apparently ‘top-down’ approaches were implemented in completely different ways. In the case of the Hong Kong Education University, the decision to develop a university language policy based on national language policy was taken by the senior administration but the process of developing it involved the key stakeholders, academic and administrative staff and students. In contrast, the Top Global Universities Project policy appears to have been developed by the Japanese Ministry of Education with no consultation with the universities concerned. So what are the learning points – many of which also impinge directly upon classroom practice – for best practice at institutional level? We would suggest the following: (i) stakeholder involvement, involving buy-in from the people who will be implementing the policy, so that they are actively involved this process; (ii) EMI teachers need both a high level of English proficiency and professional training in teaching content subjects through English; (iii) students need to have an agreed minimum level of English proficiency before being allowed to take EMI courses; (iv) EMI programmes should provide students with a clear choice of English support; (v) course evaluation protocols need to take into account the extra difficulties and preparation time required to teach EMI courses; (vi) EMI courses need to measure students’ learning of content (and where possible measure these against students’ learning of content in comparable L1 classes); (vii) EMI courses need to measure students’ English proficiency if it is assumed EMI courses will increase this; (viii) EMI teachers need to have the autonomy to decide when and how to use languages other than English in the classroom; (ix) EMI teachers need to take the responsibility of ensuring their students develop the language appropriate for their discipline; and (x) buy-in is needed from administrative staff who will need adequate English skills to deal with international students. English support is needed for administrative staff.

The classroom level The first thing to say is that, when there is no explicit policy from the university authorities, or if that policy does not reach the lecturer, then the only source of policy-making is the lecturer. Lecturers will be the only ones to attempt to manage their own and their students’ use of language. Yet it appears that this situation is often the case, as noted in the British Council report on Indonesia: It appears that EMI is being implemented in many HEIs without any explicit policy statement, any provision of training for staff or students, any systematic checks on quality, and even in some instances without the full knowledge of management. (British Council, 2021, p.12) We believe that instances of rigorously designed, implemented and quality assured EMI policies in universities around the world, such as the one in the Hong Kong Education University described earlier, are very much the exception rather than the rule. 44

Language policies and English-medium higher education worldwide

A well-qualified university lecturer is no doubt more than capable of designing and delivering an excellent EMI course. However, the clear implication of not following a departmental, faculty, university, or national policy is that students will not have the benefit of any form of standardisation in (for example) the amount or kind of languages used or accepted in speaking, listening, reading and writing activities, the language of assessment, the language levels of classmates, the efforts of the lecturer to support English language development or the allowances made by the lecturer for less than C2 level English. Lecturers may sometimes be able to set policies more usually set at a higher level, for example, specifying student language entrance requirements for courses – but usually they are not. The fact remains that in the absence of a clear institutional or departmental policy, the lecturer is the student’s only hope of a well-designed and satisfactory EMI experience. And such an experience is still possible, if lecturers take the students’ learning aims and their English language proficiency into account in their pedagogical approach to classroom interaction, guidance of independent learning, and assessment of learning outcomes. That requires lecturers who have an awareness of linguistic needs and problems as well as being subject experts and good teachers.

Conclusion In this chapter, we have considered EMI policies at supranational, national, institutional, and classroom levels and raised several questions that people involved at each level might find useful in helping shape the policies. These are listed in the Appendix, and we hope they will be a helpful reference point for those who are responsible for implementing EMI at the national and institutional levels. We have not been able to consider the roles of the teachers or students in detail here, although these are, of course, crucially important for the success of any policy. In short, both teachers and students need to have the necessary competencies to successfully deliver and learn from EMI programmes and to be convinced that an EMI course is more beneficial than one delivered in their first language(s). We conclude by reiterating general questions that we feel need to be considered in any decision to adopt EMI courses: (1) Is one aim of the EMI course to improve English proficiency? If so, how do we know that EMI courses develop the English proficiency of students? (2) Do we know that EMI courses impart content knowledge as least as well as courses taught in the students’ own first language? (3) Will EMI programmes add to the division between students from privileged backgrounds and those from poorer disadvantaged backgrounds or will they help those from poorer backgrounds improve their life chances? (4) Will EMI programmes undermine the role and status of local languages as languages of education and scholarship? If so, what steps can be taken to ensure that local languages remain as important languages of education and scholarship?

References Ali, N. L. (2013). A changing paradigm in language planning: English-medium instruction policy at the tertiary level in Malaysia. Current Issues in Language Planning, 14, 73–92. Braun, A., Maguire, M., & Ball, S. J. (2010). Policy enactments in the UK secondary school: Examining policy, practice and school positioning. Journal of Education Policy, 25, 547–560. British Council. (2021). The state of English as a medium of instruction (EMI) in higher education institutions in Indonesia. British Council. Coleman, H. (2010). Teaching and learning in Pakistan: The role of language in education. The British Council. Coleman, J. A. (2006). English-medium teaching in European higher education. Language Teaching, 39, 1–14.

45

Andy Kirkpatrick and John Knagg Davila, G. (2022). Japanese school administrators’ experience of the implementation of the Top Global University Project language policy. Social Sciences. doi: 10.1007/s43545-022-00318 Dewi, A. (2017). English as a medium of instruction in Indonesian higher education: A study of lecturers’ perceptions. In B. Fenton-Smith, P. Humphreys, & I. Walkinshaw (Eds.), English medium instruction in higher education in Asia-Pacific: From policy to pedagogy (pp. 241–258). Springer. Doiz, A, Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2013). Future challenges for English-medium instruction at the tertiary level. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabster, & J. M. Sierra (Eds.), English-medium instruction at universities: Global challenges (pp. 213–221). Multilingual Matters. Fenton-Smith, B., Humphreys, P., & Walkinshaw, I. (Eds.). (2017). English medium instruction in higher education in Asia-Pacific: From policy to pedagogy. Springer. Galloway, N. (Ed.). (2020). English in higher education: English-medium Part 1: Literature review. The British Council. Gill, S. K., & Kirkpatrick, A. (2013). English in Asian and European higher education. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431. wbeal0383.pub2 Haberland, H. (2011). Local languages as the languages of internationalisation: Internationalisation and language choice. Intercultural Education Review, 9, 37–47. Hultgren, A. K. (2015). English as an international language of science and its effect on Nordic terminology: The view of scientists. In A. Linn, N. Bermel, & G. Ferguson (Eds.), Attitudes towards English in Europe: Language and social life (pp. 139–164). Mouton de Gruyter. Kan, V., Lai, K. C., Kirkpatrick, A., & Law, A. (2011). Fine-tuning Hong Kong’s medium of instruction policy. Strategic Planning Office & Research Centre into Language Education and Acquisition in Multilingual Societies, The Hong Kong Institute of Education. Kirkpatrick, A. (2011). English as a medium of instruction in Asian education (from primary to tertiary): Implications for local languages and local scholarship. Applied Linguistics Review, 2, 99–119. Kirkpatrick, A. (2015). The future of English in Asia. In M. O’Sullivan, D. Huddart, & C. Lee (Eds.), The future of English in Asia (pp. 3–19). Routledge. Kirkpatrick, A. (2020). Is English an Asian language? Cambridge University Press. Lazaro, D. C., & Medalla, E. M. (2004). English as the language of trade, finance and technology in APEC: An East Asia perspective. Philippine Journal of Development, 58, 277–300. Li, D. C. S. (2013). Linguistic hegemony or linguistic capital? In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster, & J. M. Sierra (Eds.), English-medium instruction at universities: Global challenges (pp. 65–83). Multilingual Matters. Macaro, E. (2018). English medium instruction. Oxford University Press. Macaro, E., Hultgren, A., Kirkpatrick, A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2017). English medium instruction: Global views and countries in focus. Language Teaching, 52, 231–248. Mahboob, A. (2020). Has English medium instruction failed in Pakistan? In R. Giri, A. Sharma, & J. D’Angelo (Eds.), Functional variation in English: Theoretical considerations and practical challenges (pp. 261–276). Springer. MEXT. (2021). Top Global University Project. Retrieved from https://www.mext.go.jp/en/policy/education/ highered/title02/detail02/sdetail02/1395420.htm Perrin, S. (2017). Language policy and transnational education (TNE) institutions: What role for English. In B. Fenton-Smith, P. Humphreys, & I. Walkinshaw (Eds.), English medium instruction in higher education in Asia-Pacific: From policy to pedagogy (pp. 153–172). Springer. Phillipson, R. (2009). English in higher education, panacea or pandemic? In P. Harder (Ed.), English in Denmark: Language policy, internationalization and university teaching (pp. 2–57). Museum Tusculanum Press and the University of Copenhagen. Preisler, B. (2009). Complementary languages: The national language and English as working languages in European universities. In P. Harder (Ed.), English in Denmark: Language policy, internationalization and university teaching (pp. 10–28). Museum Tusculanum Press and the University of Copenhagen. QS World University Rankings. (2021). Methodology. Retrieved from https://www.topuniversities.com/ qs-world-university-rankings/methodology Rigg, P. (2013). English as the lingua franca of higher education? University World News. Retrieved from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=201311211522458650. Rose, H., Curle, S., Aizawa, I., & Thompson, G. (2020). What drives success in English medium taught courses? The interplay between language proficiency, academic skills and motivation. Studies in Higher Education, 45, 2149–2161.

46

Language policies and English-medium higher education worldwide Rose, H., McKinley, J., & Galloway, N. (2021). Global Englishes and language teaching: A review of pedagogical research. Language Teaching, 54, 157–189. Rose, H., McKinley, J., Xu, X., & Zhou, S. H. (2020). Investigating policy and implementation of Englishmedium instruction in higher education institutions in China. The British Council. Spolsky, B. (2018). Language policy: From planning to management. In C. S. K. Chua (Ed.), Un(intended) language planning in a globalizing world: Multiple levels of players at work (pp. 301–306). De Gruyter. The Economist. (2018, August 25). Dreaming of new spires. THE World University Rankings. (2021). Methodology. Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation. com/world-university-rankings/world-university-rankings-2021-methodology Wachter, B., & Maiworm, F. (2014). English-taught programmes in European higher education: The state of play. Lemmens. Wang, G. (2007). Keynote address. In H. G. Lee & L. Suryadinata (Eds.), Language nation and development (pp. ix–xvii). Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Wang, L., & Kirkpatrick, A. (2019). Trilingual education in Hong Kong primary schools. Springer. Wilkinson, R. (2018). Quality, internationalisation and English medium instruction: A Dutch perspective on higher education. Bulletin Vals-Aslan, 107, 7–25. Xu, Z. (2014). Functional English and Chinese as medium of instruction (MOI) in a multilingual educational context: A case study of two courses in a higher institution in Hong Kong. In K. Dunworth & G. Zhang (Eds.), Critical perspectives in language education (pp. 209–228). Springer.

Appendix We list here what we see as a basic checklist of the fundamental decision areas and principles to be applied in EMI contexts in HE by decision makers at different levels. Every decision maker will need to consider the process of consultation leading to a policy and the communication of that policy to those responsible for implementing it.

National authority What research has been done in this country and internationally on the prevalence and the success of EMI? What extra research is needed to understand the situation? What benefits might EMI bring to the country? What are the risks of EMI if not implemented well? Is EMI legal? Should there be any restrictions on which institutions can have EMI programmes and courses? In which circumstances and to which students? What effect will policies related to HE have on secondary school language use and learning? What effects will EMI have on ability, including professional ability, in national and local languages, with reference to employability in-country. To what extent should HEIs attract international students (who might not speak the national language)? What English teaching provision (which might include EMI) or English proficiency requirement should exist in HEIs? What quality assurance mechanisms related to EMI should or must exist in HEIs? What extra resources are available to institutions and teachers to support EMI? To what extent are all these questions decentralised to HEIs?

University authority How will this university implement national policy, instructions, or guidance (if they exist)? What are the benefits and risks of EMI to this university? 47

Andy Kirkpatrick and John Knagg

What is the process within the university for introducing EMI courses? What is the price of the courses? What student entry regulations will there be regarding language proficiency and academic achievement for different groups of students, both local and international? What reporting, evaluation and quality assurance mechanisms will there be? What resources are available to managers and teachers to support learning and teaching? What rights will students have to use different languages in different situations? To what extent are all the above questions and decisions delegated to different parts of the university? How will the university react if policy is not followed? How will I reach my decisions, and how communicate them?

Programme leaders How will I interpret national and university rules and guidance on EMI? What are the subject and language learning outcomes/goals of each course? How will I ensure that graduates have the national or local language abilities required for the local labour market? What are the language and academic requirements for student admission? What are the requirements for teachers to teach on EMI courses? Which type of individual will I recruit/assign? What will course content be? What teaching methodology should be used? The use of which languages is mandated, encouraged, permitted, prohibited? What varieties of English are acceptable? Is the use of English as a lingua franca acknowledged? How will students be assessed on their learning? What quality assurance procedures will be implemented? How will teachers be assessed on their teaching? What English language support will there be for students? What support in English competence, pedagogy and workload is available for EMI teachers? How will I reach my decisions, and how communicate them?

Classroom teacher To what extent will I use English with my students, and manage their use of English? Will I attempt to improve the English proficiency of my students? What pedagogical approaches will I use? What adjustment of expectations of content learning will I make for students with limited English? How will I ensure my students learn relevant disciplinary language? What is my approach to my own professional development?

48

4 LECTURERS’ PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR ENGLISHMEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION Julie Dearden and Ben Beaumont Introduction Analyses of contexts where English is used to teach an academic subject in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) have, for some researchers, remained at the level of discussions over nomenclature and definition: Should we be calling this academic phenomenon EMI, EME, or ETP? Should the original 2015 definition of English-medium instruction (EMI) be modified (Dearden, 2015)? While such discussions among linguists help advance our conceptualisation of EMI, concentrating on such issues places EMI and its implications in a theoretical context and shifts the focus from how teachers of all subjects are coping with EMI teaching and learning. In addition to considering the theoretical conceptualisations of EMI, we need to address the day-to-day reality of university lecturers faced with the daunting challenge of teaching their academic subjects, such as Engineering, Business or Science, through a ‘foreign’ language to a lecture hall of home and international students, where English is often a ‘foreign’ language for both the lecturer and many of the students. This chapter outlines some key characteristics of teaching at HEIs and suggest why lecturers working in EMI contexts require a further level of pedagogical knowledge and understanding above and beyond other HEI teaching contexts. We then use this basis, combined with our practical experience of training EMI lecturers in universities around the world, to offer some ‘tips’ that can help lecturers teaching in an EMI context. Finally, we will recommend ways of supporting lecturers with their ongoing EMI professional development. While many of the suggestions we give in this chapter may not be new, they are often missing from EMI professional development courses. The contents of this chapter are taken from our work with higher education (HE) practitioners around the world and our work developing the MAST (Management, Admissions, Student outcomes, Teaching and learning) framework for EMI (Dearden & Spain, 2017). These suggestions have been demonstrated to be effective at the EMI universities with which we have worked.

The value of teaching at universities Despite ‘the lecture’ being a ubiquitous element of higher education, it seems that support to help lecturers and students make the most of this key site of learning is generally lacking. Teaching often takes second, or even third or fourth, place to research output in lecturers’ and institutional 49

DOI: 10.4324/9781003011644-5

Julie Dearden and Ben Beaumont

priorities (Fairweather, 2005). As Higher Education Institutions depend heavily on research funding, and an academic’s profile is often judged by their publishing record rather than their teaching responsibilities (Sivertsvik, 2019), it is easy to understand why teaching may not be a priority. The trade-off between research and teaching varies from one institution to another, and how this tradeoff is operationalised will partly depend on how a country’s HE sector is funded (Beath, PoyagoTheotoky, & Ulph, 2012). While it may be unrealistic for us to suggest national changes to funding mechanisms, it is realistic to suggest that professional development in how to teach through EMI at university level is important in order to provide lecturers with some foundational pedagogic measures which they can easily and rapidly put into place. We can start by considering a definition of EMI that is not an academic definition but rather a definition stemming from our work with the British Council on the Taiwan Ministry of Education’s Bilingual Learning Program for College and University Students project (2021–2030). The Ministry’s aim was to develop clear key performance indicators (KPIs) to support the growth and enhancement of EMI provision in Taiwan. Meeting with HEIs, it became clear that teachers wanted a practical definition of what EMI looks like when operationalised in a university course. In this definition (Dearden & Spain, 2021), developed for this particular context, English courses in which the learning is focussed on language rather than subject content are not considered as EMI courses. However, the importance of ESL, EAP, or ESP courses is emphasised, and the contribution of English teachers is considered essential in the provision and enhancement of EMI courses. The definition protects the ‘English’ part of EMI to ensure that students who enrol in an EMI class receive, and are equipped, with the English they need to become bilingual professionals, while also encouraging multilingualism in an EMI class: For EMI courses, the delivery of content, whole-class interaction, the learning materials, and the demonstration and assessment of learning outcomes (such as oral presentation, assignments, or tests) should be in English. Other languages may be used in a principled and limited way in specific circumstances, for example, student-to-student and teacher-tostudent interaction during pair work and group work may sometimes take place in languages other than English to aid mutual comprehension and idea generation. However, students should be asked to present their discussion outcomes in English and lecturers should ensure that at least 70% of class communication takes place in English. (Dearden & Spain, 2021, p. 5)

Traditional teaching at university In our professional development courses, we have found that advancing knowledge through research is often the primary aim of the acedemics, rather than prioritising the learning of their students. Many academics become lecturers as part of their professional academic journey, rather than as an explicit choice to lecture as a vocation. It is worth stating that this is different from the professional journey of other educational professionals. Primary and secondary teachers usually choose to teach as a vocation, wheras for academics, teaching is one aspect of their professional journey. This fundamental difference highlights what we believe is a foundational issue in the traditional role of lecturing: Academics are generally thoroughly trained in their primary task of research, but receive little to no explicit training in how to lecture. Typically, academics begin lecturing while completing their doctoral studies, and they tend to follow an ‘apprenticeship of observation’. They mimic their own lecturers, often without being exposed to other style of lecturing which, without any alternative model, they are then destined to repeat (Lortie, 1975). Academics 50

Lecturers’ professional development for EMI in higher education

have been successful students and this model of learning worked well for them. And while different subject areas have different approaches to lecturing, the style of delivery of a lecture has not changed much over the years and has not kept up with research into how we learn. Indeed, despite innovations in approaches and techniques in teaching and learning, many lecturers still meet Goffman’s description of a form of one-sided performance, an institutionalised ‘extended holding of the floor in which one speaker imparts his views on a subject’ (1981, p. 165). On a note of optimism, there are increasing efforts to give academics an alternative to an apprenticeship of observation and an increasing number of initial and ongoing teacher development courses for lecturers (Trowler & Bamber, 2005). However, these courses are far from being a requirement or comprehensive in coverage in HEIs. While it would be unthinkable for teachers to enter a school classroom without training and a mentor to support them, the reality is that in universities around the world, academics are forced to begin their role as a lecturer often with little more than their wits and experience from the students’ side of the lectern to guide them. Even before the global pandemic of 2020–2021, we recognised the need to change the traditional, monodirectional way of lecturing to keep up with our understanding of how students learn and to address the ever-changing needs of our students. This change has, to some extent, been implemented during the pandemic as courses shifted to online formats. The value of the traditional face-to-face lecture, where students gather in a hall to receive information, has been challenged. Information transfer is no longer sufficient to satisfy today’s learners who can easily access information on the Internet. The lecturer must bring added value to the lecture room; their role must evolve from being a source of information to being a specialist resource capable of stimulating and guiding deep thinking and exploration. A key aspect of acheving this transformation is possessing expertise in student-centred, interactive teaching.

The need for training As suggested earlier, there is an increasing realisation that universities need to provide training for their academics in teaching, and this holds true for lecturers working in their first language as well as for those working in an EMI environment (Beaumont, 2019; Dafouz, 2018). As we will elaborate, creating a successful EMI learning environment requires the deployment of a range of pedagogic skills that go beyond those required for lecturing in one’s native language, and so a more structured and rigorous approach to the training of EMI lecturers is needed (Dearden, 2018; Halbach, Lázaro Lafuente, & Pérez Guerra, 2013; O’Dowd, 2018). Whether this is an initial formal course or the use of structured, ongoing professional development, there must be a focus on a range of pedagogical areas over and above an ability to use English proficiently. EMI training is certainly more than just English language training. Given the demands of teaching in EMI at HE level, it is understandable that lecturers lack confidence and often believe that it is their language proficiency which is the major obstacle to effective EMI teaching and learning. There is extensve discussion in the research literature and within universities regarding the necessary level of English proficiency for lecturing through EMI. While different standards apply in different countries, and even in different institutions, there is a consensus that a threshold CEFR B2 level and preferably a C1 level is necessary to be successful (Martinez, Fogaça, & de Figueiredo, 2019). EMI lecturers ideally need to be proficient in various types of English: They need to master General Academic English (Coxhead, 2000), Subject-Specific English and Classroom Management English. Furthermore, they must possess sufficient language skills necessary to teach complex concepts and, in addition, ensure that their students understand these concepts (Dearden, 2018). However, we believe that it is language awareness rather than language 51

Julie Dearden and Ben Beaumont

proficiency that is key to successful EMI teaching. Having a level of language slightly lower than a C1 level does not exclude lecturers from delivering effective, interactive lectures. At Oxford EMI, we have trained lecturers with a B2 level of English who have been able to compensate for their lack of English language proficiency by being aware of the students’ perspective and the language issues that can exist in an EMI lecture. By recognising the role that language plays in the EMI lecture hall, adapting their input to the needs of their students and adopting an interactive pedagogy, lecturers can create a student-centred environment that promotes student involvement and independent learning. This contrasts starkly with a traditional view that the lecturer is the source of all knowledge (and language input). Instead, the lecturer becomes a facilitator who enables and guides learning while encouraging critical interaction between students and the learning content.

More than language training In a joint research study of professional development for university lecturers in a high-ranking university in China (Lu & Dearden, 2021), we discovered that prior to our training course, as many as 88% of the academics surveyed (n = 118) rated their own English language skills as good to excellent, and 71% had experience in native English-speaking countries. The group comprised 69% experienced teachers over the age of 40, with 51% of teachers having over 10 years teaching experience. Additionally, 31% of course participants below 30 years of age self-evaluated their English proficiency as ‘excellent’. So, English proficiency was not a problem. However, despite their excellent English proficiency, 56% of teachers surveyed before the training course believed that the major difficulty associated with teaching through EMI was linked to their English proficiency and that of their students. Over half the teachers cited ‘explaining concepts in English’ and ‘a low level of communication in class’ as major challenges. Despite being highly proficient in English, these lecturers still believed that their EMI teaching problems stemmed from their own and students’ lack of language proficiency, rather than realising that as EMI lecturers, they needed additional pedagogical skills to teach their subject effectively. Importantly, in the postcourse feedback, over 90% lecturers stated that the biggest improvement in their teaching came from having learnt new teaching techniques. The second most important improvement that 81% teachers found was the focus on greater student participation.

The current professional development focus on English proficiency Research shows that training courses for EMI professional development are often inadequate with many courses tending to focus on the language proficiency of the lecturers (Macaro & Han, 2020). In the research literature, Costa (2015) provides an often-cited overview of EMI training for HE in Europe and listed language training courses in Germany, Finland, and Croatia, and EMI courses in the Netherlands based on content and language integrated learning (CLIL) methodology, with an emphasis on language proficiency. In another research study of 70 European universities, O’Dowd (2018) found that 68% universities provided training for EMI lecturers on their own campus, while 30% provided no training at all. More importantly, of the courses which were provided, 77% courses focussed on developing lecturers’ language skills, confirming a commonly-held belief that language proficiency is sufficient to teach in EMI (Dafouz, Núñez, Sancho, & Foran, 2007; Dearden, 2015). Lasagabaster (2018) also found that many academics were trained in English language skills but they did not have explicit training in the pedagogy and methodology needed

52

Lecturers’ professional development for EMI in higher education

to teach in an international environment. While teacher and student language proficiency is undoubtedly essential for teaching and learning through EMI, language proficiency alone is far from sufficient to create an effective learning environment.

A toolkit of tips We are aware, based on EMI research, that teaching and learning through EMI necessitates a shift in pedagogy and the enhancement of lecturers’ skills (Beaumont, 2019; Chapple, 2015; Dearden, 2018; Guarda & Helm, 2017). However, there is a notable lack of practical guidance for lecturers and professional development courses on how to implement these changes. In addition to focussing on language proficiency, it is imperative to provide university lecturers with an understanding of the issues involved in an EMI classroom. It is essential to remember that EMI lecturers are not linguists, so we need to convey the need for language awareness. This includes the use of language for content scaffolding to support students’ understanding and participation, promoting interactive learning, and facilitating the integration of all students into the class and the academic community. We now present a ‘super seven’ toolkit of tips for EMI lecturers to help maximise opportunities for learning in an EMI lecture. We have selected these seven tips as they represent pedagogical areas that lecturers can develop by reflecting on their practice, either with the benefit of an experienced teacher educator or through their own guided self-reflection. To illustrate each tip, we will begin with comments extracted from an EMI lecturer’s teaching reflection log, to frame the issues experienced when moving into an EMI context. This log belongs to an academic, referred to as Monique, who teaches at a prestigious Business School in France. Monique had only recently started lecturing in an EMI context and, like many lecturers, lacked formal teacher training and found themselves trying to find a ‘best way’ to teach. Monique’s reflective log describes her experiences in adapting her teaching to meet students’ EMI learning needs following a course run by Oxford EMI. Our seven toolkit tips are as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Plan and structure sessions; Signpost content and learning; Be language aware; Use resources to facilitate learning; Create interactive sessions; Make students think; Involve lecturers in their own professional development.

Toolkit tip 1: Plan and structure sessions The entire activity was poorly calibrated and misunderstood by the students. For next year, it is necessary to better explain the interest of the activity. We place this tip first as it informs each successive tip and serves as a foundational element of successful lecturing. While it may appear obvious that lecturers should plan their lectures, we have found that planning and structuring the lecture is not a priority for many lecturers. In an EMI lecture, language poses an additional obstacle to both lecturer and student, and so we need to plan both the structure and the language used in the lecture. For many academics new to lecturing, it is an early lesson that spoken and written discourse are very different and the lecturer must learn

53

Julie Dearden and Ben Beaumont

how to incorporate discourse features that facilitate processing and comprehension of the lecture and which also enhance its value. Clear organisation and a logical progression of points become more important for student understanding when students have English as an additional language. Their ability to process spoken texts relies heavily on being able to use top-down and bottom-up processing as well as their ability to use both ‘global’ and ‘local coherence strategies’ (van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983). A fundamental action in building global coherence strategies and enabling top-down processing is to establish a clear lecture structure and to communicate this to students. As Monique’s comments illustrate, activities can fail if students are unaware of about their purose. Bligh (2000) suggests that there are two common structures that lecturers can employ when preparing their sessions: ‘hierarchic’, where information is grouped under unifying headings, and ‘chaining’, involving a simple sequence of events to be explained. Different content lends itself to different approaches, but a unifying factor is to make the students aware of how the lecture is structured at the start of the session. We can use short, bullet-pointed statements to demonstrate session structure and key learning points. It is also beneficial to revisit this structure at the end of a session to recap what has been covered, helping students plan and organise their own learning. Within our plans, we can also build opportunities to summarise and take stock of what has been learnt, checking understanding regularly at the end of each section and at the end of the session. Summarising content, checking comprehension, and linking content to previous or future learning clearly signals key learning and informs students where they are in terms of progression of learning within the session and the course. As we can observe, it is necessary to plan session content to maximise opportunities for learning. The first step is to ensure that the session content is organised in a way that recognises the spoken nature of the discourse type. The next step, which is especially important in EMI contexts, is to ensure that the language and techniques used are appropriate for both the students and the lecturer. Using overly complex language can cause a strain on understanding, creating a cognitive overload. Using comprehensible language does not imply simplifying the complex content and concepts, however. Being ‘language aware’ [Toolkit tip 3], means viewing the lecture through the eyes of a student and then using language that is appropriate for students’ understanding. The following five toolkit tips provide additional examples of how lecturers can plan to successfully support student learning in the lecture room. The seventh step suggests how lecturers can take agency of their own ongoing development with these points.

Toolkit tip 2: Signpost content and learning Take time to explain the objective of the activity. Here, we don’t want to focus on the content but on the way to present it… What do they think they will have to do? What is expected? List on the board their answers. Then, make them choose the subject and work. Signalling content during a session is just as important as letting students know what will be covered in a session. By using familiar discourse markers to link session content to the points given at the start of a session (for example, ‘This brings us to the second stage of the lecture: XYZ…’), a lecturer will be able to guide students through session content. Giving the structure helps students follow content and provides them with the necessary information about when they need to increase their focus (Lynch, 1994; Thompson, 2003). Due to the ephemeral nature of spoken discourse, it is important to signal what is coming up so that students can plan when to pay increased attention to content relevant to their needs, rather than trying to remember what has just been said and focus on what they might have missed. 54

Lecturers’ professional development for EMI in higher education

Lecturers can also utilise phonological features to indicate a progression of points or a change in topic. ‘Phonological paragraphing’ includes using a higher pitch and slightly louder speech at the start of a ‘paragraph’ and reduced speed and a lower pitch at the end (Thompson, 2003). It also includes the use of pausing and stress, which can assist students in focussing on key session content. Pausing before and after a new subject-specific word, for example, can aid them in identifying that word within a stream of speech. These features help EMI students decode streams of connected speech and reduce the difficulty of cognitive processing (Hansen & Jenson, 1994). Practically, this entails lecturers planning their sessions to include discourse markers that signal different stages of their lecture. It also involves practising stress, speed, and pauses in their lecture delivery.

Toolkit tip 3: Be language aware This activity [One student per group makes a summary to the class of what they have read] was very nice because students realized how difficult it is to be understood: either they use too complicated vocabulary, they speak too fast or give non-clear explanations. So, after each recap, I ask the class if they have understood their classmate and if not, the student tries to rephrase or repeat the most important information. In Monique’s comments, the primary focus is not on her own language or students’ language accuracy but on how effectively concepts have been communicated in the interaction. This emphasis on language awareness, encompassing both lecturer and students, implies some changes in mindset and role of the lecturer. When the lecturer considers students as ‘users of English’ rather than ‘learners of English’, it changes their perspective on student output, ‘where the main consideration is not formal correctness but functional effectiveness’ (Hülmbauer, Böhringer, & Seidlhofer, 2008, p. 28). This mindset also gives a clear direction for a lecturer, helping them appreciate that they are not language teachers, but rather instructors who recognise the role that language plays in interaction, serving as the vehicle that carries the ‘message’, or the subject content of the lecture. By emphasising functional effectiveness, we can remove pressure and expectations around ‘standard’ pronunciation, lexical use, and grammatical form, and allocate more time to what it is that students need to learn, that is, the objectives of a session. This perspective can also reshape views of who makes a good EMI lecturer: Lecturers for whom English as an additional language are well-equipped to be successful EMI teachers as they have firsthand experience of the difficulties in understanding academic content in an additional language. While a focus on a lecturer’s language proficiency places the lecturer at the centre of language concerns, being language aware places the EMI lecturer as just one part of the interaction, recognising ‘the hearer’ as part of the interaction. While it is true that EMI lecturers who teach Science, Maths, and Economics are not English language teachers, we can argue that all teachers are language teachers: When a Science academic teaches their students to speak and write like scientists, they are training them into the academic discourse of their specialised academic community. It would be disconcerting for that same academic if their students started expressing themselves like poets or literary critics (Dearden, 2018). Language is inextricably linked with learning and so we would encourage lecturers to be aware of their ‘disciplinary language’ (Airey, 2011), the lexis and ways of discourse peculiar to their particular subject area (Coxhead, 2000). Importantly, lecturers need to know how to modify their input, speech and slides, and how to mediate any texts making them appropriate for their students’ comprehension level. 55

Julie Dearden and Ben Beaumont

This entails making small changes to actions that lecturers commonly engage in, for example, with vocabulary. A subject-specific word may have different meanings in an academic context to a general English context or the meaning may differ in different academic subjects (Dearden, 2018). Therefore, in addition to explaining the meaning of disciplinary language, a lecturer might give examples of how it is used in spoken and written discourse, its pronunciation, collocation, and colligation. These examples could be made available to students in supporting documents they can reference outside of a lecture. These measures will help make the lecture theatre a place free from constraints of what is perceived to be linguistically ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ and instead, a space for subject learning, aligned with the subject-specific objectives of the session and course overall. To achieve this, lecturers need much more information about their students. They need to know the student’s English proficiency level and the level of content knowledge of students in their class. Lecturers also need to be familiar with available resources and support channels for students who require language assistance.

Toolkit tip 4: Use resources to facilitate learning Students can read the PPT at home if they want more information. This part is mainly descriptive. There is a need to rethink this part because it is useless to deliver this kind of content in class. Maybe prepare a document or a video that students should read/watch before the class? Then create an activity to check that they know how to use the different tools? Monique’s comments demonstrate her understanding that the EMI lecture room should extend beyond mere information transfer; it should not be a passive environment where students are simply exposed to descriptive content. If one of our objects is for students to improve their English and another is for them to understand the lecture, then we should utilise the opportunity to develop language and content learning through participation [Tip 5]. Whether or not it is a ‘flipped’ session, where students build foundational knowledge before a session for it to then be applied and analysed interactively within the session, the effective use of resources to interactively engage EMI students will significantly contribute to their understanding. Approaching different types of resources from a hierarchical point of view, we might consider how an HEI’s Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) can be seen as a controlling element. A VLE serves as a platform for course administration, uploading assignments, and as a repository for course resources, including lecture slides that can be accessed after a session. When viewing content curation through the lens of an EMI student, the advantages of the following ideas become apparent. The lecturer can make lecture slides available before a session to enable students to preview content and familiarise themselves with key terminology necessary for understanding and interaction in a session. By removing the barrier of unknown language, we can reduce the cognitive load of processing in an additional language, making it more likely for students to understand and interact in the session, building more opportunities for learning. Another effective approach is to record lectures, which allows students to revisit sections they may not have initially understood, giving them extra time to process the content and language, as well as giving opportunities to make links to other learning. By directing students to lecture recordings, lecturers can overcome one of the biggest problems of oral delivery: its ephemeral nature, which forces a once-only, linear form of reception. Video recordings eliminate the issue of ephemerality and allow students to access the content whenever they need it. Lecturers can then supplement reading lists with video playlists from video curation platforms such as YouTube or Youku. A vast array of online content, including Podcasts from prestigious universities, often comes with sub-titles, supporting comprehension. In addition to uploading content to a VLE, 56

Lecturers’ professional development for EMI in higher education

lecturers can augment written descriptions in session slides with graphics, charts, and diagrams that visually represent content in addition to describing it. Glossaries of subject-specific language also benefit from images and examples to illustrate the meaning and usage of the language. This adds a valuable layer of language support for students who may otherwise be struggling with the challenges of an EMI environment.

Toolkit tip 5: Create interactive sessions This activity [A mock debate where students present their work and other students challenge them, followed by a vote to choose their favourite ‘candidate’] works very well. Students are involved and ask relevant questions to challenge the candidates. They like the scenario and, step-by-step, stop to focus on their notes to interact. They know that they could ask to their classmates if they need vocabulary (especially James, who has English as a first language), so they feel confident. In an EMI lecture that encompasses both domestic and international students, each with a multitude of languages present, interaction becomes very important. Student participation, which encompasses asking questions to the lecturer, engaging in discussions among students, and actively engaging with the course materials is vital, serving several important functions. On a human level, interaction helps to integrate students from different linguistic and academic backgrounds into the class and into the academic community. In addition, an interactive dynamic provides all students with the opportunity to speak in the class, not only to practise and improve their own English of the subject being taught, perhaps with the help of ‘James’ the international student, but also to discuss and check their comprehension of complex concepts with their peers. As there are likely to be varied language backgrounds within a single EMI cohort, with different levels of ability, we cannot assume that students automatically understand what a lecturer says. Fortunately, peer interaction can help in such cases. We might argue that student participation or engagement is always important for learning to take place: We know from research that interactive activities in university teaching are effective in first language (L1)-medium contexts. In a meta-analysis of 225 studies of traditional monodirectional lectures versus active learning in undergraduate STEM subjects (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics), average exam scores were found to improve by 6% in active learning sections. In addition, students in traditional lecture classes were 1.5 times more likely to fail exams than students in classes with active learning (Freeman et al., 2014). Unfortunately, interactivity between the lecturer and students, and even among the students themselves, is often lacking in the typical university lecture hall. Studies demonstrate that teachers, problematically, tend to adopt a more teacher-centred style when teaching in an EMI context (Macaro, Tian, & Chu, 2020). This tendency is understandable. When lecturers teach in a foreign language, their first concern is likely with their own language proficiency, and they concentrate primarily on their delivery in a foreign language. Sometimes, this leads to lecturers relying on slides filled with dense text, used to remind themselves of the script of their lecture, and trying to avoid the unpredictability of any questions from students. Slides full of text are, however, difficult for an EMI student to understand, especially if the lecturer insists on speaking at the same time (Dancy & Henderson, 2010). While lecturers may claim to have an interactive classroom, further investigation often reveals little student–student interaction, and teacher–student interactions tend to be limited to only a small handful of ‘good’ students. One of the easiest ways to introduce interaction is to use pair and group work. Lecturers often contend that their classes are too large for any interaction, but it is feasibe to train them to 57

Julie Dearden and Ben Beaumont

intersperse their lectures with conceptual questions and student–student discussion. In a study that involved observing and recording 20 university classes in China, very few in-class dynamic activities were recorded, and there were no opportunities for students to work with each other. The only in-class interaction occured when the lecturers-initiated questions for students to respond. However, in this case, questioning did not prove to be successful in fostering interaction (Chen, Han, & Wright, 2020). We will come to the importance of asking the right questions, and waiting for answers, in Toolkit Tip 6.

Toolkit tip 6: Make students think This part is more complicated as we are on HOT skills (identify and validate theories and practices). The way the content was delivered was not good and the students were lost. Need to work again to change the way to process next year. A recap will be done in the next session and a written document will be available online. Here we can observe how Monique reflects on a session in which she wanted students to use Higher Order Thinking (HOT) skills and realised that this was quite challenging for them. One effective approach to stimulate our EMI students to engage in critical thinking is to pose HOT questions, assign them HOT tasks, and then allow plenty of wait time, or ‘processing time’, enabling students to process questions, formulate their answers, and express the answers in English. Aschner (1961, cited in Gall, 1970, p. 707) stated that ‘A teacher is a professional question maker’ and that questioning is ‘one of the basic ways by which the teacher stimulates student thinking and learning’. Questions play a key role in creating opportunities for students to think deeply and to speak, or used badly, can inhibit them. At university level, our goal is to teach complex concepts, necessiating the use of questions that compel students to paraphrase, analyse, synthesise, or evaluate information. HOT questions encourage the students to deconstruct ‘material into its consistent parts and determine how the parts relate to one another and to an overall structure or purpose’ (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001, p. 68). These HOT questions are more cognitively challenging than Lower Order Thinking (LOT) questions and help to scaffold deep subject learning. Llinares and Pascual Peña (2015, p. 18) note that ‘higher order questions or complex questions will contribute both to increasing the linguistic complexity of students’ responses and to promoting more engagement with the academic content and, consequently, deeper learning’, making HOT questions especially relevant to an EMI context where learning both language and content are involved. Unfortunately, research repeatedly shows that lecturers more commonly ask LOT questions that require students to recognise and retrieve relevant knowledge rather than to analyse, synthesise, or evaluate learning (Hu & Li, 2017). We can encourage lecturers to plan their questions and foster an awareness of their question usage by recording lectures and analysing the questions they hear.

Toolkit tip 7: Involve lecturers in their own professional development The activity seems too hard for students. They should be more guided, because it is really hard for them to understand by themselves… I can reduce the number of resources on the Padlet (one per student) and make them work in groups to prepare the debate only (one activity, one objective).

58

Lecturers’ professional development for EMI in higher education

As with any other vocational role, lecturers need professional development, and this needs to be tailored to address the varied needs of the context. In Monique’s example, we can observe that her professional development in EMI does not revolve around her subject knowledge, but focusses on helping her with pedagogic skills and her ability to provide language support for students. Research shows that Monique’s need for focussed pedagogic and language professional development is common across EMI contexts (Beaumont, 2019). In addition to identifying overarching needs, professional development for EMI professionals must take account of specific practical constraints, for example, the limited time available to engage in professional development, resource constraints, and the importance of tailoring the programme to an individual lecturer’s needs. The personalised nature of these considerations means that lecturer agency in a professional development programme is key to success. There are several ways we can make lecturers the centre of their own professional development, with the following three areas being effective in enabling this process. Reflection: One of the most central concepts in professional development for educators is the process of reflecting on practice with the aim of identifying what worked and understanding why it worked, as well as considering how to adapt something that did not work. Several different models of reflection exist, with popular techniques including Kolb’s reflective cycle (1984) based on concrete experience, Gibbs’s model (1988) which more actively links thinking and actions, and Mezirow’s transformative learning approach (1998). As seen from Monique’s comments, however, a lecturer does not have to slavishly follow theoretical reflective processes, but can use such systems as a guide. Perhaps one of the most effective guides for EMI lecturers to follow is that of Brookfield’s four lenses (1995), requiring a lecturer to view the learning experience from the different perspectives of oneself, the students, one’s peers, and the literature. The second perspective, the students’ viewpoint, allows us to take the time to think about what students need for learning to be successful. This could be something as pragmatic as having a font size and colour that can be seen at the back of a lecture room, to understanding the different needs of students from a variety of backgrounds. A simple question lecturers can ask to help develop this focus is how they would feel sitting through their own lecture. Self-assessment: This is a valuable tool to help lecturers understand their areas of strengths and areas that require improvement in both language proficiency and teaching ability. In terms of language proficiency, the CEFR’s self-assessment grid can raise lecturers’ awareness of their general language skills ability, which can then lead them to seek specific targeted language support (CEFR, 2021). A self-assessment checklist for teaching will benefit from being more bespoke, however, and can be developed collaboratively between teams of lecturers. The checklist can encompass areas outlined in the tips discussed earlier, and should also include any areas specific to the lecturer’s own practice, for example, requirements for lab or field work. Peer-observations: The nature of academic work often leads to many lecturers working in isolation in their role, with limited opportunities to collaborate with peers in the development of their teaching skills. By partnering with peers, lecturers can attend each other’s sessions, giving constructive feedback, helping a lecturer view their teaching from the students’ perspective. These kinds of observation work best when peers collaboratively agree on areas to focus on before a session, helping to create a supportive professional development space for focused review and discussion.

Conclusion This chapter has summarised some of the difficulties academics face with the practicalities of lecturing in EMI contexts. We have shown that, as along with the problems that language presents, 59

Julie Dearden and Ben Beaumont

there are a considerable number of pedagogical areas that need to be considered, areas which are often ignored when stakeholders believe that language ability is the sole key to successful lecturing in EMI. In the description and illustration of our toolkit tips, we have given demonstrably successful, practical techniques that lecturers can use to support their day-to-day practice. These techniques are axiomatic with an overarching pedagogical approach to EMI lecturing, and are at the ‘delivery end’ of a theoretical basis that is grounded in a social constructivist approach to learning and an interactive methodology. We feel that the global increase in EMI presents an opportunity to help academics develop their teaching skills through short professional development courses that can make lecturers aware of an effective EMI approach to lecturing, give them the guidance relevant to their needs, lecturers can then create local community of good EMI practice to encourage cyclical support, and iterative development, continuing to enhance professional learning. Taking this training approach recognises not only the need for support, but also the practical issues of time constraints for such training as well as utilising local resources to facilitate development. These toolkit tips are not an exhaustive list of techniques that lecturers can deploy to help support themselves and their students, but represent the tip of an iceberg of interactive learning techniques that have the potential to boost student and lecturer motivation as well as maximising opportunities for deep and meaningful learning. As with many pedagogical ‘tips’, they do not require a complete restructuring of a lecturer’s practice, but suggest small iterative changes that can be introduced gradually to effect positive change. An iterative approach then makes it easier to see the effects of specific changes, helping a lecturer identify reasons for their continued inclusion in their chosen pedagogical approach. Such change, however, does require a catalyst. This can be achieved through a lecturer’s realisation that there is a problem in their lectures or that the students are not learning; the path to development also benefits from a ‘knowing other’, a mentor that can guide a lecturer to development that is appropriate to their context. In addition to generating initial interest to change and convincing lecturers to try out ideas, we also need to provide ongoing support, resulting in change in actual practice rather than just a desire for change informed by intuition, potentially limiting pedagogic impact (Lu & Dearden, 2021). At the root of this chapter is the belief that there is a lack of appropriate training to help show academics what they need to do if they are to create a successful EMI learning environment. What we are suggesting is not a complete change in practice, but iterative development to run concurrently with lecturers’ professional practice, introducing proven, practical techniques that will benefit both lecturers and learners in their goal of educational attainment.

References Airey, J. (2011). Talking about teaching in English: Swedish university lecturers’ experiences of changing teaching language. Ibérica, 22, 35–54. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman. Aschner, M. J. (1961). Asking questions to trigger thinking. NEA Journal, 50(6), 44–46. Beath, J., Poyago-Theotoky, J., & Ulph, D. (2012). University funding systems: Impact on research and teaching. Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal, 6(1), 20120002. Beaumont, B. (2019). Identifying in-service support for lecturers working in English medium instruction contexts. In M. L. Carrió-Pastor (Ed.), Internationalising learning in higher education (pp. 83–110). Palgrave Macmillan. Bligh, D. A. (2000). What’s the use of lectures? Jossey-Bass. Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. Jossey-Bass.

60

Lecturers’ professional development for EMI in higher education CEFR. (2021). Self-assessment grid – Table 2 (CEFR 3.3): Common Reference levels. Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/table-2-cefr-3.3common-reference-levels-self-assessment-grid Chapple, J. (2015). Teaching in English is not necessarily the teaching of English. International Education Studies, 14(3), 1–13. Chen, H., Han, J., & Wright, D. (2020). An investigation of lecturers’ teaching through English medium of instruction—A case of higher education in China. Sustainability, 12(10), 4046. Costa, F. (2015). EMI teacher training courses in Europe. RiCOGNIZIONI. Rivista di Lingue e Letterature straniere e Culture moderne, 2(4), 127–136. Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 213–238. Dafouz, E. (2018). English-medium instruction and teacher education programmes in higher education: Ideological forces and imagined identities at work. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21, 540–552. Dafouz, E., Núñez, B., Sancho, C., & Foran, D. (2007). Integrating CLIL at the tertiary level: Teachers’ and students’ reactions. In D. Marsh & D. Wolff (Eds.), Diverse contexts, converging goals: CLIL in Europe (Vol. 4, pp. 91–102). Peter Lang. Dancy, M., & Henderson, C. (2010). Pedagogical practices and instructional change of physics faculty. American Journal of Physics, 78, 1056–1063. Dearden, J. (2015). English as a medium of instruction – A growing global phenomenon. British Council. Dearden, J. (2018). The changing roles of EMI academics and English language specialists. In Y. Kırkgöz & K. Dikilitaş (Eds.), Key issues in English for specific purposes in higher education (pp. 323–338). Springer. Dearden, J., & Spain, T. (2017). Internationalising higher education – The MAST framework. [Prezi presentation]. Oxford EMI Course for University Lecturers, 2 July, Oxford. Dearden, J., & Spain, T. (2021). A definition of an EMI course. In Ministry of Education Taiwan & British Council (Eds.), EMI enhancement plan 2021–2026, The program on Bilingual Education for Students in College (BEST) (p. 5). Ministry of Education. Fairweather, J. S. (2005). Beyond the rhetoric: Trends in the relative value of teaching and research in faculty salaries. The Journal of Higher Education, 76, 401–422. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 8410–8415. Gall, M. D. (1970). The use of questions in teaching. Review of Educational Research, 40, 707–721. Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Further Education Unit. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania Press. Guarda, M., & Helm, F. (2017). ‘I have discovered new teaching pathways’: The link between language shift and teaching practice. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20, 897–913. Halbach, A., Lázaro Lafuente, A., & Pérez Guerra, J. (2013). La lengua inglesa en la nueva universidad española del EEES: The role of the English language in post-Bologna Spanish universities. Ministerio de Educación. Hansen, C., & Jensen, C. (1994). Evaluating lecture comprehension. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 241–267). Cambridge University Press. Hu, G., & Li, X. (2017). Asking and answering questions in English-medium instruction classrooms: What is the cognitive and syntactic complexity level? In J. Zhao & L. Q. Dixon (Eds.), English-medium instruction in Chinese universities (pp. 184–203). Routledge. Hülmbauer, C., Böhringer, H., & Seidlhofer, B. (2008). Introducing English as a lingua franca (ELF): Precursor and partner in intercultural communication. Synergies Europe, 3(9), 25–36. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (Vol. 1). Prentice-Hall. Lasagabaster, D. (2018). Fostering team teaching: Mapping out a research agenda for English-medium instruction at university level. Language Teaching, 51, 400–416. Llinares, A., & Pascual Peña, I. (2015). A genre approach to the effect of academic questions on CLIL students’ language production. Language and Education, 29, 15–30. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. University of Chicago Press.

61

Julie Dearden and Ben Beaumont Lu, Z., & Dearden, J. (2021). Professional development in English medium instruction in higher education: A case study. In Z. Lu, M. Liu, & W. Zhang (Eds.), Teaching and researching Chinese EFL/ESL learners in higher education (pp. 59–80). Routledge. Lynch, T. (1994). Training lecturers for international audiences. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 241–267). Cambridge University Press. Macaro, E., & Han, S. (2020). English medium instruction in China’s higher education: Teachers’ perspectives of competencies, certification and professional development. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 41, 219–231. Macaro, E., Tian, L., & Chu, L. (2020). First and second language use in English medium instruction contexts. Language Teaching Research, 24, 382–402. Martinez, R., Fogaça, F., & de Figueiredo, E. H. D. (2019). An instrument for English medium instruction (EMI) classroom observation in higher education. Caderno de Letras, (35), 221–234. Mezirow, J. (1998). On critical reflection. Adult Education Quarterly, 48(3), 185–198. O’Dowd, R. (2018). The training and accreditation of teachers for English medium instruction: An overview of practice in European universities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21, 553–563. Sivertsvik, M. (2019) Publish or die. Journal of Aquatic Food Product Technology, 28, 451. Thompson, S. E. (2003). Text-structuring metadiscourse, intonation and the signalling of organisation in academic lectures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 5–20. Trowler, P., & Bamber, R. (2005). Compulsory higher education teacher training: Joined-up policies, institutional architectures and enhancement cultures. International Journal for Academic Development, 10(2), 79–93. Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. Academic Press.

62

5 LINGUISTIC IMPERIALISM IN ENGLISH-MEDIUM HIGHER EDUCATION Robert Phillipson and Ahmed Kabel

Introduction Scholarship has traditionally been global. The thinking of Confucius, Aristotle, Ibn Khaldun, ­Maimonides, Erasmus, Galileo Galilei, Goethe, Rousseau, and many others are a universal heritage. Contrary to the Romantics’ invention of antiquity, Greek high culture had its roots in ­Africa, particularly ancient Egypt. It was Arab and Muslim scholars in the Middle East who made ­Europeans aware of the heritage of Greek and Roman scholarship. Al Farabi, the tenth-century Muslim polymath, was well-versed in several languages and extensively translated Greek texts. He was known as the ‘second master’, the first being Aristotle, and his original elaborations marked a major advance in philosophical and theological thinking. He was a major influence on Thomas Aquinas. Another figure who strongly influenced Aquinas was Ibn Rushd, the twelfth-century Andalusian philosopher who produced extensive commentaries on Greek philosophical treatises, especially Aristotle’s. His commentaries were translated into Hebrew and Latin which, along with his ideas, became formative in the development of Renaissance thought. It is often said that: the new humanity that blossomed in the Renaissance had its origin in these words uttered by Averroes: O men! I do not say that the knowledge which you call divine science is false; what I am saying is that I have knowledge of human science. (cited in Corbin, 2001, p. 250) Distinguished historian of science George Saliba (2007) has given a compelling account of how the Copernican revolution could not have been possible without the achievements and knowledge of Arab and Muslim science, by then the privileged reference for the Renaissance men of science. Both the scientific method and the peer review, the ‘gold standards’ of ‘western’ knowledge, were common practice in the scholarly works of the Persian physician and philosopher Al-Razi and the Arab physician Al-Rahway in the ninth century. On a larger scale, the rise of the West depended symbiotically on the substantial ‘resource portfolio’ of the scientific, technological, and material attainments of the Eastern civilisations of China, India, and Islam (Hobson, 2004). Joseph Needham’s monumental volumes on science and civilisation in China provide rich documentation of the vast range of scholarly achievement of 63

DOI: 10.4324/9781003011644-6

Robert Phillipson and Ahmed Kabel

China over millennia, a task that a centre at Cambridge University continues. Apart from highlighting the colonialist and exploitative underpinnings of the rise of the West, this vast matrix of ‘epistemic extractivism’ (Grosfoguel, 2020), constitutive of Western modernity and occluded by Eurocentric dogmas of Western exceptionalism, obscure long-standing intertwined histories of borrowing and cross-fertilisation. Scholarly contact took place across Asia over many centuries, with the existence of a university at Nalanda, India, from the fifth to the twelfth centuries (Sen, 2005). Religions played a key role in establishing what became universities and in promoting academic learning, for which the translation of canonical books was important. Al-Ḳarawiyyīn in Fez, Morocco, is arguably the oldest university in the world in continuous existence, established by a woman, Fāṭima bint Muḥammad al-Fihrī, in the mid-ninth century. Muslim colleges were both a precursor and a template for centres of higher learning in the Christian West, which later evolved into the university as corporation (Makdisi, 1981). In Europe, scholars used Latin to read and write, and many of them could also often read Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic. For example, William Harvey studied at the University of Cambridge in England and completed a doctorate at the University of Padua, Italy in 1602. His findings on the circulation of the blood were published in Latin in Frankfurt, Germany in 1628. Academic writing in what became national languages evolved thereafter and took over from Latin by the nineteenth century. The brilliance of outstanding scholars in France and Germany in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in philosophy, the natural sciences, and social analysis obliged scholars elsewhere to learn French and German. While many academics in European countries had reading proficiency in French and German, as well as their national language until the 1970s, the international influence of these languages has diminished. Investment in academia by the ‘philanthropic’ foundations of the USA between the two World Wars (Arnove, 1982), and by the US government after 1945 on many continents, played a key role in promoting English and in changing the content and scientific approaches. The rise of Nazism in Germany led to the exodus of many scholars, benefitting academia in the UK and the USA, but contributed to a reduction of the influence of the German language in scholarship.

Linguistic imperialism in higher education English-medium higher education (EMHE) has a colonial lineage. The use of English in many parts of the world is due to its role as a language of colonisation in North America and in the other countries of the British Empire. English became the dominant language of academic learning in Anglo countries (USA, Canada – except Québec – Australia, New Zealand, Ireland), but these universities were never described as ‘English-medium’. Even if English is almost invariably the language of instruction and publication in these countries, an understanding of many languages was also important. Noah Webster published An American Dictionary of the English Language in 1828 as proof of US linguistic autonomy. However, the Webster three-volume Third New International Dictionary of the English Language (of 1966, consolidating earlier editions from 1909) includes the Britannica World Language Dictionary, with sections covering 6,000 words in ‘English with their closest equivalents in French, German, Italian, Spanish, Swedish, and Yiddish’, followed by sections in these languages and English equivalents. The monolingualism that is now widespread in Anglo universities is a recent phenomenon. The earlier establishment of EMHE outposts in Africa and Asia was concomitant with colonial expansion and domination, mostly with a vocational and technical focus serving the colonial administration and economy. In the Middle East, including Turkey, EMHE was largely the preserve of American imperialism, combining rather uneasily Christian missionary agendas and designs for a 64

Linguistic imperialism in English-medium higher education

liberal revolution in the region – designs that endure under shifting geopolitical and ideological realities. Such colonial institutions were exclusionary of local languages, which were systematically treated with open linguicist condescension. The contemporary growth of EMHE is often as subsidiaries of an Australian, American, or British university or as imports of particularly American-style universities. There is also a vast market of private EMHE provision, which is structurally linked to the burgeoning commercial English language teaching (ELT) market, both aggressively promoted by English-speaking countries, particularly the UK as we shall see in the subsequent text. The label EMHE implicitly signals that English is not the first language of its students. This entails that the students at such universities are bilingual or multilingual to some degree, unlike the vast majority of students in Anglo countries, where universities function monolingually. There is a paradoxical mismatch between a monolingual English-medium university and the needs of EMHE students in the Arab world, in Asia, and in virtually all former colonies. When English is learned and used in EMHE, and if local languages are ignored, there is prima facie evidence of linguistic imperialism. This is arguably the case irrespective of whether the teaching staff have English as a first or second language. English-only universities in Canada and other so-called ‘Englishspeaking’ countries aim at English becoming the sole scholarly language of its alumni. ‘Second’ thus definitely does not mean ‘secondary’, and chronology is less important than functionality. Other euphemisms such as ‘additional’ are hypocritical if studies represent subtractive rather than bi/multilingual learning. By contrast, a university lecturer of Scandinavian, German, or Moroccan origin who functions in EMHE, and who is proficient in the mother tongue of students, is in principle better qualified linguistically for students of the same origin than monolingual Anglos. Linguistic imperialism typically entails several characteristics that apply to any imperial language, but are particularly pronounced in the case of English due to the strength of American empire and the neoliberal globalisation of the past half-century (Debray, 2017; Harvey, 2005; Phillipson, 1992, 2009, 2015, 2017). The increasing use of English in universities in many parts of the world is due to many factors, processes of pull and push, imposition, and hegemonic acceptance. The most central constituents are brought together in Table 5.1, ‘The linguistic imperialism of English in higher education’. Key dimensions of linguistic imperialism are presented in the boxes in the left-hand column of Table 5.1. The boxes on the right relate these features specifically Table 5.1  The linguistic imperialism of English in higher education Central constituents of linguistic imperialism

Impact of English in higher education and the consequences for other languages

Higher education worldwide has gradually seen an increase in Linguistic imperialism interlocks with the use of English both in countries where HE used a national a structure of imperialism in culture, language (continental Europe, China, Japan, Latin America, education, the media, communication, etc.), and in countries in which American or British systems the economy, politics, and military were imposed (colonies, India) or were exported (Middle activities. East). HE is important as one dimension of neoimperial, North-South inequitable linkage. In essence, it is about exploitation, English-medium institutions and courses have high prestige and injustice, inequality, and hierarchy status. Publications (journals, books) in English have higher that privileges those able to use the prestige than in other languages, which risk being downgraded. dominant language. Competence in English affects employment practices both in HE and later employment. (Continued)

65

Robert Phillipson and Ahmed Kabel Table 5.1 (Continued) Central constituents of linguistic imperialism

Impact of English in higher education and the consequences for other languages

It is structural: More material resources and infrastructure are accorded to the dominant language than to others.

Massive investment in the learning and use of English in school and HE privileges English and its users. Linguistic capital in English is accumulated, whereas capital in other languages is either neglected or is progressively dispossessed. The fallacious myth or belief that there is greater quality or intrinsic relevance in instruction in English, and in publications in English, contributes to an invidious hierarchy of languages. The idea that English is the only important international language is false. The dominance of English seems to be logical but ignores the factors that explain its dominance, and whose interests English serves. Priority for English is typically and uncritically accepted as ‘natural’. Much of the advocacy for EMHE is orchestrated by US and UK concerns. The idea that expertise from these countries, and that the language is universally relevant, is special pleading but seldom denounced. HE language policies and EMHE discourse are seldom articulated in terms of language rights. A concomitant risk is that EMHE serves to marginalise proficiency in other languages of knowledge and research. Explicit university language policy should ensure that the rights of all relevant languages are promoted. If languages other than English are not accorded equal rights and importance, these languages will fall behind and be marginalised, and be seen as of less value.

It is ideological: Beliefs, attitudes, and imagery glorify the dominant language, stigmatise others, and rationalise the linguistic hierarchy. The dominance is hegemonic: It is internalised and naturalised as being ‘normal’.

This entails unequal rights for speakers of different languages.

Language use is often subtractive, as proficiency in the imperial language and in learning it in education involve its consolidation at the expense of other languages. It is a form of linguicism, a favouring of one language over others in ways that parallel societal structuring through racism, sexism, and class. Linguicism serves to privilege users of the standard forms of the dominant language, which represent convertible linguistic capital. Linguistic imperialism is invariably contested and resisted.

Much of the above is covert and unquestioned, hegemonically internalised without the structural causal factors underpinning the imperialism of English being understood or acknowledged.

Linguicist policies result in linguistic capital accumulation for English and its users, and linguistic capital dispossession for other languages and their users. Knowledge in English is convertible into other forms of value, more than other languages can.

Assuring the rights and use of local languages is imperative for national cohesion, linguistic autonomy, and social justice. Additive English in HE is positive. Subtractive English, replacing other languages, must be avoided. There is a need for explicit language policies that ensure local linguistic diversities in all relevant aspects of HE are not adversely affected by an increased use of English, and that such policies are implemented.

66

Linguistic imperialism in English-medium higher education

to higher education, both in ‘English-speaking’ countries and in other countries where the use of English is now entrenched. The evidence of the linguistic imperialism of English in EMHE will be elaborated further throughout the chapter. Policy for universities in independent African countries received significant attention in a succession of British reports in the 1940s and 1950s (Phillipson, 1992, chapter 5). While there was awareness of the importance of African languages, this central issue was forgotten in a report on expanding higher education in Nigeria in 1960, written by an eminent British academic (Phillipson, 1992, p. 124). The languages of Nigeria are not even referred to! The focus was on improving quality, which could be met by a continuing presence of British staff and British examinations after independence. The linguicism embedded in this neocolonial policy was implemented by governments in Nigeria and other African countries. It was not substantially challenged until Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o attempted to reform the curriculum of the University of Nairobi, and demonstrated in his writings and activities how African languages can be used powerfully, and why decolonising minds was imperative (1986). Tragically, the stranglehold of English in African higher education is still in place. British economic and linguistic interests in Nigeria and Kenya have been maintained, perpetuating North-South structural inequality, causing massive social and linguistic inequality internally in all African countries. A similar pattern has evolved in former French colonies in Africa, where discourses around English are interwoven with neoliberal narratives and economic configurations. Much like many neoliberal teleologies, English appears to have acquired an air of ‘linguistic realism’, a sense of historical inevitability. Conflating project and reality (Phillipson, 2009), its global ambitions are articulated in tandem with the ‘globalist dreams and projects’ (Tsing, 2000) of neoliberalism to shape the ultimate political, economic, and linguistic horizon in North Africa and the Middle East. Hernando de Soto (2011), for instance, champions the triumphant emergence of a new era in the region, conditional on the discharge of free market energies after the Arab Spring. Echoing de Soto, Martin Rose, formerly Director of British Council Morocco (2010–2014), enthuses that ‘the advance of English is a tidal phenomenon — irresistible’, and presages that ‘the tide is coming in fast’. Like the sweeping undercurrent of the end of history, ‘this incoming tide is doing something more than just washing a new language onto the beach’, ‘it will wash away many sandcastles and beachmermaids [sic] too’. To emerge from this linguistic wreckage unscathed, Morocco must embrace English and ‘grasp the bull by the horns’ (2014, p. 125). Akin to de Soto’s repressed market drives, the power of English in Morocco, and North Africa, ‘is waiting with impatience to break out of its narrow confines’ (Rose, 2015). Neoliberal ‘globalist dreams’ circulate rapidly and are relayed under the aegis of local elites who choreograph them with varying degrees of mimetic compliance and vernacularity. The messianic elan of both authors is not coincidental. English is a fixture of this neoliberal vulgate, with its champions mobilising a vast neoliberal lexicon to legitimate its promotion. English enacts a new public pedagogy hinged on neoliberal desire and glossaries of meritocracy and social advancement. Successive education ministers have touted the promise of EMI to offer a panacea to Morocco’s crippled higher education system and confect a desire for bright futures of self-realisation. Beyond productive desire, promoters of English also deploy affective economies of shame and stigma, casting lack of proficiency in English as a deficit and professional incompetence. A former higher education Minister even inaugurated an ‘English dunce hunt’ to coerce university professors and doctoral students to publish in English (Daoudi, 2014). In this new English language panopticon, ‘discipline’ and ‘publish’ become the new watchword. English is also promoted as a catalyst of social justice, equal opportunity, employability, and social mobility (Amzazi, 2019). 67

Robert Phillipson and Ahmed Kabel

The construal of English as a ‘Shaman’ has solidified into common sense even in the absence of evidence about a correlation between EMHE and content learning and between EMHE and its much-trumpeted effect on societal improvement and development (Bowles & Murphy, 2020, p. 21). What appears to be the case is quite the opposite. EMHE seems to exacerbate social inequalities and impede development. While English may hold promise for the few, its meritocratic and levelling potential serves as an ideological facade that conceals the interweaving of linguistic capital with social class and asymmetrical distribution of cultural capital. It obfuscates the entanglements of linguistic inequalities and hierarchies with educational apartheid. Unlike for the disenfranchised, English-medium education is appropriated by the privileged as an intensifier of linguistic and cultural capital accumulation. These narratives form part of larger transformations in global education policy and political economy. EMHE in the Global South has been at once a response and a facilitator of the profound reconfigurations of the higher education landscape globally. There is entrenchment of global educational policy-scapes characterised by a significant encroachment of economic rationality, neoliberal discourses, and modes of governance (Ball, 2009; Lingard, Rawolle, & Taylor, 2005), as well as by interference from global actors such as the World Bank and OECD (Mundy & Verger, 2015). Language policy in many parts of the world has been decisively influenced by the World Bank. Continuing to neglect African languages and to promote English was for many years an established principle in World Bank policies. The Bank favoured the use of a local language in the early years of schooling, and a rapid transition into monolingual English-medium instruction: ‘World Bank officials who visited South Africa in 1992 made it quite clear that additive bilingualism was not on the World Bank agenda and that funds would not be available for such programmes’ (Heugh, 1995, p. 343). US and UK ‘aid’ policies were strongly influenced by the Bank’s policies. English is given institutional support, primarily from Britain and the USA. Here we have seen organisations like the World Trade Organisation, the World Bank, the IMF and the British Council constantly at work promoting policies that continue to demonstrate the interdependence between the corporate world and language development in favour of English. […] the World Bank and IMF prescriptions for revitalising African economies – i.e. for embedding African economies more deeply into the world capitalist system – have placed heavy emphasis on the reduction of government subsidies in education which are indispensable to the promotion of instruction in local languages. In the final analysis then, under the World Bank-IMF structural impositions, the only avenue available to many African nations has been the adoption of English from the very beginning of a child’s education. (Mazrui, 2016, pp. 25–26) The Bank has gradually been influenced by the evidence that multilingual education is a necessity, and can succeed. A publication in 2021, Loud and Clear: Effective Language of Instruction Policies for Learning: A World Bank Policy Approach Paper, notes that a great deal of education policy in ‘low- and middle-income countries’ has had ‘shockingly poor learning outcomes’, in part because of the wrong choice of medium of instruction. It argues for mother tongue–based multilingual education. The paper also intriguingly notes that language of instruction policies ‘are influenced by larger political and economic considerations’ as if this was not known earlier, though its responsibility for advocating the wrong policies earlier, and whose interests they have served, is not conceded. Nor is there any indication that HE language policies should also be radically changed so as to produce better outcomes. The Bank does not advocate changing the position of English. 68

Linguistic imperialism in English-medium higher education

Placing too much hope in the Bank’s willingness to learn from its past mistakes may therefore be a leap of faith. These policy acrobatics are broadly consistent with the ‘Learning Turn’ at the World Bank (The World Bank, 2020). ‘The Learning Bank’, paradoxically, ‘appears wholly incapable of learning’ from its long catalogue of failures and from critique. Its enterprise is essentially devotional: an unwavering belief in its own infallibility driven by a larger faith in the general logic of ‘development’. The certainty ‘in the existence of the Good, one possessing divine-like qualities in its constancy, infallibility, and absolute character’ renders questions of relevance, context, and accountability immaterial. (Rappleye & Un, 2018, pp. 269–270) Like a cult, the Bank’s ideology creates its own ‘alternative reality’. The apparent endorsement of mother tongue–based education seems little more than a rebranding exercise consistent with a gradual reorientation in the Bank’s politics, as lending now is increasingly attached to quality and ‘performance’ instead of access. Through its SABER scheme (World Bank, 2020), the Bank is erecting a PISA-like panopticon of educational assessment, data infrastructure, and comparisons regime to be potentially integrated in its battery of loan conditionalities. The new orientation consolidates the alliance between the World Bank and OECD to shape the architecture of global education governance and policy (Auld, Rappleye, & Morris, 2019), an unprecedented intertwining of concentrated development and education power. This also marks a shift to a focus on higher education dictated by the Bank’s crafting of a rebooted doctrine centred on human capital and knowledge economy. This places universities at the heart of development and growth whereby research and innovation are harnessed in the service of a knowledge-based economy. This new scheme clearly gives the Bank far more clout to mould language policies, educational outcomes, and curriculum choices. The latter are centred around skills conducive to the development of human capital and a competitive labour force, while measurement and efficiency constitute the core driving forces of their policies. Regardless of the apparent shift in their language politics, the assumption that there is a causal relationship between higher education, human capital, and development has been shown to be empirically and statistically flawed (Auld et al., 2019), rendering the education/human capital/growth nexus dubious, including EMHE. Secondly, it is challenging to contemplate how the Bank will promote local languages as idioms of knowledge economy, science, and technological innovation. There is also little doubt that the discourses of human capital, employability, and skills will give way to laissez-faire, opening the floodgates for linguistic market forces to run amok, clearly in favour of EMHE. Market forces legislating EMHE can lead to covert reverse linguistic engineering. Even when effective language of instruction policies are adopted downstream, they can still be sabotaged when English dominates upstream. EMHE is likely to produce this regressive chain reaction, making English the prime medium of ‘choice’. In addition to human capital, knowledge economy and skills, global neoliberal HE governance is articulated around corporatisation, accountability, decentralisation, autonomy, competition, performativity, and benchmarking. The regime is predicated on a preference for markets where governance is commensurate with the breeding of competition and rests on institutionalising rankings, evaluation systems, productivity, quantified and measured performance, and audits (Naidoo, 2018). Metrics become the privileged catalysts to create a competitive culture of ‘world class excellence’ in the Global South, acting as powerful regulatory mechanisms and engendering vast processes of institutional isomorphism and mimicry (Lee & Naidoo, 2020). EMHE is a pivotal 69

Robert Phillipson and Ahmed Kabel

node in this global policy architecture, promoting student and researcher mobility, the recruitment of international students, international cooperation and competitiveness, and the contribution to generating global knowledge. EMHE is thus lodged within this policy apparatus nested in a neocolonial cultural political economy in an asymmetrical North-Centre/South-Periphery matrix of power. English is vital to all these processes, thus making Anglicisation the sine qua non of internationalisation (Bowles & Murphy, 2020). The EMHE/Internationalisation nexus plays an important role in the mainstreaming of curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment practices. It has drastically redrawn the nature and politics of scholarship and publication. In the era of the internationalised university, Englishmedium publication is elevated into a shibboleth of distinction and excellence in the global rankings race. Scholarly quality, visibility, and academic advancement are tied to publishing in indexed, high impact factor English-medium journals. ‘The competitive university’, besotted with rankings and positional reputation, breeds the illusion of performance masquerading as productivity, where short-termism and alienation are the order of the day. Instead of long-term affiliation with a research programme or ideas, academic ‘output’ is conditioned by alignment with narrow time-bound, exogenous departmental and university metrics, as well as retention and promotion schemes. One paradoxical corollary is the mushrooming of predatory publishing, which feeds on the politics of English and competition and further undermines quality and relevance, exacerbating alienation and exploitation. English acts as a ‘Shaman’ possessing the magical power to ‘breathe into the competition fetish’ (Naidoo, 2018, p. 4). The fetish of English, however, is illusory. The imbrication of EMHE in the zeal for global competition overlooks the irresolvable paradoxes and mirages inherent in global rankings (Cantwell & Maldonado-Maldonado, 2009, p. 297), entrenched global hierarchies, and the acute segmentation of the global higher education market dominated by Anglo-American universities (Marginson, 2007). On the other hand, internationalisation ‘is produced and consumed in terms of a worldwide university hierarchy in which not only is global equality of opportunity absent, global educational inequality is necessary to the commercial market in international education’. Global inequities of educational power and hegemony are reproduced and maintained by the ‘unequal value of education’ and ‘asymmetries in student flows, capital flows, cultural engagement and cultural respect’ (Marginson, 2007, pp. 148–149). EMHE breeds and deepens, in equal measure, these ‘flows’ and misplaced aspirations, further depleting and dispossessing Southern higher education systems. The Mexican scholar Rainer Enrique Hamel has insightfully stressed the importance of distinguishing between a language for scientific production (creativity, writing, often in the mother tongue), the circulation of scientific knowledge (publications, journals, books, international conferences), and the transmission of knowledge (language/s of instruction and acquisition). This distinction is important to bear in mind when considering ‘English-Medium’ Higher Education (EMHE), which is mainly concerned with transmission. Hamel has elaborated these distinctions in depth as one aspect of constraining the marketing of English and strengthening all scientific languages, including French (2013) and Spanish (2016, with Álvarez López, and Pereira Carvalhal). Ignoring these insights legitimates the misrecognition of English by naturalising linguistic differentiation and hierarchies structured by and structuring various forms of capital and power, as well as symbolic struggles and positionings. One of the myths legitimising this order is the vapid assertion that English is a neutral language. However, far from being a neutral language, English ‘carries with it a hidden baggage of history and culture’, which ‘construes’ rather merely ‘names the world’, so that English ‘can really be a conceptual prison’ (Wierzbicka, 2013, p. 11). Wierzbicka (2006) distinguishes between the 70

Linguistic imperialism in English-medium higher education

internal and external baggage of English, between semantics and ideology. Although these two are analytically distinct, they interlock in practice, as ideology and semantics reinforce one another in various ways. The interlocking of a medium with its underlining world view and semantics is stressed by a scholar from Sri Lanka: Linguistic imperialism is one dimension of educational and cultural imperialism and subordination: the written English prose medium which, in some ‘standard’ form, is the staple of the global medium is hardly a neutral or innocent instrument. It defines a discourse whose conventions of grammar and use are heavily vested ideologically, affirming and legitimising particular ways of seeing the world, particular forms of knowledge and particular relations of power, all of which work decidedly against the best interests of the disadvantaged countries. (Thiru Kandiah, 2001) Gandhi warned against Indian HE simply copying European university norms: I am afraid our universities are the blotting-sheets1 of the West. We have borrowed the superficial features of the Western universities, and flattered ourselves that we have founded living universities here. Do they reflect or respond to the needs of the masses? (Gandhi, 1942, in Gandhi, 2008, p. 463) And having experienced the bitter truth of English-medium education first-hand, Gandhi had been convinced that in all Indian curricula of higher education there should be a place for Hindi, Sanskrit, Persian, Arabic and English, besides of course the vernacular. This big list need not frighten anyone. If our education were more systematic, and the boys [sic] free from the burden of having to learn their subjects through a foreign medium, I am sure learning all these languages would not be an irksome task, but a perfect pleasure. A scientific knowledge of one language makes a knowledge of other languages comparatively easy. (Gandhi, 1927, p. 15) Underwritten by neoliberal common sense, the neutrality of English is underpinned by a normative neoliberal multilingualism, which unproblematically casts English as the unmarked language of modernity and progress. English embodies ‘pure potential’ and is ‘naturally’ associated with science, technology, and innovation (Park, 2016). EMHE is thus primed to be the default gateway to the desired metamorphosis into a ‘knowledge society’ hinged on human capital, knowledge economy, skills, lifelong learning, and employability (Kabel, 2021a). In North Africa, for example, English is also claimed to be absolved of colonial sins and unencumbered by imperial hegemony and structures of dependency. The affective and moral economy animating it is one of empowerment and liberation. For example, a study commissioned by the British Council suggests that the absence of colonial associations with English in Morocco is a boon for English (Euromonitor, 2012, p. 9). English in Morocco ‘is a neutral language that carries no imperialistic undertones’ and ‘provides access to international communication and economic development’ (Errihani, 2017, p. 119). This glosses over the relentless ELT promotion efforts by organisations such as British Council and US Embassy Regional Language Teaching Program. The same uncritical stance towards English linguistic proselytising is also evident in surveys of ELT in other parts of North Africa and the Middle East (Boukadi & Troudi, 2017). These elisions ignore EMHE’s role in deepening 71

Robert Phillipson and Ahmed Kabel

neoliberal infiltration and securitisation in the war for hearts and minds – and profits. The British Council’s post-Arab-Spring engagement clearly illustrates this nexus by welding ELT, neoliberalism, securitisation, neo-imperialism, and profiteering (Kabel, 2021b).

British English-medium goals ELT is now of major importance for the economies of Anglosphere countries. A British Council report of 2013 highlighted the importance of English teaching for the British economy (British Council, 2013). The report argued for the ‘brightest and best’ to opt for a career in English teaching, as a means of infiltrating education systems worldwide so as to increase British influence. It assumes that the monolingual and monocultural expertise of British ELT is universally relevant, a claim that is opportunist and dubious, continuing a long tradition of British cultural, educational, and linguistic imperialism. More recently, the British Council has boasted an increase in income now totalling more than £1 billion due to the thriving English teaching and examinations business, with £5.80 generated for every £1 of public money received (British Council, 2019, p. 13). The organisation funds over 75% of its own activity in 100 countries through revenue from English teaching, testing, and consultancy. Linguistic and educational imperialism, commercialism and privatisation percolate the British Council’s immersion in higher education reform and internationalisation globally.2 Its focus on university governance accelerates the Anglicisation of curriculum, research and teaching, and services the UK’s higher education industry. ‘The speed at which universities are internationalising and English is being used as the academic lingua franca is accelerating’; ‘the new […] global university […] is facilitated by EMI’, one British Council commissioned study concludes (Dearden, 2015, p. 28). These commercial and neoimperialist priorities are dispersed throughout the UK’s policies regarding international education. ELT and English language ideologies are embedded within an educational crusade for global higher education market share and profiteering: ‘We recognize the important contribution of ELT to the UK’s broader international education offer’ and ‘will work closely with the ELT sector, providing information to increase their involvement in exporting services and expertise’ (p. 30). ELT is unambiguously a sector of UK’s international trade. The Department of International Trade is committed to ‘inform the UK ELT sector of global opportunities linked to other industries’, ‘ensure that ELT providers have the opportunity to take part in a broader range of Department for International Trade-led activity where ELT could play a more prominent role’ and ‘utilize our exports pipeline database and exploit opportunities overseas to promote the English Language and the UK ELT sector, as valuable contributors to individual and national prosperity’ (Department for International Trade and Department for Education, 2019). The British Council is a contributor to the development of the strategy; and no speculation is left therein as to the pivotal role the ‘registered charity’, with its ‘corporate goals’, will play in this ‘bountiful’ venture. ELT profiteering interlaces with an aggressive push to privatise education worldwide. Promotion of English-medium education fits neatly into this scheme. The British education export industry vigorously promotes privatisation, by leveraging British aid and private capital internationally ‘to support commercial interests…and expand opportunities for the British public to profit from international development’ (Global Justice Now and National Education Union, 2019, p. 4). Private provision of English-medium education is strongly advocated as a driver for the demand of English and a channel for international students, precious commodities in times of neoliberal austerity and fierce competition for market share and talent. ‘The private sector’, it is projected, ‘will continue to drive the push for EMI’. Being ‘relatively free of national political and cultural 72

Linguistic imperialism in English-medium higher education

constraints’, the private sector ‘will continue to portray EMI as the distinguishing feature of its educational offer’ (Dearden, 2015, p. 32). ‘International’ schools are mushrooming in cities in many countries that do not qualify as ‘English-­speaking’ and that fundamentally ‘prepare for entry to universities in the US and UK’ or to the increasing number of ‘English-medium universities in the Middle East, Asia, and elsewhere’ (Phillipson, 2019). Some are branch campuses of US and UK universities. The push for basic and higher education has resulted in ‘profiteering off global education inequality […] undermining public education systems’ and sabotaging the right to education’ (Global Justice Now and National Education Union, 2019, p. 30). This is conducive to aggravating inequality, nationally and globally, undercutting democracy and accountability, and ‘risks embedding highly unequal, volatile and crisis-prone economic models into developing countries and crowding out domestic resources’ (Global Justice Now and National Education Union, 2019, p. 4). The local consequences are dire. As previously pointed out, English private education entrenches class divides and serves elite interests, marginalises local languages, and detracts from addressing local concerns and needs (Phillipson, 2019). This is both linguistic and educational dispossession. As we shall see in the subsequent text, it also occasions epistemic divides and dispossession by the dissemination of ‘prestigious’ ‘uncommon’ knowledge in contrast to the knowledges on offer in public educational systems. English-medium international schools and universities represent both an elite educational and epistemic enclosure (Ingersoll, 2019).

EMHE and the politics of knowledge UNESCO has been concerned with quality and relevance in HE. A UNESCO report of 1997 specified essential principles for higher education, including academic freedom, institutional autonomy, creating a culture of peace, recognising the diversity of cultures in the world, and teaching in higher education as a profession and form of public service. It emphasises that ‘[I]nstitutions of higher education, and more particularly universities, are communities of scholars preserving, disseminating and expressing freely their opinions on traditional knowledge and culture, and pursuing new knowledge without constriction by prescribed doctrines’ (UNESCO, 1997). The UNESCO recommendations are particularly relevant when universities are increasingly run as businesses rather than as a public good, and when the establishment of EMHE universities in different parts of the world is motivated more by financial than scholarly interests. As remarked earlier, British universities have, for several decades, been seen as revenue-generating, essentially through fees paid by foreign students. Successive British governments have aimed to increase the number of these in UK universities dramatically, categorising such activities as an ‘export business’ (inspired by George Orwell’s newspeak?). Even when a large number of foreign students are taught, the content of university degree programmes remains unchanged, as well as the language. Mazrui (2005) lists three perquisites for a ‘good university’: political distance from the state, cultural proximity to the people, and openness to the wider world. The challenge for universities is to maintain a healthy balance between these three, and the question of language becomes central to this challenge. EMHE clearly does not deliver. ‘Colonial in origin and disproportionately European in tradition’, Mazrui writes, ‘African universities are among the major instruments and vehicles of cultural Westernization’ (Mazrui, 2005). Achille Mbembe further affirms that African universities are ‘Westernized’ in the sense that they are local instantiations of a dominant academic model based on a Eurocentric epistemic ‘canon’ which claims a monopoly over truth and excludes other epistemic traditions. It sanctions ‘colonialism as a normal form of social relations… rather than a system of exploitation and oppression’ (2016, p. 32). The late Malawian intellectual 73

Robert Phillipson and Ahmed Kabel

Thandika Mkandawire accents the predicament of the postcolonial knowledge regime, which is shaped by neocolonial political and economic structures. These structures have confined African, and Global South, universities to academic mimicry of ‘Excellence’ linked to ‘the universal “Gold Standard”’, which refers to the ‘standards of universities of the erstwhile colonial power’ (2005, pp. 23–24). These realities of neo-colonialism subverted the promise of a decolonial university in postcolonial Africa. Neocolonial realities aggravated by structural adjustment programmes further deepened the crisis of the African university. This led to the dismantling of the decolonising university and resurgent educational recolonisation through ‘aid’, curriculum and, as we shall explore later, the new politics of knowledge with ‘a deadly effect on the future of higher education’ in much of Africa, and arguably, in the rest of the South (Mamdani, 2007, p. 8). EMHE intersects with the colonial (geo)politics of knowledge and research, dominated by Northern priorities and paradigms. Naidoo cautions that the dominance of western hegemonic research models and concerns as well as assessment systems for research in developing countries … may serve as a barrier to national research strategies which aim to explore an optimum relationship between the developmental role of the university and the wider internationalisation role generally ascribed to higher education. (2008, p. 258) The asymmetrical logic of the new academic colonialism in which EMHE is embedded reproduces the Centre/Periphery division of labour where the North produces ‘theory’ and the South consumes and applies the theory. The South becomes a site of ‘data’ and ‘subjects’, serving as the raw material for grand theory that is re-assembled, appropriated, and turned into intellectual property in the ‘knowledge factories’ of the North. Development agendas, aid flows, neoliberal reforms, and global market integration drastically curtail the local social import of knowledge and academics (Cohen, 2014). In this matrix, academics in the Global South act as ‘little more than recruitment agents for global North researchers’ (Connell, 2019, p. 13). Worse still, given the deep geopolitical layering of knowledge, Southern academics are rendered little more than ‘native informants’ producing knowledge that serves Northern economic and geopolitical interests. The lure of funding, grants, visiting professorships, networks, and mobility becomes the engine of epistemic colonialism and brain drain. All these factors feed the dynamics of ‘transnational academic capitalism’ combining the commodification of knowledge and academic labour (Kauppinen, 2015). Transnational academic capitalism, however, is embedded within fossilised and stratified political, economic, epistemic, and linguistic topographies between the North and South. To the extent that global capitalism is a tributary of coloniality, the notion of ‘transnational academic coloniality’ better captures the deep colonial structure of transnational academic capitalism in the Global South. English is constitutive of this ‘epistemic extractivism’, which immiserates local epistemologies and further intensifies the dispossession of local languages and linguistic ecologies. Transnational linguistic capitalism, centred on English, is thus global linguistic coloniality (Kabel, 2021b). In the periphery, local knowledges are poorly ‘formalised’ or un-/de-institutionalised, and they are systematically submerged by powerful, global, and ‘universal’ knowledge. This renders them subordinate, parochial, and vernacular. No local knowledge system in the periphery can match the positivistic, statistical armada, the iterative constancy, persistent formalisation, and intensively sustained and cumulative archiving, not to speak of the political, organisational and financial sway, of knowledge production by, for example, the World Bank, the OECD, and corporate-funded think tanks. This regime subordinates educational systems and cultures in the Global South to 74

Linguistic imperialism in English-medium higher education

the economic, political, organisational, curriculum, and pedagogical dictates of the neoimperialneoliberal-educational complex. Incrementally, understandings and framings of local educational problems, priorities, and policies become lodged within Northern agendas and epistemic paradigms. This politics of language and knowledge production cultivates a new breed of ‘non-organic intellectual’ conversant in the new technocratic and NGO-ised idiom of ‘expertise’, consultancy, and grant applications. However, they often prove incapable of resisting the re-entrenchment of both colonial knowledge and political economy (Mkandawire, 2005, p. 23). Local knowledge, informed by deep local and historical understanding, organic political engagement, and immediate contextual relevance is brushed aside and delegitimised, sometimes openly. These structural determinants constrain and may ultimately preclude the development of socially, culturally, and epistemically responsive research, educational discourses, knowledges, and policies. The wresting away of knowledge and agency from local actors that EMHE facilitates is disempowerment and amounts to epistemic dispossession.

Conclusion In its exclusion of local languages and intersection with structural forces of power and domination, EMHE constitutes linguistic imperialism. Only the promotion of linguistic diversity and consolidation of local linguistic and epistemic ecologies is likely to meet the challenge of linguistic and social justice and of decolonisation. Decolonisation is specious without cultural and linguistic emancipation and sovereignty. Ngũgĩ is emphatic: English ‘should not be planted in the graveyard of other languages’ and warned that ‘we must avoid the destruction that English wrought on other languages and cultures in its march to the position it now occupies in the world’ (1993, p. 39). Decolonising the mind and undoing linguistic imperialism are coterminous with ‘moving the centre’. ‘Recentring’ involves the work of linguistic and epistemic struggle to reclaim one’s position in the world in one’s own language relationally. To decolonise is to move the subtractive centre of English and recentre local languages and knowledges in a non-hierarchical additive multilingualism.

Notes 1 When pens used liquid ink, it was necessary to dry off what had been written with absorbent paper, blotting paper. This practice was still in use until the 1950s. 2 https://www.britishcouncil.ma/en/programmes/education/ihe/university-governance.

References Amzazi, S. (2019). ‫التحكم في لغات التدريس األجنبية يقع في صميم الديمقراطية وتحقيق تكافؤ الفرص وولوج سوق الشغل‬. Retrieved from http://www.alyaoum24.com/1227449.html Arnove, R. F. (Ed.). (1982). Philanthropy and cultural imperialism: The foundations at home and abroad. Indiana University Press. Auld, E., Rappleye, J., & Morris, P. (2019). PISA for development: How the OECD and World Bank shaped education governance post-2015. Comparative Education, 55, 197–219. Ball, S. J. (2009). The governance turn! Journal of Education Policy, 24, 537–538. Boukadi, S., & Troudi, S. (2017). English education policy in Tunisia: Issues of language policy in postrevolution Tunisia. In R. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), English language education policy in the Middle East and North Africa (pp. 157–177). Springer. Bowles, H., & Murphy, A. C. (2020). EMI and the internationalization of universities: An overview. In H. Bowles & A. C. Murphy (Eds.), English-medium instruction and the internationalization of universities (pp. 1–26). Palgrave Macmillan.

75

Robert Phillipson and Ahmed Kabel British Council. (2013). The English effect: The impact of English, what it means for the UK and why it matters to the world. British Council. Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/research-insight/ english-effect British Council. (2019). Annual report and accounts 2018–2019. British Council. Cantwell, B., & Maldonado-Maldonado, A. (2009). Four stories: Confronting contemporary ideas about globalisation and internationalisation in higher education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 7, 289–306. Cohen, S. (2014). Neoliberalism and academia in Morocco. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 24, 28–42. Connell, R. (2019). The good university: What universities actually do and why it’s time for radical change. Zed Books. Corbin, H. (2001). History of Islamic philosophy. Keagan Paul. Daoudi, L. (2014). “In English please”: Pour les universitaires au Maroc. Retrieved from https://www. h24info.ma/maroc/societe/in-english-please-pour-les-universitaires-au-maroc/ de Soto, H. (2011). The free market secret of the Arab revolutions. Financial Times, 8 November. Dearden, J. (2015). English as a medium of instruction – A growing global phenomenon. British Council. Debray, R. (2017). Civilisation: Comment nous sommes devenus américains. Paris Gallimard. (English translation 2019, Civilisation: How we all became American. Verso). Department for International Trade and Department for Education. (2019). International education strategy: Global potential, global growth. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ international-education-strategy-global-potential-global-growth Errihani, M. (2017). English education policy and practice in Morocco. In R. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), English language education policy in the Middle East and North Africa (pp. 115–131). Springer. Euromonitor. (2012). The benefits of the English language for individuals and societies: Quantitative indicators from Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia and Yemen. Euromonitor International. Retrieved from https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/Euromonitor%20report%20 final%20July%202012.pdf Gandhi, G. (Ed.). (2008). The Oxford India Gandhi essential writings. Oxford University Press. Gandhi, M. K. (1927). An autobiography or the story of my experiments with the truth. Navajivan Publishing House. Global Justice Now and National Education Union. (2019). In whose interest? The UK’s role in privatising education around the world. Global Justice Now and National Education Union. Grosfoguel, R. (2020). Epistemic extractivism: A dialogue with Alberto Acosta, Leanne Betasamosake Simpson, and Silvia Rivera Cusicanqui. In B. de Sousa Santos & M. P. Meneses (Eds.), Knowledges born struggle (pp. 203–218). Routledge. Harvey, D. (2005). Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press. Heugh, K. (1995). Disabling and enabling: Implications of language policy trends in South Africa. In R. Mesthrie (Ed.), Language and social history: Studies in South African sociolinguistics (pp. 329–350). David Philip. Hobson, J. (2004). The Eastern origins of Western civilization. Cambridge University Press. Ingersoll, M. (2019). Uncommon knowledge: International schools as elite educational enclosures. In K. J. Saltman & A. J. Means (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of global educational reform (pp. 259–281). Wiley. Kabel, A. (2021a). The neoliberal linguistic consensus: Neoliberal multilingualism and linguistic governmentality in Morocco. The Journal of North African Studies, Early View. https://doi.org/10.1080/13629387. 2021.1932481 Kabel, A. (2021b). ‘The tide is coming in fast’: Ideologies of English, global linguistic coloniality and decolonial pluriversalingualism. In R. Tupas & R. Rubdy (Eds.), World Englishes: Ideologies (pp. 43–63). Bloomsbury. Kandiah, T. (2001). Whose meanings? Probing the dialectics of English as a global language. In C. K. Tong, A. Pakir, K. C. Ban, & R. B. H. Goh (Eds.), Ariels – departures and returns: A festschrift for Edwin Thumboo (pp. 102–121). Oxford University Press. Kauppinen, I. (2015). Towards a theory of transnational academic capitalism. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 36, 336–353. Lee, J. T., & Naidoo, R. (2020). Complicit reproductions in the Global South: Courting world class universities and global rankings. In S. Rider, M. A. Peters, M. Hyvönen, & T. Besley (Eds.), World class universities: A contested concept (pp. 77–91). Springer.

76

Linguistic imperialism in English-medium higher education Lingard, B., Rawolle, S., & Taylor, S. (2005). Globalizing policy sociology in education: Working with Bourdieu. Journal of Education Policy, 20, 759–777. Makdisi, G. (1981). The rise of colleges. Institutions of learning in Islam and the West. Edinburgh University Press. Mamdani, M. (2007). Scholars in the marketplace. HSRC Press. Marginson, S. (2007). National and global competition in higher education. In J. Ozga & B. Lingard (Eds.), The RoutledgeFalmer reader in education policy and politics (pp. 131–153). Routledge. Mazrui, A. A. (2005). Pan-Africanism and the intellectuals: Rise, decline and revival. In T. Mkandawire (Ed.), African intellectuals: Rethinking politics, language, gender and development (pp. 56–75). Zed Books/ CODESRIA. Mazrui, A. A. (2016). The English language in a global context. In P. Bunce, R. Phillipson, V. Rapatahana, & R. Tupas (Eds.), Why English? Confronting the Hydra (pp. 23–34). Multilingual Matters. Mbembe, J. A. (2016). Decolonizing the university: New directions. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 15, 29–45. Mkandawire, T. (2005). African intellectuals and nationalism. In T. Mkandawire (Ed.), African intellectuals: Rethinking politics, language, gender and development (pp.10–55). CODESRIA Books/Pluto. Mundy, K., & Verger, A. (2015). The World Bank and the global governance of education in a changing world order. International Journal of Educational Development, 40, 9–18. Naidoo, R. (2008). Higher education: A powerhouse for development in a neo-liberal age? In D. Epstein, R. Boden, R. Deem, F. Rizvi, & S. Wright (Eds.), Geographies of knowledge, geometries of power: Framing the future of higher education (pp. 248–265). Routledge. Naidoo, R. (2018). The competition fetish in higher education: Shamans, mind snares and consequences. European Educational Research Journal, 17, 605–620. Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o. (1986). Decolonising the mind: The politics of language in African literature. James Currey. Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o. (1993). Moving the centre. James Currey. Park, J. S. Y. (2016). Language as pure potential. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 37, 453–466. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford University Press. Phillipson, R. (2009). Linguistic imperialism continued. Routledge. Phillipson, R. (2015). English as threat or opportunity in European higher education. In S. Dimova, A. K. Hultgren, & C. Jensen (Eds.), English-medium instruction in higher education in Europe (pp. 19–42). Mouton de Gruyter. Phillipson, R. (2017). Myths and realities of ‘global’ English. Language Policy, 16, 313–331. Phillipson, R. (2019). Languages in public policy, and constraints in academia. Language Problems and Language Planning, 43, 286–311, a rejoinder by J. Mélitz, and response by R. Phillipson, 318–324. Rappleye, J., & Un, L. (2018). What drives failed policy at the World Bank? An inside account of new aid modalities to higher education: Context, blame, and infallibility. Comparative Education, 54, 250–274. Rose, M. (2014). ‘Bavures and Shibboleths’: The changing ecology of culture and language in Morocco. In A. Hussey & M. Rose (Eds.), The challenge of North Africa (pp. 115–128). SENAR/British Council. Rose, M. (2015). Immunizing the mind: How can education reform contribute to neutralizing violent extremism? British Council. Saliba, G. (2007). Islamic science and the making of the European Renaissance. The MIT Press. Sen, A. (2005). The argumentative Indian: Writings on Indian culture, history and identity. Penguin. Tsing, A. (2000). The global situation. Cultural Anthropology, 15, 327–360. UNESCO. (1997). Recommendation concerning the status of higher-education teaching personnel. Retrieved from http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13144&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201. html Wierzbicka, A. (2006). English: Meaning and culture. Oxford University Press. Wierzbicka, A. (2013). Imprisoned in English: The hazards of English as a default language. Oxford University Press. World Bank. (2020). Realizing the future of learning: From learning poverty to learning for everyone, everywhere. World Bank.

77

PART II

English-medium instruction in higher education in Europe

6 ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION THROUGHOUT EUROPE Anna Kristina Hultgren

Introduction Since the turn of the millennium, European higher education has witnessed a remarkable rise in English-medium instruction (EMI), accompanied by a paralleled rise in research activities aimed at understanding this phenomenon. What we are witnessing is arguably a language shift in the making, not seen in Europe since Latin was adopted as a lingua franca. The manifestations of EMI vary throughout Europe. In some contexts, EMI has sparked heated public debates, led to lawsuits, and encountered other forms of overt resistance, whilst in others, it is being pursued with relentless zeal. In essence, these debates centre on how universities should strike a balance between their participation in a ‘globalized knowledge economy’ and serving the interests of the nation-state. Within higher education institutions themselves, some staff and students are profoundly affected by having to teach, learn, and operate in a language that is not their first, whilst others soldier on seemingly unperturbed by the changing environment. This chapter reviews the current state of the art in the field and discusses some of the key issues, tensions, and debates relating to EMI throughout Europe. To begin, however, it may be helpful to set the sociolinguistic background against which EMI unfolds.

The sociolinguistic background of Europe Although Europe is home to only around 3% of the world’s 6,000–7,000 languages, it is a multilingual continent with approximately 225 languages. Due to a promotion of a ‘one nation one language’ ideology since the seventeenth- to nineteenth-century Enlightenment and nation-building projects, the vast majority (around 90%) of Europeans speak a language in one of the three main Indo-European language groups: Germanic, Romance, and Balto-Slavic. Germanic languages, which include English, German, and Dutch, are mainly spoken in Central and Northern Europe; Romance languages, for example, Spanish, French, and Italian, are spoken in Western and Southern Europe; and Balto-Slavic languages, for example, Latvian, Russian, and Polish, are spoken in the Baltics and Eastern Europe. Other noteworthy national languages of the Indo-European group are Greek, Armenian, and Albanian. Non-Indo-European national languages include Hungarian, Finnish, and Estonian (Uralic languages), as well as Azerbaijani, Kazakh, and Turkish (Turkic

81

DOI: 10.4324/9781003011644-8

Anna Kristina Hultgren

languages), as well as Georgian (Kartvelian languages). Maltese is the only Semitic language in Europe. In accordance with the size of the population in which the national language is spoken, the most widely spoken first language in Europe is German (16%), followed by Italian and English (13% each), French (12%), and then Spanish and Polish (8%). In more recent times, the rights of minority and regional language speakers have been more actively promoted in Europe, at least officially, through the European Union’s policy channels and frameworks. Although individual nation-states vary in their compliance, the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (Council of Europe, 1992) and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (Council of Europe, 1994) set out to protect both indigenous minority languages and more newly arrived immigrant languages. Meanwhile, policies such as the Mother-Tongue +2 and A New Framework Strategy for Multilingualism take a slightly different approach by promoting the learning of other, mainly European, national languages. Whether such policies have had an effect is difficult to know for certain, although it is clear that most Europeans are keen language learners. According to a survey of 25 EU member states, just over half of Europeans (54%) can engage in a conversation in at least one additional language, a quarter (25%) can speak at least two additional languages, and one in ten (10%) is proficient in at least three (European Commission, 2012). As a political entity, the European Union recognises 24 official languages, which have, in principle, equal status. Individual nation-states establish their own language policies. Some are officially or de facto monolingual, as in the case of Albania, Sweden, and Italy. Others are bilingual or multilingual, such as, Finland, where Finnish and Swedish are coofficial languages; Kazakhstan, where Kazakh and Russian hold official status; and Switzerland, where no less than four languages, German, French, Italian, and Romansh, hold official status. Regarding the status and prevalence of English, which is relevant when it comes to EMI, Europe serves as an example par excellence of the world Englishes scholar, Braj Kachru, referred to as Expanding Circle. In other words, English does not have a colonial legacy but a more recent, and growing, presence as a result of globalising processes and the rise of the United States as a global superpower since the Second World War. English has made inroads into European society through transnational domains such as higher education, business, popular culture, and the Internet. In 19 out of 23 non-English-dominant EU member states, English is the most widely spoken foreign language, and two-thirds of Europeans (67%) consider English as one of the two most useful languages (European Commission, 2012). English is taught as the most important foreign language in the vast majority of European countries with the percentage of students learning English at secondary level being 94% in 2016, a trend that has significantly increased in recent years (Eurostat, 2016; Eurydice, 2012; Lanvers & Hultgren, 2018). Testifying to its ever-increasing importance, the age at which English is introduced in schools is continuously decreasing in many European countries, now typically beginning at primary and sometimes even at pre-school level (Eurostat, 2016; Eurydice, 2012). In many Eastern European countries, English has replaced Russian as a compulsory school subject (Eurostat, 2016). So critical is its perceived importance that some European countries, for example, Denmark and Greece, have witnessed political motions to elevate English to co-official language. However, such proposals are often regarded as controversial and tend to generate considerable public debate. Despite the undeniable increase in the status and ubiquity of English throughout Europe over the past few decades, it should be borne in mind that proficiency levels vary considerably across Europe. In some countries, particularly the Netherlands and the Nordic countries, English is so ubiquitous and proficiency levels are so advanced that some argue assigning English the status of second rather than foreign language. However, while between 86% and 90% of the population in the Netherlands, Sweden, and Denmark report being able to hold a conversation in English, only 82

English-medium instruction in higher education throughout Europe

20–25% of the population in Hungary, Spain, and Bulgaria report the same (European ­Commission, 2012). As we shall explore further, the nations with higher English language proficiency are also the ones where EMI is much more widespread in higher education. Therefore, it seems likely that the extent to which EMI will make inroads is determined at least in part by pre-existing English language proficiency levels in the country in question.

The medium of instruction in European higher education As mentioned earlier, processes of Enlightenment and nation-building have ensured that the national language (or languages in cases where there is more than one) plays an important role in education at both tertiary and pre-tertiary levels. Public institutions such as schools and universities are key vehicles for the socialisation of children and young adults into societal norms, including linguistic ones. Education is also a context where norms and standards, including national languages and standard language ideologies, are most pronounced and deviations from norms and standards may face sanctions or penalties. It should also be recognised that, although national and official languages tend to play a key role in European education, in some European nation-states, language of instruction is highly political and many minoritised groups have fought, and still do, for their right to be educated in their first language, which of course does not always correspond to that of the nation-state. To some extent, the emergence of specialised educational institutions, be it international, complementary, dual language, and other such schools, may adopt languages of instruction that are different from that in mainstream education. At the tertiary level of education more specifically, which is our concern in this chapter, Europe is the cradle of higher education as we know it today, boasting many of the world’s oldest universities, such as the University of Bologna, Italy (founded in 1088), University of Oxford, United Kingdom (1096–1167), and University of Salamanca, Spain (1134). The national languages, in whatever form they have taken at the time, are therefore likely to have played some role in European higher education. Alongside this, however, universities, throughout their history, have always been internationally oriented, as reflected in the root ‘universe’ of the word ‘university’. In Europe, they have operated variously, depending on epoch and locality, in Latin, German, French, and Russian. It is important to remember, then, that although there has recently been an exponential rise of English in higher education, the use of more than one language in higher education is not in itself new. Although there are, as we shall see, clear indications that EMI has considerably increased throughout European higher education in recent decades, this does not mean that there is necessarily an official policy in place that mandates the use of English (see the section on drivers of EMI). There is some evidence to suggest that EMI policies may be implemented post-hoc, as an afterthought in response to a reality in which English is used as a lingua franca in a multilingual environment generated by internationalisation strategies. Fieldwork undertaken at the University of Copenhagen illustrates this process. A computer science programme at BA level was by convention taught in Danish. However, one course was taught by a lecturer who was a Swedish-speaking Finn. Although Swedish and Danish are, in principle, mutually comprehensible, the students, some of whom were unaccustomed to the Finland-Swedish variety used by the lecturer, had asked him to switch to English to facilitate comprehension. Thus, in this case, without there being an official policy in place, EMI became the de facto policy on this particular course for pragmatic reasons. In other words, in linguistically diverse contexts, English becomes ‘the most cost- and hassle-free choice’ (Coleman, 2013, p. xiv). As Fabricius, Haberland, and Mortensen (2017, p. 589) put it: ‘if communication of knowledge is the transaction, it can only be carried out in one currency, 83

Anna Kristina Hultgren

English’, or ‘If not English, then what’ (Kuteeva, 2020). The area of policy in relation to EMI, then, is a complex and fruitful area of future study. A British Council-commissioned study, which provides insights into official EMI policies in 55 countries, many of which are in Europe at all three levels of education, offers a useful starting point (Dearden, 2015).

The rise of EMI in European higher education Although generally agreed to be a phenomenon on the rise, it is never entirely straightforward to obtain reliable figures on the prevalence of EMI, given complexities in estimating language use. Questions faced include: Should we count the proportion of institutions that offer EMI programmes and if so, do we include both public and private institutions, research-intensive universities, polytechnics, and vocational institutions? Should we count programmes, courses, classes, or seminars offered in English? And does each of these need to be fully taught in English in order to be counted? How should we deal with cases in which the instruction takes place in the local language but the learning and teaching material and resources used are in English? Moreover, given the unplanned and often ad hoc nature of EMI implementation, how and from where do we obtain numbers, and if they exist, can we trust the source? With these caveats in mind, Europe is without a doubt the continent with the most comprehensive and reliable figures on the prevalence of EMI in higher education. The most extensive studies are those undertaken by ACA, the Academic Cooperation Association, an organisation committed to the internationalisation of higher education. This organisation has published, in 2001, 2007, and 2014, a series of studies, which has been indispensable in terms of providing numbers of the rise of EMI over time. In the 1,155 higher institutions surveyed in 28 European countries, the number of English-taught programmes had increased from 725 in 2001, to 2,389 in 2007, and to 8,089 in 2013/2014 (Maiworm & Wächter, 2002; Wächter & Maiworm, 2008, 2014). This amounts to a 1,000% increase in English-taught programmes in Europe in just over one decade from 2001 to 2014. However, Wächter and Maiworm are careful to point out that despite this apparent growth, only a small proportion of students in Europe are enrolled in English-taught programmes, more specifically only 1.3% of total student enrolment in the countries covered, amounting to 2,900,004 students in the academic year 2013/2014. Similarly, they note that, in the latest survey in 2014, it was still only a minority (27%) of the higher education institutions surveyed that offered at least one English-taught programme and about 6% of all study programmes that are provided exclusively in English. Notwithstanding such pronounced caution, it should be borne in mind that EMI is likely to have grown substantially in the past six to seven years since the last study was undertaken in 2013/2014, particularly among more recent adopters of EMI in Eastern Europe and the Baltics. It would be useful with an update of EMI prevalence. Against the backdrop of an overall growth in EMI, it is important to note that EMI varies considerably according to nation, discipline, and educational level. Nationally, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and Finland ranked top in most recent data from 2013 to 2014, whereas France, Turkey, Spain, Portugal, Romania, Greece, Bulgaria, and Croatia ranked bottom, showing a clear divide between Northern Europe and the Netherlands on the one hand and Southern and Eastern Europe on the other (Wächter & Maiworm, 2014). A study of 11 European countries, which controlled the population size, confirms the north–south divide documented in Wächter and Maiworm (2014) with the Nordic and Baltic states having a higher proportion of English-medium master’s programmes per 100,000 inhabitants than Southern Europe (Hultgren, Dimova, & Jensen, 2015). Where Iceland, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Estonia offer between 9 and 3.7 MA programmes in English per 100,000 inhabitants, Spain, Italy, Croatia, and Turkey offer between 0.8 84

English-medium instruction in higher education throughout Europe

and 0.1. Based on these studies, it appears that EMI is poised to make greater inroads in countries where pre-existing English language proficiencies are comparatively high, that is in the Netherlands and Northern Europe than in Southern and Eastern Europe, although there are also other factors at play: (Hultgren et al. 2023). The extent of EMI is also likely to vary with the presence of international staff and students. The presence of international staff and students is known to vary significantly between countries, with wealthier countries receiving overwhelmingly more than they send, and vice versa for the poorer countries. The country in Europe with the highest proportion of international students (18%) in 2018 was Switzerland, 10%, 29%, and 56% each at BA, MA, and PhD level, where the country with the lowest proportion was Turkey: 2% in total; 2%, 5% and 8%, respectively, at BA, MA, and PhD levels (OECD, 2020). Whilst both richer and poorer countries are likely to be committed to strategically attract overseas staff and students, whether or not through official EMI policies, poorer countries may implement EMI with the additional incentive of preventing brain drain. However, many institutions, both in wealthier and poorer nation-states, cite the importance of ‘internationalization at home’ (Beelen & Leask, 2011) and the strengthening of intercultural and English language skills as well as employability of their domestic student population. A survey of Italian universities showed a clear north–south divide, with more EMI being offered in Italy’s wealthier north, suggesting that resourcing, wealth, and prestige play a role in the extent to which EMI will make inroads (Costa & Coleman, 2013). With respect to disciplinary variation, most EMI is offered in social sciences, business, and law (35%), followed by sciences (23%), and engineering, manufacturing, and construction (18%); all other subject areas remain below 10% (Wächter & Maiworm, 2014). Whilst other surveys have yielded slightly different results (Brenn-White & Faethe, 2013; Brenn-White & van Rest, 2012), this is likely to have to do with how faculties and departments are divided within the organisational structure of universities. The general picture seems to be that business studies, economics, and STEM subjects are those most frequently offered in English, whereas humanities are most frequently offered in a local language; and social sciences fall somewhere in between. These disciplinary differences, which partly stem from different ‘knowledge-making practices and educational goals’, have prompted calls for tailoring language educational policies to specific disciplines (Kuteeva & Airey, 2014, p. 533). Finally, in regard to educational level, it is well-documented that EMI is significantly more widespread at master’s level than at undergraduate level. Wächter and Maiworm (2014) found that 80% of English-taught programmes in Europe are at the MA level and 20% at the BA level. This may reflect a greater degree of commodification at MA with European institutions competing to attract non-EU fee-paying students for master’s programmes in particular. This is corroborated by other studies finding that the increase in English-taught programmes since the early 2000s was particularly marked at the master’s level and in business and science subjects (Brenn-White & van Rest, 2012). It is also likely that the greater the specialisation of a subject matter, the wider an institution will need to cast its recruitment net, both when it comes to faculty who can teach it and students who want to study it. And as we know, recruitment from a global pool of candidates necessitates English. Against the documented increase in EMI in European higher education, it must be borne in mind that practices tend to be considerably more multilingual and intersemiotic than surveys allow us to capture. Observational and ethnographically inspired research on classroom and other communicative practices has shown speakers drawing on a range of semiotic and linguistic resources to enable communication (Block & Khan, 2021; Kuteeva, Kaufhold, & Hynninen, 2020; Paulsrud, Tian, & Toth, 2021; Preisler, Klitgård, & Fabricius, 2011). Learning and teaching in higher 85

Anna Kristina Hultgren

education encompass a myriad of activities and modes, each associated with their own p­ atterns of language choice: course literature, computer-aided presentations, note-taking, lab work, examinations, assignments, dissertations, e-learning activities, computer software, and group discussions. In smaller language communities, learning and teaching resources tend to be in English as publishers are rarely incentivised to publish books for small markets. Hultgren (2013), for example, shows how a physics lecturer at the University of Copenhagen draws on an English textbook, paraphrasing the content in Danish to an undergraduate audience in order to facilitate comprehension. Such translanguaging practices – the drawing of resources from different ‘known’ languages – have been amply documented by the recent sociolinguistic developments that challenge conceptualisations of language as static entities (Canagarajah, 2013; Li, 2018; Makoni & Pennycook, 2005), in what has been referred to as the ‘trans-super-poly-metro movement’ (­Pennycook, 2016).

Conceptualisations of EMI Academics have conceptualised EMI in a range of ways, depending on their disciplinary affiliation and what is foregrounded. EMI is perhaps the most widely used term. Formulated by Dearden (2015), it has been defined as ‘the use of the English language to teach academic subjects (other than English itself) in countries or jurisdictions where the first language of the majority of the population is not English’ (Macaro, 2018, p. 35). The definition is intuitive and although its breadth is useful, it prevents a differentiation between educational levels. Whilst there may have been an upsurge in EMI at all levels of education, it is the tertiary educational level that has experienced the most tremendous growth in recent decades as a result of intensified internationalisation and global competition in the higher education sector. It is also worth recalling that if the field is conceptualised as including pre-tertiary education, there is already an established body of literature on post-colonial contexts where English and another colonial language is used at school level, which could be more readily drawn on. It is unclear, however, if this body of work can be easily extrapolated to EMI in higher education where students are already literate and where resourcing and educational aims may be different. Other scholars have argued that the definition of EMI should include English-dominant contexts (for example, US, UK, and Australia), since these contexts too have large numbers of speakers who do not have English as their first language, notably as a result of mobility. Thus, emphasising individuals’ language proficiencies rather than geopolitical context, Pecorari and Malmström propose defining EMI as ‘settings where English is the language used for instructional purposes when teaching content subjects although not itself the subject being taught, and also a second or additional language for most participants in the setting’ (2018, p. 499). EMI is sometimes conflated with ICLHE, Integrating Content and Language in Higher Education. However, ICLHE is perhaps better thought of as a distinct pedagogical approach aimed at enhancing teaching and learning by integrating language and content in pedagogy. It builds on a recognition that language and content are intrinsically linked, eschewing conceptualisations of language proficiency as an autonomous construct. As such, it shares points in common with ‘disciplinary’ and ‘academic literacies’, the former of which is defined as ‘the ability to appropriately participate in the communicative practices of a discipline’ (Airey, 2011, p. 13). Thus, being successful in EMI contexts rests, not solely or even primarily, on English language proficiency but on being able to use and understand discipline-specific vocabulary, genres, and registers. Despite ICLHE being a fruitful way forward in EMI contexts to enhance educational outcomes both in terms of language and content (Airey, 2012; Dimova & Kling, 2020; Lasagabaster & Doiz, 2021; Wilkinson & Walsh, 2015), there are often implementation challenges. In contrast to what is the case at school level where Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), has been 86

English-medium instruction in higher education throughout Europe

successfully achieved, at tertiary level, both content and language teachers are highly specialised within their field and not always willing, capable, or confident in moving beyond their disciplinary comfort zone. It has been suggested that a way forward to implementing ICLHE in higher education would be for content and language teachers to collaborate. However, this entails institutional resources and commitment that are not always available (Lasagabaster, 2018). The term EMEMUS (English-Medium Education in Multilingual University Settings), finally, reflects more recent sociolinguistic developments. With its focus firmly at the tertiary level, its scope is wider than merely ‘instruction’. The term highlights ‘the particular role that English plays both as an academic language of teaching and learning as well as a means of international communication’ (Dafouz & Smit, 2016, p. 399, 2020). Thus, it encompasses not only aspects of teaching and learning but also research, administration, and other interactional practices. As such, it has similarities with the somewhat wider term ‘English-Medium Education (EME)’, the term preferred by the British Council, a key player in consolidating the field of EMI. It also shares its broader focus with the terms ‘lingua academica’ (Vila & Bretxa, 2014) and ELFA (English as a Linga Franca in Academic settings) (Mauranen, Hynninen, & Ranta, 2010). Furthermore, by highlighting the multilinguality of universities, EMEMUS reveals its affinity with the English as a lingua franca paradigm, particularly its third wave of development, in which multilingualism is conceptualised as an intrinsic part of English as a lingua franca (Jenkins, 2015). These views are based on English being not an inhibitor but an enabler of multilingualism. In other words, the more linguistic diversity, the more English, and the more English, the more linguistic diversity. Of course, this view is not incompatible with theories on language shift, endangerment, and ­attrition, which point to the risk of local languages eventually yielding to a dominant language. Whether one takes the former or latter view ultimately boils down to how one views the ­ontological status of language: As a fluid assemblage of semiotic resources or as a monolithic ideological entity.

Drivers of EMI What has led to the significant increase in EMI? In their comprehensive European survey, Wächter and Maiworm (2014) asked university leaders and EMI programme managers about their motivations for offering EMI, or English-taught programmes as they referred to it. They subsequently grouped responses into six key areas, which are listed here in order of importance: – Sharpening the international profile of the institution, for example, in comparison to other institutions in their own country or as a driver to foster partnerships with institutions from other countries, for example, by setting up double degree or exchange programmes. – Abolition of language obstacles for the enrolment of foreign students, that is, to attract foreign students who would not enrol in a programme taught in the domestic language. – Improvement of international competences of domestic students by fostering the intercultural understanding and competences of domestic students, by enriching learning through studying together with students from different national/cultural backgrounds, and by making domestic students ‘fit’ for global/international labour markets. – Compensation of shortages of the institution, for example, to counterbalance a lack of enrolment of domestic students or to improve the income base of the institution through revenue from tuition fees paid by foreign students. – Brain gain, that is recruitment of international academic staff and top talents, for example, PhD students, and attraction of foreign students as a future workforce for their own country/ region. 87

Anna Kristina Hultgren

– Altruistic motive, that is to contribute to the development of the ‘Third World’ by providing high-level education for students from respective countries. These overtly stated motivations suggest that internationalisation, and particularly international recruitment, is a key priority for universities. EMI, in turn, is seen as intrinsically embedded in such internationalisation endeavours (Bowles & Murphy, 2020). There is little doubt that internationalisation is a key priority for higher education institutions today, with 90% of institutions having an internationalisation strategy (Marioni, 2019). Alongside this, Wächter and Maiworm’s (2014) respondents declare more educationally oriented motivations such as improving the international competences of domestic students, and an altruistic motive, which, however, is the least important of the motivations cited. Alongside these drivers of EMI, as articulated by university leaders, more indirect drivers of EMI operate at global, European, and national level. At the global level, higher education has been increasingly reconceptualised as a commodity, with universities seen as drivers in an increasingly competitive knowledge economy that competes for students, faculty, and research funds. The development of benchmarking tools, such as global university ranking lists, internationalisation indicators, and journal impact factors, promotes a climate of competition and paves the way for the higher education sector to a global market, which inevitably necessitates a shared language, tending to default to English. At the European level, the decision to create a common European Higher Education Area (EHEA) through the Bologna Declaration, now ratified by 48 European nation-states, is likely to also have played a role in driving EMI. Despite no mention being made of medium of instruction in the Declaration itself, its endeavour to increase mobility within the EHEA by ensuring comparable and transferable degree structures and credits relies on teaching taking place through a shared language. At the national level, many European nation-states started to significantly reform their higher education systems during the 1990s, with new university laws coming into place. In many cases, these reforms centred on devolving responsibility for the management of universities from the state to the universities, with the rationale that they become more efficient and more responsive to surrounding society and industry needs. This was partly necessitated by many more people going to university today than in previous generations, putting the system under pressure. In some European countries, a culture of performativity has arisen whereby public funding is allocated on a competitive basis and contingent upon the attainment of targets. Performance targets (for example, publications in high ranking journals, presence of international staff and students, and so on) may indirectly drive English as an academic language (Hultgren & Wilkinson, 2022). Conceptually, then, we can imagine EMI policies – official or de facto – originating at the global, European, national level, or institutional level. Within the institution, furthermore, they may originate at the level of faculty, department, programme, course, or in the classroom. Further to this, policies may be being official, de facto, stand-alone or, probably most likely, part of another policy or strategy, often internationalisation. Many scholars have commented on the ways in which EMI appears to be an unintended outcome of other governance strategies, notably internationalisation, referring to it as an ‘implicit policy, invisible language’ (Saarinen & Nikula, 2013), a ‘covert language policy’ (Piller & Cho, 2013), a ‘by-product’ or ‘conditio sine qua non’ (Dafouz & Smit, 2020), or an ‘unintended consequence’ (Hultgren, 2022). Or, as Saarinen (2012) asks in relation to the internationalisation of Finnish higher education: ‘Is language an issue?’ Bearing in mind that EMI implementation will vary according to national and institutional context, Denmark, being one of the earliest and most avid providers of EMI, may serve as a case in point to illustrate the complex and multi-layered policy processes involved (Hultgren, 2014), though similar processes 88

English-medium instruction in higher education throughout Europe

have been shown to take place in Sweden, Finland, Estonia, and Latvia (Hult & Källkvist, 2016; Saarinen, 2012; Soler-Carbonell, Saarinen, & Kibbermann, 2017). In Denmark, all eight universities have some form of institutional language policy which recognises, if not promotes, EMI. However, this is framed as ‘parallel language use’, that is, the dual use of English and Danish, a result of advocacy at the supranational and national level. One of these supranational advocates was the Nordic Council, an inter-parliamentary organisation between the five Nordic nation-states Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and Finland and three associated territories, the Faroe Islands, Greenland, and Åland, whose specific remit includes strengthening the Nordic language community (Nordic Council, 2006). This policy was itself a result of a string of policy documents at the national level, particularly in the three Scandinavian countries, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway in the early 2000s. Within each nation-state, these policy initiatives were typically promoted by the Ministry of Culture and the National Language Council, whose primary intention was for ‘parallel language use’ to safeguard the status and continued use of the national Nordic languages, which were perceived as facing some sort of encroachment from English. However, when Danish universities, and particularly the University of Copenhagen, officially adopted ‘parallel language use’, they used it in a sense that was the exact opposite of what had been intended at the supranational and national levels. In other words, where the policy-making bodies at the supranational and national levels had intended for ‘parallel language use’ to mean ‘more Danish’, the University of Copenhagen appropriated it to mean ‘more English’, using it as a justification for attracting a greater amount of overseas faculty (Hultgren, 2014). What we see here, then, is an example of the complex, unintended ways in which EMI may come about and how policy processes are multi-layered and discursively (Barakos & Unger, 2016; Hornberger, Tapia, Hanks, Dueñas, & Lee, 2018; Hult & Källkvist, 2016).

Attitudes to EMI in Europe Much research has sought to capture the attitudes to EMI of lecturers and students in different ­European contexts, typically using questionnaires, interviews, and focus groups (Bolton & Kuteeva, 2012; Dearden & Akincioglu, 2016; Dimova, Hultgren, & Jensen, 2015; Galloway, 2020; Henriksen, Holmen, & Kling, 2019; Jensen & Thøgersen, 2011; Karakaş, 2016; Stuers, 2019). More is known about the attitudes of lecturers than of students, probably due to the easier access offered by shared networks to researchers to this group of participants. A particularly neglected group, research-wise, is administrative staff (Llurda et al., 2014). On the whole, studies of lecturers have revealed a mixed bag of attitudes, with some not appearing particularly perturbed by having to teach in English, or even welcoming the challenge, and others reporting challenges. Challenges reported by lecturers have included hampered ability to interact spontaneously, added workload, and more time needed to explain concepts to compensate for students’ lack of English language proficiency (Helm & Guarda, 2015; Tange, 2010; Vinke, Snippe, J., & Jochems, 1998; Werther, Denver, Jensen, & Mees, 2014). Kling (2015). However, the study did not find that content lecturers at a Danish university felt that their professional identity, authority, and expertise were hampered by having to teach in English. In general, it appears that teaching staff in STEM report fewer challenges than staff in the humanities, and it has been suggested that this has to do with a combination of a longer tradition for using English for research publication purposes and different knowledgemaking practices (Bolton & Kuteeva, 2012; Hultgren, 2018). More recent research has tended to avoid deficit approaches, paving ‘constructive’ ways forward for integrating content and language and incorporating intercultural communication into teacher practices, and engaging in teacher certification (Dimova, Hultgren, & Kling, 2021; Dimova & Kling, 2020; Lasagabaster & Doiz, 2021). 89

Anna Kristina Hultgren

As for students, perceptions of EMI are equally mixed. Whilst many report the added bonus of learning English, a frequently cited challenge is lack of English proficiency amongst themselves, their co-students and their lecturers, or difficulties understanding lecturers because of their non-­ native accents (Bolton & Kuteeva, 2012; Hellekjær, 2017; Jensen, Denver, Mees, & Werther, 2013; Stuers, 2019). Understandably, a key question in the literature has centred on the extent to which content learning is hampered by being delivered in English, but there is as yet no solid evidence hereof (Macaro, Curle, Pun, An, & Dearden, 2018). This stems no doubt partly from complexities involved in researching the extent to which learning happens given that learning is influenced by a myriad of social and psychological factors (Coleman, Hultgren, Li, Cheng-Fang, & Shaw, 2018). Longitudinal studies from Austria and the Netherlands, however, have found that any initial challenges are usually levelled out over time (Klaassen, 2001; Smit, 2010). Thøgersen and Airey (2011) also make the very valid point that even if differences are found when lecturers teach in English compared to when they teach in their first language, such as a slower speech rate and a more formal speech style, it is not clear whether this impacts adversely on learning. Indeed, it may be argued that slowing down one’s speech style may actually aid rather than hinder learning. Overall, as is the case with lecturers, there is increasing realisation that English language proficiency, as autonomously defined, is unlikely to be a guarantor for academic success in EMI contexts. Instead, more recent approaches conceptualise language and content as integral and emphasise the importance of appropriate pedagogy, irrespective of language choice (Komori-Glatz & Smit, 2021). In some European societies, debates about EMI have permeated the public sphere, although the prevalence, shape, and fervour of such debates have varied across Europe. In the Netherlands, for example, the Association for Better Education has been a fierce critic of English-medium programmes and filed (and lost) a law suit against two universities in order to (re)introduce Dutch as a medium of instruction (Gabriëls & Wilkinson, 2020). In Italy, a group of lecturers and researchers successfully sued their university, the Politecnico de Milani, for implementing EMI at MA and PhD level on the grounds that it violated their ‘freedom in teaching’ (Pulcini & Camapagna, 2015; ­Santulli, 2015). In France, the passing of a law that legalised EMI in French universities immediately sparked passionate debates in the National Assembly and the media (Blattès, 2018). Whilst EMI seems to have been implemented in Croatia without much overt resistance (Margić & VodopijaKrstanović, 2015), a great deal of concern has been expressed by the national language councils and members of the cultural elite in the Nordic countries about ‘domain loss’, that is the loss of status and functionality of the Nordic languages in the domain of higher education (Bolton & Kuteeva, 2012; Hultgren, Gregersen, & Thøgersen, 2014; Jensen & Thøgersen, 2011). Other contexts are interesting because they face additional complexities with regard to managing minority languages alongside English as well as a majority language, such as Catalan or Basque in Spain and Swedish in Finland (Cenoz, 2012; Saarinen, 2020; Soler & Gallego-Balsà, 2019). Within a framework of American linguistic anthropology, debates about EMI can be interpreted as proxies for underlying anxieties about the destabilisation of the nation-state and traditional values in the face of globalisation and an increased marketisation of the higher education sector (Hultgren, 2014). Such debates, by necessity, rely on monolithic notions of language, whereby one language (the national language) is perceived to be encroached upon by another (English), that is, it is seen as either or, or what Heller (1999) has termed ‘parallel monolingualism’. In Europe, by tradition, universities are, in general, publicly funded, so there remains a prevailing sense that they should serve the interests of the taxpayer. In Denmark, which, like the other Nordic communities, is based on a strong welfare state, a progressive tax system and a large public sector, a specific concern in the early implementation of EMI was whether graduates, who had been taught through the medium of English, would be able to serve Danish society upon graduation. The example 90

English-medium instruction in higher education throughout Europe

of veterinarians not being able to communicate with their farmer clients in Danish was often invoked. Other concerns were whether scientific knowledge, having been produced mainly in English, would be inaccessible to the general public, whose English language proficiency may be inadequate. Some also expressed concerns that the works of Hans Christian Andersen and other national treasures would become inaccessible for future generations if the Danish language was to cede entirely to English. Whilst the liberal intellectual elite in Denmark were key participants in these debates, members of the far-right national party, the Danish People’s Party, were also involved, illustrating how these language-related debates are also often political debates. The Danish People’s Party is believed to have played a role in a recent governmental mandate to Danish universities to reduce their EMI programmes (Times Higher Education, 2018). Not only do students from the EU study for free in Denmark, they also receive a government grant to support their studies, which to some are seen as excessive if they do not stay in Denmark upon completion of their degree and contribute to Danish society. These examples illustrate that EMI often takes centre stage in political and ideological debates about the balance between the national and the global, and the state and the market.

Conclusion This chapter has attempted to provide an overview of key topics in EMI in European higher education. It has highlighted the meteoric rise of EMI in recent decades and pointed to some of the tensions, debates, and questions generated in its wake. A key message to take away from this chapter is that despite what is arguably a dramatic linguistic shakeup of European higher education, it is remarkable that so little attention is devoted to EMI among policy makers. As Dafouz observes about the recent European Universities’ initiatives but making a more general point: ‘languagerelated concerns are often evaluated as less relevant than other issues, and thus removed from the official agendas’ (2021, p. 12). If linguists want their research to be useful in the real world, they, therefore, face a challenge persuading policymakers that this is a phenomenon that deserves attention, whether this involves more careful planning, commitment of resources, or strategic priority. The relatively under-explored contexts of Eastern Europe and the Baltic states, which are among the more recent adopters of EMI, would be particularly interesting sites for researchers to focus on, ideally in collaboration with policymakers in those regions to maximise impact. Cross-national studies have shown themselves to be particularly revealing, given the highly variable national specificities in English language proficiency, national wealth, and institutional resourcing. Beyond such more practical avenues for future research, EMI also offers a rich platform for addressing fundamental questions in the human and social sciences about how learning happens, what language is, and how globalisation impacts, perhaps in a way that was never intended, on human societies. Notwithstanding that ‘the spread of EMI has outpaced research’ (Bowles & Murphy, 2020, p. 2), the recent consolidation of the field would certainly make it equipped to tackle such big fundamental questions. The field is now supported by an impressive infrastructure that includes a book series, a journal, a master’s programmes, research networks, externally funded projects, third sector interest, and a significant and growing number of doctorates.

References Airey, J. (2011). Talking about teaching in English: Swedish university lecturers’ experience of changing teaching language. Iberica, 22, 35–54. Airey, J. (2012). Integrating content and language in higher education. AILA Review, 25, 64–79. Barakos, E., & Unger, J. (Eds.). (2016). Discursive approaches to language policy. Palgrave Macmillan.

91

Anna Kristina Hultgren Beelen, J., & Leask, B. (2011). Internationalization at home on the move. Dr. Josef Raabe Verlag. Blattès, M. (2018). Policy development for English-medium instruction in French universities. European Journal of Language Policy, 10, 13–37. Block, D., & Khan, S. (Eds.). (2021). The secret life of English-medium instruction in higher education: Examining microphenomena in context. Routledge. Bolton, K., & Kuteeva, M. (2012). English as an academic language at a Swedish university: Parallel language use and the ‘threat’ of English. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33, 429–447. Bowles, H., & Murphy, A. C. (Eds.). (2020). English-medium instruction and the internationalization of universities. Palgrave Macmillan. Brenn-White, M., & Faethe, E. (2013). English-taught master’s programs in Europe: A 2013 update. Institute of International Education. Brenn-White, M., & van Rest, E. (2012). English-taught master’s programs in Europe: New findings on supply and demand. Institute of International Education. Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. Routledge. Cenoz, J. (2012). Bilingual educational policy in higher education in the Basque Country. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 25, 41–55. Coleman, J. (2013). Foreword. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster, & J. Sierra (Eds.), English medium instruction at universities (pp. xiii–xv). Multilingual Matters. Coleman, J., Hultgren, A. K., Li, W., Cheng-Fang, C. T., & Shaw, P. (2018). Forum on English-medium ­Instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 52, 701–720. Costa, F., & Coleman, J. A. (2013). A survey of English-medium instruction in Italian higher education. ­International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16, 3–19. Council of Europe. (1992). European charter for regional or minority languages. Council of Europe. Council of Europe. (1994). The Council of Europe’s framework convention for the protection of national minorities. Council of Europe. Dafouz, E. (2021). Exploring the conceptualisation of linguistic diversity and multilingualism in the construction of (transnational) European universities: The case of UNA Europa. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, Early View. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2021.1920964 Dafouz, E., & Smit, U. (2016). Towards a dynamic conceptual framework for English-medium education in multilingual university settings. Applied Linguistics, 37, 397–415. Dafouz, E., & Smit, U. (2020). ROAD-MAPPING English medium education in the internationalised university. Palgrave Macmillan. Dearden, J. (2015). English as a medium of instruction – A growing global phenomenon. British Council. Dearden, J., & Akincioglu, M. (2016). EMI in Turkish universities: Collaborative planning and student voices. Oxford University Press. Dimova, S., Hultgren, A. K., & Jensen, C. (Eds.). (2015). English-medium instruction in European higher education. Mouton de Gruyter. Dimova, S., Hultgren A. K., & Kling, J. (2021). Englishization in Danish higher education: From critical to constructive conceptualisations. In R. Gabriëls & R. Wilkinson (Eds.), The Englishization of higher education in Europe (pp. 143–162). Maastricht University Press. Dimova, S., & Kling, J. (Eds.). (2020). Integrating content and language in multilingual universities. Springer. European Commission. (2012). Europeans and their languages. European Commission. Eurostat. (2016). Foreign language learning statistics. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/ eurostat/statisticsexplained/index.php/Foreign_language_learning_statistics Eurydice. (2012). Key data on teaching languages at school in Europe in. Brussels: Eurydice/ European Commission. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/12090 Fabricius, A., Haberland, H., & Mortensen, J. (2017). The lure of internationalization: Paradoxical discourses of transnational student mobility, linguistic diversity and cross-cultural exchange. Higher Education, 73, 577–595. Gabriëls, R., & Wilkinson, R. (2020). Resistance to EMI in the Netherlands. In H. Bowles & A. C. ­Murphy (Eds.), English-medium instruction and the internationalization of universities (pp. 49–75). Palgrave Macmillan. Galloway, N. (2020). English in higher education – English medium Part 1: Literature review. British Council. Hellekjær, G. O. (2017). Lecture comprehension in English-medium higher education. HERMES – Journal of Language and Communication in Business, 23(45), 11–34. Heller, M. (1999). Linguistic minorities and modernity: A sociolinguistic ethnography. Longman.

92

English-medium instruction in higher education throughout Europe Helm, F., & 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, 353–372. Henriksen, B., Holmen, A., & Kling, J. (2019). English medium instruction and multicultural universities. Routledge. Hornberger, N., Tapia, A., Hanks, D., Dueñas, F., & Lee, S. (2018). Ethnography of language planning and policy. Language Teaching, 51, 152–186. Hult, F., & Källkvist. M. (2016). Discursive mechanisms and human agency in language policy formation: Negotiating bilingualism and parallel language use at a Swedish university. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19, 1–17. Hultgren, A. K. (2013). Lexical borrowing from English into Danish in the sciences: An empirical investigation of ‘domain loss’. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 23, 166–182. Hultgren, A. K. (2014). Whose parallellingualism? Overt and covert ideologies in Danish university language policies. Multilingua, 33, 61–87. Hultgren, A. K. (2018). The Englishization of Nordic universities: What do scientists think? European Journal of Language Policy, 10, 77–95. Hultgren, A. K. (2022). English-medium instruction in Danish universities: An unintended policy? In N. Galloway & J. McKinley (Eds.), English-medium instruction practices in higher education: International perspectives (pp. 47–57). Bloomsbury. Hultgren, A. K., & Wilkinson, R. (2022). New understandings of the rise of English as a medium of instruction in higher education: The role of key performance indicators and institutional profiling. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 277, 47–59. Hultgren, A. K., Nao, M., Wingrove, P., Yuksel, D., & Zuaro, B. (2023). New insights into the trend towards English as a medium of instruction in European higher education through transdisciplinary participation. In N. Hynninen, I. Herneaho, E. Sippola, J. Isosävi, & M. Yang (Eds.), Kieli ja osallisuus – Språk och ­delaktighet – Language and participation. AFinLAn vuosikirja 2023 [AFinLa Yearbook 2023] (pp. 318–331). Suomen soveltavan kielitieteen yhdistys AFinLA. Hultgren, A. K., Dimova, S., & Jensen, C. (2015). Introduction: English-medium instruction in European higher education: From the North to the South. In S. Dimova, A. K. Hultgren, & C. Jensen (Eds.), Englishmedium instruction in European higher education (pp. 1–16). Mouton de Gruyter. Hultgren, A. K., Gregersen, F., & Thøgersen, J. (Eds.). (2014). English in Nordic universities: Ideologies and practices. John Benjamins. Jenkins, J. (2015). Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a Lingua Franca. Englishes in Practice, 2(3), 49–85. Jensen, C., Denver, L., Mees, I. M., & Werther, C. (2013). Students’ attitudes to lecturers’ English in Englishmedium higher education in Denmark. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 13, 87–112. Jensen, C., & Thøgersen, J. (2011). Danish university lecturers’ attitudes towards English as the medium of instruction. Ibérica, 22, 13–34. Karakaş, A. (2016). Turkish lecturers’ and students’ perceptions of English in English medium instruction universities (PhD thesis). Southampton University, UK. Klaassen, R. (2001). The international university curriculum: Challenges in English-medium engineering education (PhD thesis). Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands. Kling, J. (2015). ‘You try with a little humor and you just get on with it’: Danish lecturers’ reflections on English-medium instruction. In S. Dimova, A. K. Hultgren, & C. Jensen (Eds.), English-medium instruction in European higher education (pp. 201–222). Mouton de Gruyter. Komori-Glatz, M., & Smit, U. (2021). Exploratory Interactive Explaining (EXINTEX): Constructing disciplinary knowledge in two multilingual university settings. Applied Linguistics, 43, 271–292. Kuteeva, M. (2020). If not English, then what? Unpacking language hierarchies at university. In M. Kuteeva, K. Kaufhold, & N. Hynninen (Eds.), Language perceptions and practices in multilingual universities (pp. 26–55). Palgrave Macmillan. Kuteeva, M., & Airey, J. (2014). Disciplinary differences in the use of English in higher education: Reflections on recent language policy developments. Higher Education, 67, 533–549. Kuteeva, M., Kaufhold, K., & Hynninen, N. (Eds.). (2020). Language perceptions and practices in multilingual universities. Palgrave Macmillan. Lanvers, U., & Hultgren, A. K. (2018). The Englishization of European higher education. European Journal of Language Policy, 10, 1–11.

93

Anna Kristina Hultgren Lasagabaster, D. (2018). Fostering team teaching: Mapping out a research agenda for English-medium instruction at university level. Language Teaching, 51, 400–416. Lasagabaster, D., & Doiz, A. (Eds.). (2021). Language use in English-medium instruction at university: International perspectives on teacher practice. Routledge. Li, W. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics, 39, 9–30. Llurda, E., Cots, J. M., & Armengol, L. (2014). Views on multilingualism and internationalisation in higher education: Administrative staff in the spotlight. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35, 376–391. Macaro, E. (2018). English medium instruction. Oxford University Press. Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J., & Dearden, J. (2018). A systematic review of English medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching, 51, 36–76. Maiworm, F., & Wächter, B. (2002). English-language-taught degree programmes in European higher education: Trends and success factors. Lemmens. Makoni, S., & Pennycook, A. (2005). Disinventing and (re)constituting languages. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 2(3), 137–156. Margić, B. D., & Vodopija- Krstanović, I. (2015). Introducing EMI at a Croatian university: Can we bridge the gap between global emerging trends and local challenges? In S. Dimova, A. K. Hultgren, & C. Jensen (Eds.), English-medium instruction in European higher education (pp. 43–64). Mouton de Gruyter. Marioni, G. (2019). Internationalization of higher education: An evolving landscape, locally and globally. IAU 5th Global Survey. International Association of Universities. Retrieved from https://www.iau-aiu.net/ IMG/pdf/iau_5th_global_survey_executive_ summary.pdf Mauranen, A., Hynninen, N., & Ranta, E. (2010). English as an academic lingua franca: The ELFA project. English for Specific Purposes, 29, 183–190. Nordic Council. (2006). The language declaration. Nordic Council. OECD. (2020). Education at a glance. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary. org/education/education-at-a-glance-2020_69096873-en Paulsrud, B., Tian, Z., & Toth, J. (Eds.). (2021). English-medium instruction and translanguaging. Multilingual Matters. Pecorari, D., & Malmström, H. (2018). At the crossroads of TESOL and English medium instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 52, 497–515. Pennycook, A. (2016). Mobile times, mobile terms: The trans-super-poly-metro movement. In N. Coupland (Ed.), Sociolinguistics: Theoretical debates (pp. 201–216). Cambridge University Press. Piller, I., & Cho, J. (2013). Neoliberalism as language policy. Language in Society, 42, 23–44. Preisler, B., Klitgård, I., & Fabricius, A. (2011). Language and learning in the international university: From English uniformity to diversity and hybridity. Multilingual Matters. Pulcini, V., & Camapagna, S. (2015). Internationalisation and the EMI controversy in Italian higher education. In S. Dimova, A. K. Hultgren, & C. Jensen (Eds.), English-medium instruction in European higher education (pp. 65– 88). Mouton de Gruyter. Saarinen, T. (2012). Internationalization of Finnish higher education: Is language an issue? International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 216, 157–173. Saarinen, T. (2020). Higher education, language and new nationalism in Finland recycled histories. Palgrave Macmillan. Saarinen, T., & Nikula, T. (2013). Implicit policy, invisible language: Policies and practices of international degree programmes in Finnish higher education. In A. Doiz., D. Lasagabaster, & J. Sierra (Eds.), Englishmedium instruction at universities: Global challenges (pp. 131–150). Multilingual Matters. Santulli, F. (2015). English in Italian universities: The language policy of PoliMi from theory to practice. In S. Dimova, A. K. Hultgren, & C. Jensen (Eds.), English-medium instruction in European higher education (pp. 269–290) Mouton de Gruyter. Smit, U. (2010). English as a lingua franca in higher education: A longitudinal study of classroom discourse. Mouton de Gruyter. Soler, J., & Gallego-Balsà, L. (2019). The sociolinguistics of higher education language policy and internationalisation in Catalonia. Palgrave Macmillan. Soler-Carbonell, J., Saarinen, T., & Kibbermann, K. (2017). Multilayered perspectives on language policy in higher education: Finland, Estonia, and Latvian comparison. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38, 301–314.

94

English-medium instruction in higher education throughout Europe Stuers, S. (2019). Access to and experience of English-medium instruction in higher education in G ­ ermany: A study into English language entry requirements and their relevance (EdD thesis). The Open University, UK. Tange, H. (2010). Caught in the tower of babel: University lecturers’ experiences with internationalisation. Language and Intercultural Communication, 10, 137–149. Thøgersen, J., & Airey, J. (2011). Lecturing undergraduate science in Danish and in English: A comparison of speaking rate and rhetorical style. English for Specific Purposes, 30, 209–221. Times Higher Education. (2018). Policy shift forces Danes to close degrees and cut ­ English teaching. Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/policy-shift-forces-danes-closedegrees-and-cut-english-teaching Vila, F. X., & Bretxa, V. (Eds.). (2014). Language policy in higher education: The case of medium-sized languages. Multilingual Matters. Vinke, A. A., Snippe, J., & Jochems, W. (1998). English medium content courses in non-English higher education: A study of lecturer experiences and teaching behaviours. Teaching in Higher Education, 3, 383–394. Wächter, B., & Maiworm, F. (2008). English-taught programmes in European higher education: The picture in 2007. Lemmens. Wächter, B., & Maiworm, F. (2014). English-taught programmes in European higher education: The state of play in 2014. Lemmens. Werther, C., Denver, L., Jensen, C., & Mees, I. M. (2014). Using English as a medium of instruction at university level in Denmark: The lecturer’s perspective. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35, 443–462. Wilkinson, R., & Walsh, M. L. (Eds.). (2015). Integrating content and language in higher education: From theory to practice. Peter Lang.

95

7 ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN AUSTRIA Ute Smit and Verena Grau

Introduction Since the first grassroots initiatives of the early 1990s, English has widened its use in Austrian higher education (HE) from first foreign language to a firmly established medium of instruction. While this shift away from the long-standing de facto policy of ‘German only’ has taken place relatively matter-of-factly and without attracting much public or political attention, it is certainly here to stay. Not only do most Austrian higher education institutions (HEIs) make use of English as educational medium for some of their programmes and courses (Wächter & Maiworm, 2014), but it has also become an integral element of HE development planning at the national level. Aiming to guide Austrian HEIs along their institutionally appropriate routes towards internationalisation (of whatever kind and understanding), the Ministry of Education encourages HEIs to offer ‘an attractive range of courses [and programmes] taught in a foreign language’ (Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research, 2020, p. 11). Nevertheless, by neither specifying English as the targeted language, nor providing any suggestions for policy implementation, this strategy paper reflects a widely encountered laissez-faire approach to language matters in Austrian politics that implicitly supports German as the default language in all public domains (de Cillia & Vetter, 2013). This widely encountered monolingual ideology, however, clashes with Austria’s sociolinguistic history and present-day reality (Bauer, 2008; Rindler Schjerve, 2003; Smit & Schwarz, 2019). Put briefly, this central European country has been multilingual for centuries: Up to the early twentieth century, the Habsburg monarchy comprised various peoples and languages. But even since then, Austria has had a multilingual history, despite its rebirth after World War I as a considerably smaller and German dominant state. In addition to a handful of autochthonous groups, whose languages enjoy constitutional recognition and regional rights, the economic upswing in the 1960s invited sizable groups of so-called ‘guest workers’ to the country, many of whom settled, thus enriching the society with their heritage languages, mainly Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian and Turkish. The 1990s then brought the political integration into the EU and, after the fall of the Iron Curtain, intense economic exchange with the neighbouring countries to the east. This strong impetus to Europeanise has coincided with the global socio-economic move to internationalise that we know only too well as a major change factor to higher education worldwide, both in terms of overarching DOI: 10.4324/9781003011644-9 96

English-medium instruction in higher education in Austria

strategies as well as a trigger to introduce English as medium of instruction. Not surprisingly, these recent developments have impacted on Austrian HEIs in diverse and lasting ways. Against this brief sketch of Austrian sociolinguistic developments, it is the aim of this chapter to give a detailed account of English-medium higher education in present-day Austria. Conceptually, this will be done under the label ‘English-medium education in multilingual university settings’ (EMEMUS), or ‘English-medium education’ (EME) for short. As argued elsewhere (Dafouz & Smit, 2021), we prefer EME(MUS) over the more widely used ‘English-medium instruction’ (EMI) because of its semantic and conceptual transparency. Rather than singling out ‘instruction’, it identifies education as what is at stake in its interrelatedness of teaching and learning in diverse contexts. Secondly, multilingualism is foregrounded, recognising that, in addition to the privileged position of English, one or more other language(s) fulfil diverse functions, resulting in dynamic, multi-layered, and partially contested multilingual policies and practices. Given this dynamic complexity, EMEMUS requires to be approached comprehensively, which is offered in the ROAD-MAPPING framework. Anchored conceptually in sociolinguistic and ecolinguistic approaches, as well as language policy research, this framework uses discourse as an ‘access point to the analysis of social practices’ (Dafouz & Smit, 2016, p. 406) that are heuristically described according to six independent but interrelated dimensions. Following the acronym, these dimensions are: Roles of English (in relation to other languages; RO), Academic Disciplines (AD), (language) Management (M), Agents (A), Practices & Processes (PP), and Internationalisation & Glocalisation (ING) (for more information, see Dafouz & Smit, 2020, ch. 3). While ROAD-MAPPING and its dimensions guide our approach to EME in Austria, we will draw on it explicitly in our final section. Before turning to EME itself, though, we provide an overview of Austrian HEIs and their medium-of-instruction policies.

Higher education institutions: An overview For its 9 million inhabitants,1 Austria has a diversified and rich higher education landscape, comprising, at the time of writing, 73 institutions catering to almost 350,000 students in total.2 Based on their legal anchoring, these HEIs fall into four strands:3 Traditional research universities, universities of applied sciences, teacher education institutions and private universities. Of these strands, the first two cater to more than 90% of all students in Austria. The 14 teacher education institutions based in the main cities of all nine Austrian provinces make up 4.7% of all students, or just over 16,500. An even smaller number of students (12,200 or 3.5% of the total) attend one of the 16 private universities. Combining international as well as Austrian-based institutions, these HEIs form a diverse group, in terms of educational specialisations (ranging from business, tourism, music to medicine) as well as funding. While some are truly privately subsidised and rely on substantial student fees, others receive provincial funding that allows for the moderate student fees typical at all other HE types.4 HEIs of these two strands have so far attracted marginal research attention, possibly reflecting their rather narrow educational orientation in combination with their limited student numbers. Given the aims of this handbook, this chapter will thus focus on the two largest HE strands, namely traditional research universities and universities of applied sciences. The 22 Austrian research universities cater to almost 265,000 students, comprising 76% of the whole student population. Six of these universities, located in the main Austrian cities, represent comprehensive universities that combine the traditional disciplinary areas of the humanities, social sciences, natural sciences, and law. The remaining 16 institutions specialise in individual disciplinary areas, such as economics, natural sciences and technical studies, medicine, or music and the arts. While these HEIs differ in specialisation, size, and location, they share a common 97

Ute Smit and Verena Grau

characteristic as typical research HEIs. Their primary mission is to cultivate academic knowledge and competences, both individually and by contributing to extant research. This fundamental academic interest is reflected in the educational offerings, which range from bachelor to (post) PhD levels in a wide range of academic areas, including those that are economically less marketable, such as humanities or the non-applied social and natural sciences. The 21 Universities of Applied Sciences (UAS) provide higher education for 55,000, which constitute 16% of all students. Similar to other European countries, the UAS sector was established in the 1990s with the aim of offering vocationally oriented higher education. These institutions are spread all over the country, aiming to prepare non-traditional student groups for highly qualified employment in the local economy (Gaisch & Aichinger, 2017). Reflecting this educational mission, UAS offer bachelor and master programmes, but not PhDs, in the fields of business, media and design, engineering, health, and applied sciences, all of which are directly relevant to the world of work. As a significant portion of their programmes are offered on a part-time basis, they also cater to life-long learning. Finally, 27% of all students at traditional universities and UAS are foreign students. This relatively large share, however, combines various nationalities, including a large contingence of students from German-speaking countries.5 While certainly a crude measurement for language competence, the total of German, Swiss, and Italian students – the latter are included because of the many German-speaking students from South Tyrol – amounts to almost 49% of all foreign students. Conversely, the number of foreign students likely not to speak German amount to almost 14% of all students.6 As these students tend to have trouble following German-speaking programmes, EME is particularly relevant for them.

English as medium of instruction With nationalism becoming the decisive socio-political force in Europe and universities gaining in regional relevance in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Austrian universities adopted German as their exclusive medium of communication, relegating other languages to the status of foreign languages or objects of research (Dannerer, 2018). Despite the afore-sketched multilingual constellation of Austrian citizens throughout generations, German as official language of HE thus became the de facto language policy (Johnson, 2013). These uncontested monolingual policies became so ingrained that it was never formally documented. As a legacy of these sociolinguistic developments, written language policies are still absent at Austrian HEIs. A noticeable change to ‘German only’ came indirectly with the advent of internationalisation, which has been shaping Austrian HE since the beginning of the new millennium. Internationalisation is understood comprehensively as ‘a commitment, confirmed through action, to integrate international, global, and comparative perspectives throughout the teaching, research, and service missions of higher education’ (Hudzik & McCarthy, 2012, p. 2). It has developed from a range of individual activities relating to, for instance, international research cooperation or student and staff mobility, to a holistic strategy for high quality education and innovation (Knight, 2018). Correspondingly, calls for action and change along such lines permeate all decision-taking levels of Austrian HE. The Ministry of Education offers the political aims and expectations in their strategy papers (Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research, 2020). The two national associations of research universities (called UNIKO) and of UAS (called FHK) function as thinktanks and lobbying bodies for institution-specific routes to internationalisation. Each HEI develops its own strategy and planning steps, which are laid out in their publicly available Development Plans published every three years as the basis for negotiating public funding. 98

English-medium instruction in higher education in Austria

A recent analysis of Development Plans and other relevant documents of six research universities and all universities of applied sciences (Dannerer, Gaisch, & Smit, 2021) reveals two key findings. Firstly, language is addressed in a haphazard and often implicit manner. Secondly, English is considered integral to most internationalisation endeavours. Most centrally, it is positioned as necessary feature of internationalised education due to its role as global lingua franca: When study programmes are offered in English, they will attract international students and lecturers, thus allowing for student and staff mobility as well as ‘internationalisation at home’ for the local students. Although often not made explicit, EME is expected to lead to an improvement in students’ English proficiency, preparing them for the professional purposes they will face in their future jobs. Interestingly, this language learning objective only rarely finds institutional support in terms of extra language classes. While English does play a role as medium of instruction or as subject of learning, it is interesting to note that not all texts mention ‘English’, but use ‘(foreign/other) language’ instead (Dannerer et al., 2021, p. 290). As observed in other HEIs as well (Dafouz & Smit, 2016; Saarinen & Nikula, 2013), these seemingly neutral descriptors construct a dichotomy between national and foreign languages, thereby insinuating their potentially multilingual policy pursuits. By using the singular ‘foreign/other language’, however, the actual intention is easily detectable: English is the one and only other language considered. This interpretation finds support when looking for references to other named languages, which are restricted to language studies in the humanities and occasional mentions of Italian at HEIs situated close to Italy. This means that even if not specified as such, Austrian HEIs clearly position English as the only language of wider communication relevant to their internationalisation endeavours. In sum, this brief description of medium-of-instruction policies at Austrian HEIs has revealed that the traditional monolingual policy of ‘German only’ has seen some slight adaptation in the last decades. Triggered by the strong internationalisation force, Austrian HEIs now have given some policy space to English as the primary academic lingua franca. While official recognition in terms of written language regulation is still pending, the presently enacted policies of using either German or English point towards a form of globalised bilingualism. This form of bilingualism is identified as a de facto language policy in twenty-first century Austria more generally (Smit & Schwarz, 2019).

The EME landscape The number of English-medium programmes (EMPs) in Austria has grown significantly over the course of the past decades (Wächter & Maiworm, 2014). To present an updated overview, we have conducted a survey of English-medium courses and EMPs, which has revealed that at the time of writing, a total of 226 English-medium bachelor and master programmes are offered at traditional research universities and UAS (Figure 7.1).7 The vast majority of these are provided in the STEM field (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) and the field of business and economics. Moreover, while the number of EMPs at the undergraduate level is rising, they are still predominantly found at the graduate level, which is particularly noticeable in the traditional research university sector. At traditional research universities, 12.5% or 144 out of the 1,155 bachelor and master programmes listed are offered in English. The great majority of EMPs are master programmes (136), predominantly offered in STEM (96) with several programmes related to various areas of business and economics (25) and a smaller number in other fields (14). Only eight English-medium programmes can be found at the undergraduate level, two of which are English language bachelor programmes and thus not EMPs in the narrower sense. This leaves six non-language bachelor EMPs, 99

Ute Smit and Verena Grau

Figure 7.1 Overview of English-medium programmes at Austrian traditional research universities and UAS (as in May 2021).

three in (international) business and economics, and three related to science and IT (chemistry and chemical technology, biological chemistry and artificial intelligence). Of those six EMPs, four programmes are offered by the same institution, JKU Linz. The remaining two programmes take place at WU Wien and University of Klagenfurt, which shows that at the time of writing only one non-language bachelor EMP is presently available in the capital city. In addition to programmes taught fully in English, most traditional research universities offer individual classes held in English. In an enquiry into the number of English-taught classes in the winter term 2019/2020, 5,564 classes were offered in English at 14 of the 22 traditional research universities.8 In the UAS sector, 12.8% or 82 out of 643 bachelor and master programmes are currently offered in English. With 22 bachelor and 60 master programmes, EMPs at UAS are somewhat more evenly distributed. The bachelor programmes can be divided into programmes from the business and economics (14) and the STEM field (8). EMPs at the master level are distributed evenly with 30 programmes from the STEM field and 30 from business and economics areas. Many of these programmes are offered as full-time programmes (54). However, in contrast to traditional research universities, UAS also offer a significant number of their EMPs (24) as part-time programmes, especially at the master level (20). In addition, three programmes are offered as distance programmes and one is offered as a dual programme.

Stakeholder practices and perceptions The recent EME developments in national higher education landscapes have emerged as a major research interest in applied linguistic research (Dafouz & Smit, 2020, p. 12). This is also evident in the increasing number of studies set in EMEMUS contexts in Austria. Reflecting the diversity of HEIs and research interests pursued, this section will present the insights gained so far into stakeholders’ practices and perceptions with regards to the use of English as a language of learning and communication in Austrian HE programmes. 100

English-medium instruction in higher education in Austria

Similar to EME research globally (Dafouz & Smit, 2020, p. 72), the majority of studies in Austria have focussed on investigating stakeholders’ perceptions about EME, ranging from policy makers (Unterberger, 2014) and industry experts (Gaisch, Rammer, Hruskova, & Madlova, 2017) to, most prominently, lecturers and students (Baker & Hüttner, 2017; Dafouz, Hüttner, & Smit, 2016; Dearden & Macaro, 2016; Delalić, 2020; Komori-Glatz, 2017; Komori-Glatz & SchmidtUnterberger, 2018; Reitbauer, Fürstenberg, Kletzenbauer, & Marko, 2018; Richter, 2019; Smit, 2010; Tatzl, 2011, 2018). These larger investigations are complemented by several small-scale master-level projects investigating lecturers’ and students’ perceptions at different HE institutions in Austria (Dolmanitz, 2015; Husic, 2016; Londo, 2011; Vogler, 2014). Some studies have also adopted a longitudinal perspective, combining students’ perceptions with a research interest in their use of, and learning in, English. Smit (2010) focusses on classroom discourse and its development over two years in a post-secondary hospitality college. The study analyses the dynamically developing communicative strategies that support interaction in English as the only shared lingua franca in the multilingual and multicultural student cohort. Komori-Glatz (2017) examines international master student groups engaged in a one-semester marketing simulation task, investigating their ‘work talk’ interspersed with the use of humour and casual conversation at interactionally crucial moments in support of team building and task fulfilment. Richter (2019) takes an interest in implicit pronunciation learning amongst Austrian students in a bachelor business programme whose EME lecturers were mainly ‘native speakers’. Based on repeated tests and surveys, the study traces a trajectory of students’ accents becoming more native-like in English over the three years of their degree. This transformation is correlated with a bundle of factors, such as personal interest, low language learning anxiety, and increased exposure to L1 English. Overall, these studies and their nuanced insights underline the importance of longitudinal research combining practices and stakeholder perspectives. At the same time, their highly contextualised and focussed nature highlights the need for further research on EME p­ ractices and their learning potential. Furthermore various Austrian studies have investigated student and teacher perspectives, partly with the specific aim to inform the implementation of EMPs at their institutions (ArnóMacià, Aguilar-Pérez, & Tatzl, 2020; Delalić, 2020; Tatzl, 2011). Students generally exhibit positive attitudes towards EMPs across studies. One reason contributing to this positivity is the perceived relevance of English for the international world of work (Arnó-Macià et al., 2020; Delalić, 2020; Komori-Glatz & Schmidt-Unterberger, 2018; Tatzl, 2011). Findings are more diversified, though, when turning to reasons for choosing an EMP. For some master programme students at Vienna University of Economics and Business (WU), for instance, the language of instruction did not play a decisive role, and the institution and programme held greater important in their decision. An essential reason for some was the international atmosphere created by the presence of international students, which was considered as an important benefit for all students interviewed. International students themselves reported the relatively low costs for living and studying in Vienna paired with the international ranking of the institution and their lack of sufficient German skills as main factors for choosing the Austrian EMP (Komori-Glatz & SchmidtUnterberger, 2018). Similar to students, university lecturers across studies also demonstrate a largely positive attitude towards EME (Dearden & Macaro, 2016; Delalić, 2020; Tatzl, 2011). Among other factors, they highlight the positive effect of EME on their own and students’ mobility (Dearden & Macaro, 2016), as well as its role in preparing students for their future international career (Komori-Glatz & Schmidt-Unterberger, 2018). However, at least at the University of Klagenfurt, lecturers also show more awareness of potential difficulties that students may face (Delalić, 2020, p. 132). Other 101

Ute Smit and Verena Grau

challenges identified by EME teachers (and students) at the UAS FH Joanneum in Graz include the student workload, the difference in proficiency levels of the students’ English, and the experience that less content can be taught in English-taught content classes (Tatzl, 2011). The VAMUS research project (which analysed stakeholder attitudes towards multilingualism at the University of Salzburg) found that lecturers evaluated positively the increase of English-taught classes as well as the use of English original papers in class but remained rather neutral towards the implementation of EMPs. The study observed further that students were slightly more supportive of establishing English language degree programmes, but somewhat less open than faculty to increased subject reading in English (Dannerer, 2018). Content teachers’ attitudes to teaching in a second language are also influenced by their conceptualisation of how to integrate content and language in EMEMUS settings. In a comparative study conducted across four different HEIs in Europe, one of them an Austrian tourism college, Dafouz et al. (2016, p. 140) found that educational practices were often ‘compared with those in idealized monolingual education […] and constructed along a continuum of perceived “similarity” or “difference” between EMEMUS and monolingual practices’. While some lecturers did not see any difference because of language-independent characteristics of their disciplines, others pointed out that EME required an adaptation of their practices. This adaptation extended to various aspects such as ‘preparing classes, marking, reading, speaking, explaining or participating in class’ (Dafouz et al., 2016, p. 141). Studies of lecturer attitudes in Austria have also included an investigation into how to assist content teachers in EME through support measures developed by professionals in English for specific purposes (ESP). Tatzl (2014) discovered that content teachers preferred face-to-face contact with colleagues over electronic support measures. They also favoured collaborative group (rather than individual) support sessions and appreciated the provision of teaching aids. Unsurprisingly, time constraints emerged as the most important criteria influencing the teachers’ evaluation of support measures. An important aspect of research on EMEMUS that requires further examination in greater detail is the presence and use of other languages in combination with English (Dafouz & Smit, 2020). Initial insights into stakeholders’ perceptions of the roles of English and other languages have been provided by Baker and Hüttner (2017, 2019). They discovered a wide range of roles for English and other languages, different attitudes towards multilingualism, and an ample spectrum of language conceptualisations by participants. One key concept that emerged was English as a discipline-specific language, bridging language and subject learning and instruction while also challenging simplistic language-subject divisions. Dannerer (2018) found that, while multilingualism was generally valued at the University of Salzburg, it did not play a significant role in practice, apart from the use of English for external positioning and teaching. For example, students with German as a second language neither saw their first language acknowledged nor did they experience this as a matter of concern. Generally, multilingual repertoires were considered a ‘private matter’ or simply presented as ‘irrelevant’ (Dannerer, 2018, p. 186). With regards to institutional perceptions, Unterberger (2014) turned to internationalisation policies and discovered that in Austria, the implementation of EME as a means of internationalisation was driven less by national concerns and more by the HEIs themselves. An analysis of internationalisation policies at WU as well as interviews with programme managers revealed that the HEI saw EME as important for enhancing their international reputation, establishing a brand identity, and being able to compete successfully on the global HE markets (Komori-Glatz & Schmidt-Unterberger, 2018, p. 321).

102

English-medium instruction in higher education in Austria

A seemingly controversial topic within EME research in Austria is the role of English language learning in EMPs. An analysis of course descriptions of English-medium master programmes at WU revealed that explicit language learning objectives were stated in 77% of the course descriptions. In contrast, however, programme managers interviewed mostly regarded ‘increased English proficiency a logical consequence of EMI’ and remained ‘very vague when it comes to language learning objectives’ (Komori-Glatz & Schmidt-Unterberger, 2018, p. 326). Other studies corroborate these findings. For example, Dearden and Macaro (2016) reported that EME lecturers often did not see it as their responsibility to help students improve their English language skills. Likewise, master students at WU Wien view English ‘not as the subject of study’ and reported that students choosing an EMP explicitly for help with advancing their English skills were ‘on the wrong master program’ (Baker & Hüttner, 2017, p. 508). This ‘learning-by-doing approach to language’ was also prevalent among WU master students from a different programme (Komori-Glatz & Schmidt-Unterberger, 2018). Different attitudes were observed among bachelor students at other HEIs. Arnó-Macià et al. (2020) examined pre-EME students’ views on how ESP courses can help them prepare for professional communication and for EME programmes at FH Joanneum, Graz. Delalić (2020) explored students’ and lecturers’ English proficiency levels and attitudes towards EME at the University of Klagenfurt. Both studies revealed that in self-assessments, students were generally quite confident about their English language skills, whereas language test scores illustrated more varied results (Delalić, 2020). Students also demonstrated awareness of the usefulness and need for courses further developing their English skills, particularly in more ‘sophisticated academic and professional communication skills’ as taught in ESP classes to prepare them for EMPs (Arnó-Macià et al., 2020, p. 71). They, therefore, conclude that ESP classes can play an essential role in preparing students for EMPs (Komori-Glatz & Schmidt-Unterberger, 2018; Tatzl, 2011). Among the studies investigating stakeholder perceptions about EME, employers’ views seem to have been somewhat overlooked so far. An exception is Gaisch et al. (2017), who sought to find out how graduates and local industries could benefit from incorporating foreign language learning (Germany, Czech and/ or English) in technical degree programmes. Interviews with employers from the Austrian-Czech border region revealed a need for graduates to acquire ‘both disciplinary and transversal skills, including a profound understanding of linguistic and cultural diversity’ (Gaisch et al., 2017). Overall, recent research underlines that EME is generally considered positively in Austria and is largely considered a valuable driver for internationalisation beyond the German-speaking area. At the same time and due to the diverse institutional contexts, further research is needed to gain a more conclusive picture of EME in Austria, particularly in terms of the roles of English language learning and of multilingualism.

EME in Austria: A ROAD-MAPPING account As the detailed overview of facts, policies, practices, and perceptions has revealed so far, Englishmedium higher education in Austria encompasses multi-layered, diverse, and contextualised realities and developments. To give credit to this dynamic complexity, the following elaborations on EME in Austria are based on the ROAD-MAPPING framework and its six dimensions. More precisely, the discussion takes a ‘discursive walk’ through all dimensions, but in a different sequence than given in the acronym itself (see ‘1’ to ‘6’ in Figure 7.2).9 By approaching the status quo from each of the dimensions, we aim to build up a comprehensive account of the specifics and challenges of EME in Austrian higher education at this point in time.

103

Ute Smit and Verena Grau

Figure 7.2 The ROAD-MAPPING framework (Dafouz & Smit, 2020, p. 47); numbers indicate the ­sequence of dimensions used here.

Internationalisation and Glocalisation (ING) Like other countries, internationalisation is the major driver for EME in Austria, and it is pursued theough a range of strategies. One factor that is less important in the Austrian context, though, is financing. With the exception of some private universities, all Austrian HEIs receive public funding, making the procurement of international student fees less relevant for institutional survival. Instead, HEIs push for increased mobility (of staff and students), international cooperation, and competition. Depending on institutional vision and type of HEI (traditional research university or UAS), the mix of factors is institutionally different. For example, WU Wien, a leading economics HEI in Europe, is presently striving to ‘pioneer’ future internationalisation developments (Komori-Glatz & Schmidt-Unterberger, 2021). UAS Upper Austria, on the other hand, aims for globally accepted, technologically advanced education while remaining locally embedded in its cross-national border region (Smit & Komori-Glatz, 2022). In other words, each HEI acts upon its own glocal needs and aims.

(Language) management (M) As ING activities go beyond Austria and often also beyond the German-speaking world, the need for communication in languages other than German is reflected in language regulation documents. In contrast to the tradition of assuming the medium of communication and of education as a fait accompli and thus omittable, they now topicalise language(s), at least to some extent. Ministerial strategy papers and institutional Development Plans occasionally mention the wish or need to offer courses and programmes in languages other than German. Once such policies are implemented, they are reflected in curricula that mention English as the medium of instruction. These brief references to either ‘English’ or ‘foreign/other language’ in connection with communicational needs, 104

English-medium instruction in higher education in Austria

however, are rarely elaborated or argued for, thus reflecting a widely shared instrumental and utilitarian view of language. What is sorely missing at levels of policymaking are (parts of) regulatory documents specifically dedicated to the roles language(s) are intended to fulfil in educational processes (as argued for in European Language Council, 2013).

Academic Disciplines (AD) While German thus remains the default medium of higher education in Austria, English has made significant and lasting inroads as an educational language across all academic disciplines, both for individual courses and complete programmes. Especially when it comes to full EMPs, however, there is a clear predominance in the areas of STEM and business and economics (Figure 7.1), reflecting wider disciplinary trends (Wächter & Maiworm, 2014). While Austrian research universities focus EME at the master and PhD levels, UAS offer such programmes more extensively at the bachelor level, too. These somewhat different priorities might reflect the stronger focus placed by traditional universities on research, while UAS rather concentrate on alumni employability.

Agents (A) Despite its diversity otherwise, the Austrian EME literature provides ample evidence that the agents involved – teachers, students, programme developers, and university management – tend to evaluate EME positively. This surprisingly uncontroversial appraisal finds further support in public voices. In contrast to other European countries and their growing controversial debates on Englishisation (Wilkinson & Gabriëls, 2021), Austrian media predominantly welcome English as an additional medium in higher education in view of its potential for students, staff, and Austrian HEIs more generally (Smit & Schwarz, 2019). While this uncritical view might be another indicator of a widely shared laissez-faire approach taken to language matters, it must also be seen in combination with the strong position that German is (perceived to be) in: Most HE programmes are in German across all institutions and disciplines, which means that EME remains a student’s choice. This kind of optionality meets lecturers’ appreciation as well, who, however, also note points of concern, such as the English language proficiency necessary for their disciplines and relevant support measures. Such concerns will also profit from paying more research attention to future employers as another important group of agents whose voices and ideas still need to be heard.

Roles of English (in relation to other languages) (RO) The wide-spread use of English as an educational and disciplinary language, as well as main lingua franca for academic communication worldwide, has transformed the monopoly German enjoyed for all prestigious functions into a form of globalised bilingualism. English is used for some specific functions that support or prepare for international communicational needs beyond the German-speaking world (Smit & Schwarz, 2019, p. 309). However, with the exception of a few domains, such as HEI websites that are provided in both languages, there is a still a strong ‘monoglossic habitus’, in the sense that either German or English is expected to be used rather than a combination of both (Dannerer & Mauser, 2018, p. 21). This implies that languages other than German or English are given minor and/or compartmentalised roles, whether it is their disciplinary relevance in, for instance, areal studies or their regional importance for cross-border academic or professional communication. The multilingualism that is part and parcel of the HEIs themselves, 105

Ute Smit and Verena Grau

however, is generally downplayed as personal, and ignored as an institutional characteristic, thus failing to identify the affordances of multilingualism for international academic exchange and community building.

Practices and Processes (PP) The few existing studies into EME practices and processes in Austrian HEIs have shed light on how students and teachers engage in educational conversation in English as their academic lingua franca, as well as what impact this might have on their English proficiencies. English language learning is generally perceived as a by-product of language use. A similar approach to language learning is noticeable when it comes to EME curricula and their educational objectives. English language learning is seldom prioritised; yet it is often expected in the form of disciplinary or academic literacies, such as writing a research paper, giving an academic presentation, or engaging in disciplinary argumentation. In view of the still limited information available on this topic, future research undertakings should focus on classroom and learning practices across EME realities to obtain empirically supported and more detailed insights into how disciplinary literacies are developed across disciplines.

Conclusion Over the course of the last decades EME has established itself as integral to Austrian higher education. This is true in terms of spread – EMEMUS can be found in traditional research universities and universities of applied sciences, in big cities as well as small towns – but also in terms of its wide-spread acceptance, as the overview of relevant studies has underlined. As true of any educational innovation, however, it has come with challenges and possible pitfalls, which, maybe because of the generally positive evaluations, have attracted surprisingly little public as well as academic attention (Dannerer et al., 2021), leaving many concerns still open for investigation. In addition to the research gaps mentioned earlier (multilingual practices and English language learning), it will be important to focus on EME in the two smaller strands of higher education, namely teacher education institutions and private universities. Furthermore, the presently fragmented knowledge that we have of individual EME realities will benefit from broader, possibly nationwide surveys of EME policies and their implementation across institutions. Finally, the empirical lens still needs to be widened to take into account students’ longer-term trajectories, focussing on their linguistic repertoires and needs when transitioning from secondary school to Englishmedium higher education and then again from university into work life. As suggested for EME research in general (Gabriëls & Wilkinson, 2021), it is time to broaden our research interest to also analyse the types of individual and societal impact that come with English-medium education.

Notes 1 https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/austria-population (last accessed 26 May 2021). 2 All numbers of institutions and students in this section are taken from Statistik Austria (2021). 3 https://www.bmbwf.gv.at/Themen/HS-Uni/Hochschulsystem/Postsenkund%C3%A4re-Hochschuleinrichtungen.html (last accessed 27 July 2022) 4 Apart from the strand of ‘private universities’, student fees in Austrian HEIs are legally regulated. D ­ epending on university strand, student nationality and length of studies, the fees are € 0.00, € 363.36, or € 726.72 per semester. Most students are exempt from study fees, though (https://www.studium.at/­studiengebuehren; last accessed 22 July 2022).

106

English-medium instruction in higher education in Austria 5 We work with foreign students, that is students with nationalities other than Austrian, because the numbers for international students, that is students who came to Austria for the purpose of their studies are statistically not available. Neither does Austria collect information on students’ first languages. 6 In absolute numbers: Of all 320,148 students in traditional research universities and UAS, 86,642 are foreign students. Of those 42,385 come from Germany, Switzerland, and Italy, leaving 44,257 foreign students of other nationalities (Statistik Austria, 2021). 7 For this overview, only bachelor and master programmes were considered. PhD programmes tend to be research-oriented and usually offer optional classes in either German or English. The numbers of bachelor and master programmes were identified with the help of the study portal studium.at for traditional research university and, for the UAS, of the official portal fachhochschulen.ac.at (25 May 2021). 8 Data were obtained from online course catalogues and, where not available, elicited from universities’ study departments. Eight HEIs could not be included in this survey as they did not provide the relevant numbers, or their online catalogues do not allow for filtering according to language of instruction. 9 ROAD-MAPPING can use be used flexibly as all dimensions are considered equally relevant, independent of and yet intersecting with each other. For further information on the framework and how to work with it see Dafouz and Smit (2020, chs. 3–5).

References Arnó-Macià, E., Aguilar-Pérez, M., & Tatzl, D. (2020). Engineering students’ perceptions of the role of ESP courses in internationalized universities. English for Specific Purposes, 58, 58–74. Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research. (2020). National mobility and internationalization strategy for higher education 2020–2030. Retrieved from www. bmbwf.gv.at Baker, W., & Hüttner, J. (2017). English and more: A multisite study of roles and conceptualisations of language in English medium multilingual universities from Europe to Asia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38, 501–516. Baker, W., & Hüttner, J. (2019). “We are not the language police”: Comparing multilingual EMI programmes in Europe and Asia. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 29, 78–94. Bauer, W. T. (2008). Zuwanderung nach Österreich [Migration to Austria]. Retrieved from https://digital.zlb. de/viewer/api/v1/records/33336785/files/pdf/zuwanderungnachoesterreich.pdf Dafouz, E., Hüttner, J., & Smit, U. (2016). University teachers’ beliefs of language and content integration in English-medium education in multilingual university settings. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 123–144). Multilingual Matters. Dafouz, E., & Smit, U. (2016). Towards a dynamic conceptual framework for English medium education in multilingual university settings. Applied Linguistics, 37, 397–415. Dafouz, E., & Smit, U. (2020). ROAD-MAPPING English medium education in the internationalised ­university. Palgrave Macmillan. Dafouz, E., & Smit, U. (2021). English-medium education revisited: Arguing for a comprehensive ­conceptualisation in the age of internationalised universities. European Journal of Language Policy, 13, 141–159. Dannerer, M. (2018). Sprachwahl, Sprachvariation und Sprachbewertung an der Universität. In A. Deppermann & S. Reineke (Eds.), Germanistische Sprachwissenschaft um 2020: Vol. 3. Sprache im kommunikativen, interaktiven und kulturellen Kontext (pp. 169–192). Mouton de Gruyter. Dannerer, M., Gaisch, M., & Smit, U. (2021). Englishization ‘under the radar’: Facts, policies and trends in Austrian higher education. In R. Wilkinson & R. Gabriëls (Eds.), The Englishization of higher education in Europe (pp. 281–305). Amsterdam University Press. Dannerer, M., & Mauser, P. (2018). Innere und äußere mehrsprachigkeit in bildungsinstitutionen – vom Nutzen einer übergreifenden perspektive. In M. Dannerer & P. Mauser (Eds.), Formen der Mehrsprachigkeit: Sprachen und Varietäten in sekundären und tertiären Bildungskontexten. Verwendung, Rolle und Wahrnehmung von Sprache und Varietäten (pp. 9–26). Stauffenburg Verlag. De Cillia, R., & Vetter, E. (Eds.). (2013). Sprache im Kontext: Bd. 40. Sprachenpolitik in Österreich: Bestandsaufnahme 2011. Peter Lang. Dearden, J., & Macaro, E. (2016). Higher education teachers’ attitudes towards English medium instruction: A three-country comparison. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6, 455–486.

107

Ute Smit and Verena Grau Delalić, N. (2020). English as a medium of instruction (EMI) at the University of Klagenfurt: A study on the attitudes and language proficiency of students and teaching staff. Colloquium: New Philologies, 5(1), 107–134. Dolmanitz, K. (2015). Internationalisation and English-medium instruction (EMI) in tertiary education: ­Lecturers’ beliefs at the FH Campus Wien (Master’s dissertation). University of Vienna. European Language Council. (2013). Higher education language policy. Retrieved from http://www. celelc.org/activities/Working_groups/Concluded-Working-Groups/Resources_Working_Groups/HE_­ Language_Policy_-_Final_2013_w_summary.pdf Gabriëls, R., & Wilkinson, R. (2021). Two types of reflections about English as a medium of instruction. European Journal of Language Policy, 13, 161–181. Gaisch, M., & Aichinger, R. (2017). Higher education institutions at the interface between internationalization, interculturality and diversity management. In IMC FH Krems (Chair), 11: FH-Forschungsforum 2017. Symposium conducted at the meeting of IMC FH Krems. Gaisch, M., Rammer, V., Hruskova, L., & Madlova, G. (2017). Content language integrated learning as a driver for enhanced graduate employability: A cross-cultural study between Austria and the Czech Republic. In M. Überwimmer, M. Gaisch, R. Füreder, & Y. Costa (Chairs), Proceedings cross-cultural business conference 2017. Symposium conducted at the meeting of University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria, School of Management, Steyr. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/ Martina_Gaisch/publication/ 317013155_Content_Language_Integrated_Learning_as_a_Driver_for_Enhanced_Graduate_Employability_A_cross-cultural_study_between_Austria_and_the_Czech_Republic/ links/591ec553a6fdcc233fd0cf4b/Content-Language-Integrated-Learning-as-a-Driver-for-EnhancedGraduate-Employability-A-cross-cultural-study-between-Austria-and-the-Czech-Republic.pdf Hudzik, J. K., & McCarthy, J. S. (2012). Leading comprehensive internationalization: Strategy and tactics for action. NAFSA. Husic, L. (2016). Non-native speakers of English in English-medium university education (Master’s dissertation). University of Vienna. Johnson, D. C. (2013). Language policy: Research and practice in applied linguistics. Palgrave Macmillan. Knight, J. (2018). The changing landscape of higher education internationalisation – For better or worse? In D. K. Deardorff, H. De Wit, & J. A. T. Heyl (Eds.), Perspectives on the internationalisation of higher education (pp. 13–19). Routledge. Komori-Glatz, M. (2017). English as a business lingua franca in multicultural student teamwork: An EMEMUS study (PhD thesis). University of Vienna. Komori-Glatz, M., & Schmidt-Unterberger, B. (2018). Creating the international managers of tomorrow, today? Stakeholder perspectives on English-medium business education. In T. Sherman & J. Nekvapil (Eds.), English in business and commerce: Interactions and policies (pp. 310–334). Mouton de Gruyter. Komori-Glatz, M., & Schmidt-Unterberger, B. (2021). From profiling to pioneering: The drivers behind English-medium education at WU Vienna. European Journal of Language Policy, 13, 241–259. Londo, M. (2011). Optimising EMI in higher education through CLIL (Master’s dissertation). University of Vienna. https://doi.org/10.25365/THESIS.16359 Reitbauer, M., Fürstenberg, U., Kletzenbauer, P., & Marko, K. (2018). Towards a cognitive-linguistic turn in CLIL: Unfolding integration. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 11, 87–108. Richter, K. (2019). English-medium instruction and pronunciation: Exposure and skills development (1st ed.). Channel View Publications. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/gbv/detail. action?docID=5628244 Rindler Schjerve, R. (2003). Diglossia and power: Language policies and practice in the 19th century ­Habsburg Empire. Mouton de Gruyter. Saarinen, T., & Nikula, T. (2013). Implicit policy, invisible language: Policies and practices of international degree programmes in Finnish higher education. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster, & J. M. Sierra (Eds.), English-medium instruction at universities: Global challenges (pp. 131–150). Multilingual Matters. Smit, U. (2010). English as a lingua franca in higher education: A longitudinal study of classroom discourse. Mouton de Gruyter. Smit, U., & Komori-Glatz, M. (2022). English-medium education in Austria: General trends and individual initiatives in institutional policy. In J. McKinley & N. Galloway (Eds.), English-medium instruction ­practices in higher education: International perspectives (pp. 99–110). Bloomsbury.

108

English-medium instruction in higher education in Austria Smit, U., & Schwarz, M. (2019). English in Austria: Policies and practices. In R. Hickey (Ed.), English in the German-speaking world (pp. 294–314). Cambridge University Press. Statistik Austria. (2021). Bildung in Zahlen 2019/20. Verlag Österreich. Retrieved from https://www.statistik. at/web_de/services/publikationen/5/index.html?includePage=detailedView§ionName=Bildung%2C +Kultur&pubId=508 Tatzl, D. (2011). English-medium masters’ programmes at an Austrian university of applied sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10, 252–270. Tatzl, D. (2014). Support measures for content teaching embedded in a tertiary English-medium degree programme. In R. Wilkinson & M. L. Walsh (Eds.), Integrating content and language in higher education: From theory to practice – Selected papers from the 2013 ICLHE Conference (1st ed., pp. 255–272). Peter Lang. Tatzl, D. (2018). A higher-education teaching module for integrating industry content and language through online recruitment advertisements. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8, 643–672. Unterberger, B. (2014). English-medium degree programmes in Austrian tertiary business studies (PhD thesis). University of Vienna. Vogler, P. M. (2014). English in European tertiary education: A case study at the Faculty of Chemistry at the University of Vienna (Master’s dissertation). University of Vienna. Wächter, B., & Maiworm, F. (2014). English-taught programmes in European higher education: The state of play in 2014. Lemmens Medien. Wilkinson, R., & Gabriëls, R. (Eds.). (2021). The Englishization of higher education in Europe. Amsterdam University Press.

109

8 ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE BASQUE COUNTRY David Lasagabaster

Introduction The meaning of the term ‘Basque Country’ may not always be as straightforward as one might believe, as it can mean different things to different speakers depending on their political stance. From a purely linguistic and cultural perspective, it refers to the speakers of the Basque language living in a region that straddles the national border between France and Spain along the Pyrenees mountains. This area is divided into three different political entities: The Basque Autonomous Community (BAC) and Navarre in Spain, and the Northern Basque Country in France. According to the Basque Government (2019), in 2016 the territory of the Basque language had a total population of over 3,130,000 inhabitants, 28.4% of whom were Basque speakers, 16.4% passive Basque speakers – who can speak or understand some Basque, and 55.2% non-Basque speakers – those who can neither understand nor speak it. In this chapter, I will focus on the BAC because 70% of the Basque population live in it (Basque Government, 2019), which means that the situation of this autonomous community (one of the 17 that make up Spain) clearly determines the reading for the Basque Country as a whole. In addition, the vast majority of the research carried out on EMI in Basque higher education institutions has been undertaken in the BAC. The BAC consists of three provinces: Araba (whose capital is Vitoria-Gasteiz), Bizkaia (Bilbao-Bilbo), and Gipuzkoa (San Sebastián-Donostia).

The sociolinguistic background While most European languages stem from two language families (the Indo-European and the Uralic families), the origin of the Basque language is an unresolved question, for it has no known linguistic relatives. Basque was an oral language surrounded by two powerful and international languages such as Spanish and French and it had no presence in formal contexts, which is why the harbingers of doom feared for its survival (Erize, 2006). The area where Basque was traditionally spoken has steadily shrunk due to the diglossic situation this language has historically found itself in. However, the Basque-speaking community has always linked the Basque language to Basque identity, which has allowed the language to survive despite all the difficulties that its speakers have had to tackle for centuries and against all odds. Throughout history Basque speakers have

DOI: 10.4324/9781003011644-10 110

EMI in higher education in the Basque Country

remained loyal towards their language (Azurmendi, Larrañaga, & Apalategi, 2008), even when it was banned from public domain and its use at school declared illegal (1939–1975). With the advent of democracy after Franco’s dictatorship, the widespread social and political support helped to implement different language policies aimed at revitalising and normalising its use, and these policies had a great impact on the number of Basque speakers. School played an essential role in the basquisation process, which is the process of making people Basque-speaking, together with literacy campaigns for adults. The objective was to achieve the highest number possible of bilingual speakers capable of expressing themselves in Basque and Spanish (with the latter being the majority language in the BAC). The impact of the language policies implemented can be observed in the significant growth in the number of Basque speakers. The last sociolinguistic survey accomplished by the Basque Government in 2016 (2019) reveals that in the BAC, 33.9% of the population over the age of 16 are Basque speakers, 19.1% passive bilingual speakers, and 47% non-Basque speakers. In 25 years, there has been an increase of almost 10 points in Basque speakers from 1991 (24.1%), when the first sociolinguistic survey was completed, to the last survey in 2016 (33.9%). In the same period, the percentage of passive Basque speakers also rose by nearly 11 points (from 8.5% to 19.2%), while the number of nonBasque speakers dropped by 12 points (from 59.2% to 47%). It is worth pointing out that the highest percentage of Basque speakers (71.4%, as opposed to just 25% in 1991) is found among young people in the 16–25 age range due to the influence exerted by the bilingual programmes available in the Basque education system, which will be referred in the next section. The significant impact of the education system is evident from the fact that 53.9% of those aged between 16 and 24 learned Basque outside the home. In any case, all Basque speakers are nowadays at least bilingual in Basque and Spanish, while many in the younger generations speak to very different degrees at least one foreign language (overwhelmingly English). As far as language use is concerned, two main factors impinge on it: The density of the Basquespeaking social network, which includes Basque speakers among family members, friends, workmates, and the sociolinguistic environment; and fluency, which is directly linked to mother tongue, as first language (L1) = Basque speakers use Basque more often than those for whom Spanish is their L1. Basque speakers are also fully aware of the importance of the transmission of Basque and, in fact, almost all Basque-speaking parents with children under the age of 16 use it with their children at home. It is remarkable that the percentage reaches 100% when both parents have Basque as their mother tongue. Nevertheless, only 20.5% of Basque speakers use it as much as or more than their other language (mainly Spanish). Fostering the social use of Basque still represents the biggest challenge, because proficiency and use have not increased in parallel and many Basque speakers do not speak it as regularly as they could, as is usually the case in minority language contexts (Ó Duibhir, 2018). When it comes to attitudes towards the efforts made to promote Basque, 65% of BAC inhabitants are in favour, 25.8% show a neutral attitude, and only 9.3% are against such efforts and pro-Basque policies. Over 25 years, there has been a 10% increase in the number of those in favour (55% in 1991 versus 65% in 2016). By contrast, attitudes against the promotion of Basque language use have gone down from 14% in 1991 to 9.3% in 2016. Those living in the BAC agree that anyone applying for a job in the Public Administration must speak Basque (75.2%) and even a higher percentage (82.6%) deem it vital for all children to learn the Basque language. In the last few decades, there has also been a steep rise in the number of foreign-born inhabitants who nowadays constitute 10.9% of the population, from 1.3% in 1998 (Ikuspegi, Basque Observatory of Immigration, 2020).

111

David Lasagabaster

The history of languages of instruction in the Basque education system As is usually the case in most western countries with a minority language, the education system has become the primary force behind boosting the normalisation of the Basque language. Since the passage of the 1983 law that established the use of Basque at pre-university levels in the BAC, parents can choose from three linguistic models for their children’s schooling: Model A, Model B, and Model D. There is no Model C because this letter does not exist in the modern Basque alphabet and, since the labels should be used in both Basque and Spanish, Model C was discarded. Model A is a programme in which Spanish is the means of instruction, and Basque is only taught as a subject (four to five hours per week). The students’ first language is usually Spanish. Although it was originally designed to include some subjects in Basque in the last years of compulsory education, this original resolution has never been implemented. Model B is an early partial immersion programme in which both Basque and Spanish are used as vehicular languages. Students’ L1 is also usually Spanish, despite some exceptions with Basque as their L1. In this model, the first three schooling years (kindergarten) are generally taught through Basque. At the age of six, in the first year of primary education, pupils start to learn reading, writing, and mathematics in Spanish. Some schools have evolved towards a more intensive Model B, in which the readingwriting process and part or the whole subject of mathematics is carried out in Basque. This is the most heterogeneous model, and depending on diverse factors such as the sociolinguistic setting of the school or the availability of Basque teaching staff, the time allotted to each of the languages may vary. Lastly, Model D is a total immersion programme for those students whose L1 is Spanish and a maintenance programme for those with Basque as L1. Basque is the means of instruction and Spanish is taught only as a subject (four to five hours per week). In the BAC, students attending bilingual programmes (Models B and D) are not customarily separated according to their mother tongue, as such programmes are to address both majority, indigenous minority language populations, and students of foreign origin (Lasagabaster, 2015). Figure 8.1 illustrates how the percentage of pupils has changed in the three linguistic models since 1983/1984 in compulsory education (up to 16 years of age). The figure clearly indicates that the bilingual models (Models B and D) are by far the more popular ones, whereas Model A is in constant decline. This marked downward trend has not been a sudden occurrence, since the rate of decline from one academic year to the next has been fairly regular (from 72.8 in the 1983/1984 academic year to 16.7% in 2020/2021). This decline has practically coincided with the upward trend of Model D, which has the greatest number of pre-university students enrolled (65.9%). Although the number of Model B students reached its peak in the mid-1990s, in the last few years there has been little variation, and the percentage has stabilised at around 18%. It is worth noting that while bilingual programmes are well established in primary and secondary education, the situation is less promising in vocational training, where 58.4% of students are enrolled in Model A in the 2020/2021 academic year. Further steps need to be taken to underpin the basquisation process in vocational training. Learning a foreign language is compulsory, and due to its current role as lingua franca, English clearly holds the upper hand among the foreign languages taught in the Basque education system. The age at which Basque students start learning English has been gradually lowered, and since the 2000/2001 school year, it has been taught to children as young as four. Consequently, all pupils have contact with three languages from a very early age, irrespective of their linguistic background or the linguistic model they are enrolled in. The Basque education system attaches great importance to trilingualism and multilingual education (for more information about the Basque educational system see Cenoz, 2009, or Lasagabaster, 2018). In fact, many Basque schools have 112

EMI in higher education in the Basque Country

1983/84

72.8%

1996/97

2008/09

2020/21

31.5%

18.9%

16.7%

10.5%

27.7%

16.5%

40.7%

21.4%

57.3%

17.4%

65.9%

Model A

Model B

Model D

Figure 8.1 Distribution of students in the three linguistic models at pre-university level (compulsory education).

implemented CLIL (content and language integrated learning) programmes in which students are taught in English, apart from the traditional English as a foreign language class. As such it is a plurilingual approach that has been adopted and derived in what is known as the Trilingual Education Framework (Ruiz de Zarobe, 2015). The latter has the financial backing of the Basque Government. The primary challenge of the Basque education system is to foster a trilingual curriculum that ensures students’ competence in Basque, Spanish, and English, along with some command of an additional foreign language in some schools. The evolution of the Basque education system has had a clear impact on higher education. In this vein, the arrival of an increasing number of students who have studied in Basque at preuniversity level has brought about a rise in the number of students who decide to complete their undergraduate studies in Basque. Similarly, all those students enrolled in CLIL programmes in secondary education expect to have EMI courses on offer at university, so that they can continue studying in English. In fact, EMI university teachers underscore that CLIL students tend to be more motivated to participate in EMI programmes (Doiz, Lasagabaster, & Sierra, 2011).

Official language policies relating to EMI in Basque higher education Despite the fact that until recently Basque universities recruited students nationally or even locally, internationalisation has now become a mantra to which they aspire. In this increasingly international approach, EMI is considered to be a lynchpin of the internationalisation process by university authorities, and considerable efforts have been made to boost the incorporation of courses delivered in English. It is believed that for universities to become truly international, they need not only recruit international students and teaching staff, but also internationalise their local students at home. In the BAC, there are three higher education institutions, and all of them are officially bilingual in Basque and Spanish, in addition to their efforts to foster EMI programmes. The three universities are the UBC (UPV/EHU being its bilingual acronym), Deusto University, and Mondragon University. 113

David Lasagabaster

The UBC is the only public university and the largest of the three (with 40,000 students in 2020), established in 1980. It is the main research institution in the BAC and spreads across three campuses, one in each of the three provinces that make up the autonomous community. Divided into 17 faculties, its catalogue consists of 67 Bachelor’s Degrees in all fields of knowledge. At postgraduate level, 103 official master’s programmes, 44 professional and expert diplomas, and 71 PhD programmes are offered. It is this university that provides the most information on its webpage about its language policy, which is why we will devote more space to it. The efforts put into internationalisation go hand in hand with the UBC’s commitment to bolster Basque language and culture. In fact, 98% of compulsory subjects at the BA level are taught in Basque, and in the 2019/2020 academic year, 55 PhD dissertations were written and defended in Basque. Between 2017 and 2020, 300 university textbooks were published in Basque, and currently 61% of its over 5,000 teaching staff are qualified bilingual teachers in Basque and Spanish. In addition to the comprehensive range of courses in Basque and Spanish, the UBC designed the so-called multilingualism programme (MP) in 2005. The main objective of this programme is to enable students to take subjects in a foreign language, although English predominates. According to official documents, the goals of the MP are to continue at tertiary level with the CLIL programmes implemented at pre-university level; to improve local students’ proficiency in English while providing them with specialised language and access to research in the foreign language; to improve students’ work/career prospects as English is an asset; to facilitate the pursuit of postgraduate degrees both abroad and at home (the range of master’s programmes in English at the UBC is increasing); and to attract foreign students and teachers from abroad. The teaching staff need a C1 level of the European Framework of Reference for Languages to teach in EMI programmes. Implementing multilingualism programme entails that some core subjects have three groups (one in Basque, a second one in Spanish, and a third one in English) from which students can choose the language in which they wish to take a specific subject. Conversely, optional subjects are usually taught in only one of the three languages, although in some faculties, two languages may be available. Although there is only one BA degree in Business and Economics entirely taught in English, more than 800 subjects are taught in foreign languages (633 of them in English), and 21 master’s programmes are entirely or partially delivered in English. In addition, 339 ‘English friendly’ courses are on offer. These courses are delivered in Spanish but have their teaching guide and programme outlined in English, and office hours and exams (among other activities) can also be carried out in English. This is aimed at students participating in exchange programmes who have some command of Spanish but prefer to use English in some situations, such as a final exam, because they do not feel competent enough to carry it off in Spanish. The UBC has designed a plan to offer a number of EMI subjects in various degrees amounting to 30 credits so that students have a reasonable amount of courses to choose from and the possibility of earning an EMI mention in their degree (Lasagabaster, 2021a). Although Spanish universities, in general, have not paid much attention to EMI teacher training (Bazo et al., 2017), this is not the case with the UBC, which offers several courses aimed at both in-service EMI instructors and those considering the possibility of joining EMI programmes. There are currently ten courses available with the following titles: ‘Improving English-medium instruction and tutoring skills’ (B2+); ‘Improving accuracy in oral and written communication in EMI’ (B2); ‘Face to face: Improving interpersonal communication skills for EMI instructors’ (C1); ­‘Improving oral communication skills for English-medium instruction’ (C1); ‘Improving writing skills for English-medium instruction’ (C1); ‘Improving pronunciation for Englishmedium instruction’ (C1); ‘Improving English-medium instruction skills: Online tutoring’ (C1); 114

EMI in higher education in the Basque Country

‘Effective language skills for informal academic fields’ (C1); ‘Technology enhanced English-­ medium ­instruction’ (C1); and ‘Teaching your subject in English: Co-worker group tutorials’ (C1). Furthermore, three additional courses are accessible to all the teaching staff and delivered in English: ‘Writing for ­Impact; Impromptu speaking’; ‘Answering questions and difficult situations on the spot’; and ‘Communication across cultures’. A third type of activity arranged by the UBC is English Pintxo Pote, in which teachers go out and have some drinks and Pintxos (‘tapas’), and practice their E ­ nglish. This is a way to boost their use of informal English. Deusto University (DU) is the oldest university in the BAC and was inaugurated in 1886, when the Jesuits chose Bilbao as the best location to establish a private higher education institution to serve society from a Christian approach. It also comprises the Institute of University and Technical Studies in San Sebastian. It is made up of six faculties: Economics and Business Administration, Social and Human Sciences, Law, Engineering, Psychology and Education, and Theology. It had 10,880 students in 2020. This is the university where Basque-medium instruction is less frequent, as Spanish is by far the most habitual vehicle language, especially at MA level. Out of the 66 BA degrees available, 14 of them offer an EMI option. From the 60 MA programmes on offer, only one of them includes Basque as means of instruction, whereas seven are taught either entirely in English (4) or in English and Spanish (3) – one of them also includes French medium instruction. As is usually the case in many Spanish universities, DU’s website does not provide any information about EMI teacher training or the requirements that the teaching staff need to meet in order to teach in English. Mondragon University (MU) is spread over six different towns in Gipuzkoa and in Bilbao. It is a private higher education institution and the youngest of the three Basque universities, since it was created in 1997 by the association of three educational cooperatives. It is, therefore, a cooperative university that belongs to the Mondragon Corporation and is committed to the cooperative values of this Corporation, as well as the Basque language, culture, and history. It is also the smallest institution with around 5,125 graduate and undergraduate students in 2019. It comprises four faculties: Engineering, Business Studies, Humanities and Education Sciences, and Culinary Science. In all these faculties, teaching is conducted in the three languages, but Basque has a preeminent role, although the ultimate goal is to produce trilingual students by the end of the degree. For example, MU offers a trilingual Teacher Education programme that has been running since 2009, in which 80% of the credits are delivered in Basque, 10% in Spanish, and the remaining 10% in English. In this programme, students are expected to obtain level C1 in Basque and Spanish, and level B2 in English by the end of the four-year degree (Sagasta & Ipiña, 2016). However, the objective is to consolidate the presence of English in the next few years, not only in its use as a means of instruction but also in other activities like readings and presentations. Teachers are required to have a C1 level to be able to teach EMI courses, except those who are ‘native speakers’. The training at EMI teachers’ disposal includes languages courses, personal training sessions to work on oral skills or prepare official exams, and academic English. This university is heavily involved in active methodologies, and once a month, classes are suspended and teachers are invited to participate in training sessions on such active methodologies. Every degree relies on an EMI coordinator who helps with the design and implementation of EMI courses. During the first two years, students have a language tutor in Basque and English to support them with any language difficulty they may encounter (Spanish, being the majority language, is taken for granted). In sum, the main distinctive feature of EMI in the Basque Country lies in the fact that all institutions aim at trilingualism, although the degree of development of their trilingual language policies varies considerably. Although some Bachelor degrees and, especially master’s degrees are entirely taught in English, the most habitual practice is to include some courses in English together with 115

David Lasagabaster

other courses in Basque and Spanish. This aligns with the decisions made in many Spanish higher education institutions where EMI is usually optional, as university authorities deem that the best policy to make headway consists in implementing EMI gradually rather than imposing it unilaterally. One of the main reasons underlying this optionality may lie in the fact that Spanish undergraduates’ command of English does not always allow them to face complex content delivered in the foreign language (Doiz, Lasagabaster, & Sierra, 2013a, 2013b), which puts them off joining EMI courses in the belief that their marks may be negatively affected.

The effectiveness of EMI in Basque higher education Although there are quite a few research studies about the effectiveness of CLIL at the pre-­ university level in the CAV (Lasagabaster & Doiz, 2016; Ruiz de Zarobe, 2015; Ruiz de Zarobe & Lasagabaster, 2010), no study has measured the impact of EMI at the tertiary level. This lack of actual measurement of the impact of EMI on foreign language and content learning is rather striking and may be a consequence of the positive results obtained in primary and secondary ­education. Since CLIL appears to be working effectively at the pre-university level, it may have been assumed that this must also be the case in higher education. In any case, to my knowledge, in the whole of Spain only three studies (Dafouz & CamachoMiñano, 2016; Dafouz, Camacho, & Urquia; 2014; Hernandez-Nanclares & Jimenez-Muñoz, 2017) have actually measured content learning and compared EMI and Spanish-as-first-languagemedium students at the tertiary level. All of them concur in pointing out the effectiveness of EMI, as no difference was observed between Spanish-medium and English-medium groups. Studies are also needed on the real impact of EMI on foreign language learning. Results obtained in other Spanish contexts (Aguilar & Muñoz, 2014; Hernandez-Nanclares & JimenezMuñoz, 2017) are far from conclusive and this is a question that undoubtedly merits further consideration. Three main factors require consideration (Lasagabaster, 2021b): the intensity of the EMI experience as they tend to vary considerably not only between universities but even within the same institution from one degree to another; the pedagogical practices implemented, as each context has its own peculiarities and way of doing (for example, teachers who follow an Englishonly policy versus colleagues who are more flexible and prone to translanguaging); and the need to design tools appropriate to measure language proficiency in EMI contexts rather than using general English standardised tests. Nevertheless, some studies exist based on beliefs. EMI stakeholders (teachers, students, and management teams) tend to consider that, although learning content through the foreign language complicates the process (Airey, 2009), there is no negative impact on content learning. In fact, the Basque teaching staff involved in EMI courses also widely believe that content is learnt as well as in L1 classes (Doiz et al., 2011, 2013b). When stakeholders’ opinions have been gathered, they tend to associate negative results with the unsatisfactory implementation of EMI programmes compared to the use of the foreign language to teach content. Although EMI teachers complain about some students’ low command of English and having mixed groups where students’ proficiency level differ from one another, they do not mention any hindrances in content learning. Similarly, Basque students also demonstrate a positive perspective about content learning on EMI courses (Orcasitas-Vicandi & Leonet, 2022). Broadly speaking, both teachers and students affirm that content learning is not negatively affected by using English as a means of instruction because EMI teachers fall back on strategies, such as slowing the pace, paraphrasing, and checking comprehension regularly, that allow them to overcome the linguistic hurdles they come across in their classes. However, EMI teachers acknowledge that their teaching efficiency is curtailed by 116

EMI in higher education in the Basque Country

some linguistic limitations (Doiz, Lasagabaster, & Pavón, 2019). First, their vocabulary is reduced which can become a stumbling block in disciplines such as humanities wherein the form is often as important as the content, and there is often a greater need to verbalise knowledge than in technological or scientific fields (Kuteeva & Airey, 2014). This limitation also affects the degree of detail in their explanations. Second, they also feel limited when it comes to paraphrasing and improvising due to their limited array of linguistic resources. Third, EMI lecturers are also concerned about their formal and rhetorical limitations. As regards students’ language competence, teachers try to downplay accuracy with a view to boosting their participation through a relaxed atmosphere. They constantly seek students’ feedback to ensure students are following their explanations without difficulty. In any case, it is worth remembering that, in Basque higher education, EMI courses are a voluntary option for students. Since students are not forced to complete part or all their degree in English, this ‘self-selection’ process counterbalances the limited linguistic skills some of them may display, as those whose command is poorer do not venture to enrol in EMI programmes (Doiz et al., 2019). Nonetheless, although both teachers and students feel more vulnerable in EMI classes, the EMI experience itself provides them with immunity mechanisms that help them overcome their fears and linguistic limitations (Doiz & Lasagabaster, 2018).

Problems associated with EMI in Basque higher education The challenges posed by EMI in an already bilingual context are manifold. However, three main problems stand out: the coexistence of English with Basque as a minority language, the different perceptions among stakeholders, and EMI teachers’ reluctance to tackle language issues. Incorporating English as L3 in the Basque curriculum has sparked some tensions because some voices warn against the purported negative effect that an additional international language (the other one being Spanish) may exert on the Basque normalisation process. Although EMI is highly valued by teachers, students, and administration personnel, tensions arise when language coexistence is perceived as being jeopardised (Doiz et al., 2013a). Not only do some deem EMI a threat to the development of Basque, but they also blame it for eliminating other languages from the curriculum. Sensitivity towards multilingualism is high in the BAC, and two extremes of the multilingual continuum can be distinguished. On the one hand, those Basque-speaking individuals who regard EMI as the Trojan horse of the current lingua franca that may end up pushing Basque to the fringes of the academic life. On the other hand, there are pro-English supporters who believe that the many efforts put into Basque normalisation may encumber the much-needed development of EMI courses. However, the majority of Basque university stakeholders remain in the middle of the continuum and stand up for underpinning both the normalisation of Basque and EMI. When university staff and students were canvassed, Doiz, Lasagabaster, and Sierra (2014) discovered that teachers and administration personnel exhibited more positive attitudes towards EMI than students. It is worth noting that Doiz et al. (2013b) had previously observed that among local students, attitudes towards EMI varied depending on their L1, in the sense that those who had Basque as L1 were clearly less favourable than those with Spanish as L1. The former were also more concerned about the impact of EMI on the minority language than the later and saw loss of domain for Basque as a real danger, which may account for the greater support of EMI implementation among teachers and administration personnel. To avoid linguistic conflicts interfering with multilingual language policies, university authorities should articulate a well-defined language policy stating the objectives to be accomplished for each language. This would help create an 117

David Lasagabaster

additive multilingual policy that would facilitate the university community’s attempts to become functionally multilingual and defuse linguistic tensions. Another issue found in EMI in Basque institutions has to do with content teachers’ reluctance to act as language teachers, a trend observed in many other EMI contexts (Airey, 2009). Doiz and Lasagabaster (2021) investigated how teachers tackle language issues in their classes and discovered that EMI teachers of history focussed on vocabulary, while not a single case of attention to grammar was found in 12 two-hour sessions of three different history subjects delivered at the UBC. Significantly, EMI teachers did not correct students’ mispronunciation either, even in situations in which comprehension was hindered. As a matter of fact, the instances of active provision of feedback after a mistake was made by students amounted to only 7% in the corpus under scrutiny, which the authors attribute to content teachers’ deeply-rooted belief that they are not qualified for language teaching. EMI teachers only felt at home when they had to deal with subject-related vocabulary. Doiz and Lasagabaster (2021) encourage EMI teachers to endeavour to correct obvious grammatical or pronunciation mistakes in order to avoid fossilisation, for which they should not seek to play the role of the traditional language teacher but rather help students become aware of the need to use English properly in their EMI courses. Teacher training courses could help to change EMI teachers’ views on this issue.

Practices in EMI classrooms Probably due to the coexistence of three languages in the curriculum, one of the most salient issues analysed in the BAC revolves around using the L1 in EMI classes. Official documents do not make any reference to the use of the L1 in EMI, but due to the influence of Canadian immersion programmes (Doiz & Lasagabaster, 2017 (Doiz & Lasagabaster, 2017; Serna-Bermejo & Lasagabaster, 2023)), in the BAC, the trend has been to keep languages separate in order to maximise exposure to the L2 (be it Basque or English). Both humanities and STEM teachers subscribe to an English-only language policy, with the most common argument for not permitting L1 use being the pre-conception that EMI, by definition, means that everything needs to be in English (Roothooft, 2022). In this vein, Doiz and Lasagabaster (2017) gathered data by means of discussion groups in which they observed that EMI teachers are prone to exclude the use of the L1 in their everyday teaching practices. However, practitioners admitted to resorting to the L1 in some circumstances, which led the authors to conclude that there is a need to observe EMI classes to examine the possible mismatch between beliefs and practices. With this in mind, the authors completed an observational study (Doiz & Lasagabaster, 2021), which confirmed that translanguaging was rarely used in EMI history degree classes. Nevertheless, the original strict separation of languages is now changing and some teachers at the UBC have started implementing flexible language policies with a view to avoiding difficulties on EMI courses due to the limited English proficiency of some students. Muguruza, Cenoz, and Gorter (2020) researched the teaching techniques used in an EMI course in ‘Language planning: Social and educational perspectives’, part of the UBC’s Social Education degree. Despite delivering her classes almost exclusively in English, the course teacher established a flexible language policy in which students were given the opportunity to complete their work and take part in class in any of their three languages, namely Basque, Spanish, and English. The semi-structured focus group discussions with students and their journals showed that students reacted positively to this flexible language policy and allowed the less accomplished speakers to participate. However, classroom observations revealed that the use of English in class (19.5%) and in diaries (less

118

EMI in higher education in the Basque Country

than 9%) was rather limited. Although students’ English comprehension increased, there was little room for improvement in productive skills. Cenoz and Etxague (2013) also observed that EMI students felt relieved when they were allowed to use their L1. A possible conclusion to be drawn from the studies reviewed in this section is that this flexible language policy could be a stepping stone towards a more demanding English environment later on in students’ academic careers. In any case, there may be factors such as the teacher’s teaching beliefs and the discipline that may have an impact on translanguaging practices (Serna-Bermejo & Lasagabaster, 2023), a research issue that deserves further attention.

Conclusion The Basque higher education system needs to find the right balance between widening the scope of EMI and sustaining and reinforcing the basquisation process. After analysing the linguistic situation in the BAC – among other European contexts – Darquennes (2011) warns about the need to defuse language conflict by delving into the contribution of language policy and language planning when it comes to preventing and neutralising potential language strains. This is especially important at a time when many minority or regional language speakers feel that the increasing presence of English may become a threat to the normalisation efforts. For Basque higher education authorities, balanced trilingualism has become a crucial objective at a time when the processes of regionalisation and globalisation concur. In this context, the notion of ‘tolerability’ coined by De Bres (2008) is worth considering, as it addresses the attitudes of majority speakers (Spanish speakers in our context) towards the minoritised language (Basque). However, the concept should also be applied to the position adopted by Basque speakers towards English, so that language ecology be successfully achieved. In any case, the most entrenched attitudes are held just by a minority, whereas the bulk of the three university bodies in Basque universities are largely in favour of EMI programmes. In fact, EMI provides both teachers and students with a practice that shapes not only their multilingual identity but also their international identity (Doiz & Lasagabaster, 2018). The three higher education institutions under scrutiny in this paper share the belief that English, in general, and EMI, in particular, play a key role in their internationalisation process. Once the linguistic Rubicon has been crossed, the current trend seems to indicate that EMI, far from receding, will continue developing and becoming a main feature of their respective language policies and planning. Concerning research into EMI, Basque higher education institutions should also conduct studies aimed at measuring the impact of EMI on foreign language and content learning. This is a key question in the case of institutions for which research constitutes an inherent part of their ethos. If the current EMI programmes are to remain in time and succeed, empirical evidence of their effectiveness is sorely needed in order to underpin EMI implementation. Impressions and beliefs are important, and we have seen that they are widely positive among stakeholders. However, actual measurement would enable university authorities to clear up any qualms that may arise in their institutions as regards the use of English as a means of instruction. As far as EMI teacher development is concerned, Basque university lecturers overall appear unwilling to participate in teacher training programmes as such courses are not highly regarded in promotion processes (Sagasta & Ipiña, 2016). EMI should be seen as a golden opportunity to bolster a methodological change and Basque higher education institutions should seize it to give teacher training a greater weight. EMI lecturers should be trained to improve their teaching by focussing on issues such as instigating more learner-centred approaches, the role of languages in EMI, or translanguaging, among others. EMI teachers’ primary focus of attention is clearly

119

David Lasagabaster

on content, but there is a sore need to strike a balance between language and content (Doiz & ­Lasagabaster, 2021). Similarly, the use of pedagogical translanguaging, as proposed by Muguruza et al. (2020), could help diminish students’ anxiety in the case of those students whose English proficiency is not good enough to contribute orally in their classes. Furthermore, empirical evidence should confirm just how valuable these approaches are to more successful EMI implementation.

Acknowledgements This chapter is part of the following research projects: PID2020–117882GB-I00 (Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation) and IT1426-22 (Department of Education, University and Research of the Basque Government).

References Aguilar, M., & Muñoz, C. (2014). The effect of proficiency on CLIL benefits in engineering students in Spain. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24, 1–18. Airey, J. (2009). Science, language and literacy: Case studies of learning in Swedish university physics (PhD thesis). Uppsala University. Azurmendi, M. J., Larrañaga, N., & Apalategi, J. (2008). Bilingualism, identity and citizenship in the Basque Country. In M. Niño-Murcia & J. Rothman (Eds.), Bilingualism and identity (pp. 35–62). John Benjamins. Basque Government (2019). Sixth sociolinguistic survey 2016. Basque Government. Retrieved from https:// www.euskadi.eus/contenidos/noticia/eas_mas_n oticias/en_def/adjuntos/inkesta_EN.pdf Bazo, P., Centellas, A., Dafouz, E., Fernández, A., González, D., & Pavón Vázquez, V. (2017). Documento marco de política lingüística para la internacionalización del sistema universitario Español [Towards a language policy for the internationalisation of Spanish universities: A framework of reference]. Conferencia de Rectores de Universidades Españolas (CRUE). Cenoz, J. (2009). Towards multilingual education: Basque educational research from an international perspective. Multilingual Matters. Cenoz, J., & Etxague, X. (2013). From bilingualism to multilingualism: Basque, Spanish, and English in higher education. In C. Abello-Contesse, P. M. Chandler, M. D. López-Jiménez, & R. Chacón-Beltrán (Eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education in the 21st century (pp. 85–106). Multilingual Matters. Dafouz, E., & Camacho-Miñano, M. (2016). Exploring the impact of English-medium instruction on university student academic achievement: The case of accounting. English for Specific Purposes, 44, 57–67. Dafouz, E., Camacho-Miñano, M., & Urquía, E. (2014). ‘Surely they can’t do as well’: A comparison of business students’ academic performance in English-medium and Spanish-as-first-language-medium programmes, Language and Education, 28, 223–236. Darquennes, J. (2011). The contribution of academia to the further development of European language policy. European Journal of Language Policy, 3, 141–162. De Bres, J. (2008). Planning for tolerability in New Zealand, Wales and Catalonia. Current Issues in Language Planning, 9, 464–482. Doiz, A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2017). Teachers’ beliefs about translanguaging practices. In C. M. Mazak & S. Kevin (Eds.), Translanguaging in higher education: Beyond monolingual ideologies (pp. 157–176). Multilingual Matters. Doiz, A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2018). Teachers’ and students’ L2 motivational self-system in English-medium instruction: A qualitative approach. TESOL Quarterly, 52, 657–679. Doiz, A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2021). Analysing EMI teachers’ and students’ talk about language and language use. In D. Lasagabaster & A. Doiz (Eds.), Language use in English-medium instruction at university: International perspectives on teacher practice (pp. 34–55). Routledge. Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Pavón, V. (2019). The integration of language and content in English-medium instruction courses: Lecturers’ beliefs and practices. Ibérica, 38, 151–175. Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2011). Internationalisation, multilingualism and English-medium instruction: The teachers’ perspective. World Englishes, 30, 345–359. Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2013a). Globalisation, internationalisation, multilingualism and linguistic strains in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38, 1407–1421.

120

EMI in higher education in the Basque Country Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2013b). English as L3 at a bilingual university in the Basque Country, Spain. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster, & J. M. Sierra (Eds.), English-medium instruction at universities: Global challenges (pp. 84–105). Multilingual Matters. Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2014). Language friction and multilingual policies at higher education: The stakeholders’ view. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35, 345–360. Erize, X. (2006). History of the Basque language: From the discourse of its death to its maintenance. In M-J. Azurmendi & I. Martinez de Luna (Eds.), The case of Basque: Past, present and future (pp. 19–41). Soziolinguistika Klusterra. Hernández-Nanclares, N., & Jiménez-Muñoz, A. (2017). English as a medium of instruction: Evidence for language and content targets in bilingual education in economics. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20, 883–896. Ikuspegi, Basque Observatory of Immigration. (2020). Población de origen extranjero en la CAV 2020 [Population of foreign-origin in the BAC 2020]. Basque Government. Retrieved from https://www.ikuspegi. eus/documentos/panoramicas/pan76casOK.pdf Kuteeva, M., & Airey, J. (2014). Disciplinary differences in the use of English in higher education: Reflections on recent language policy developments. Higher Education, 67, 533–549. Lasagabaster, D. (2015). Different educational approaches to bi- or multilingualism and their effect on language attitudes. In M. Juan-Garau & J. Salazar-Noguera (Eds.), Content-based learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 13–30). Springer. Lasagabaster, D. (2018). Language awareness in minority language contexts. In P. Garrett & J. M. Cots (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language awareness (pp. 402–417). Routledge. Lasagabaster, D. (2021a). Team teaching: A way to boost the quality of EMI progammes? In F. D. RubioAlcalá & D. Coyle (Eds.), Developing and evaluating quality bilingual practices in higher education (pp. 163–180). Multilingual Matters. Lasagabaster, D. (2021b). Learning language by studying content. In E. Macaro & R. Woore (Eds.), Debates in second language education (pp. 89–105). Routledge. Lasagabaster, D., & Doiz, A. (2016). CLIL experiences in secondary and tertiary education: In search of good practices. Peter Lang. Muguruza, B., Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2020). Implementing translanguaging pedagogies in an English ­medium instruction course. International Journal of Multilingualism, Early View. http://dx.doi.org/10.10 80/14790718.2020.1822848 Ó Duibhir, P. (2018). Immersion education: Lessons from a minority language context. Multilingual Matters. Orcasitas-Vicandi, M., & Leonet, O. (2022). The study of language learning in multilingual education: Students’ perceptions of their language learning experience in Basque, Spanish and English. International Journal of Multilingualism, 19, 121–141. Roothooft, H. (2022). Spanish lecturers’ beliefs about English medium instruction: STEM versus Humanities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25, 627–640. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2015) Basque Country: Plurilingual education. In P. Mehisto & F. Genesee (Eds.), Building bilingual education systems: Forces, mechanisms and counterweights (pp. 97–108). Cambridge ­University Press. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., & Lasagabaster, D. (2010). CLIL in a bilingual community: The Basque Autonomous Region. In D. Lasagabaster & Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training (pp. 12–29). Cambridge Scholars Publishers. Sagasta, P., & Ipiña N. (2016). Teacher educators growing together in a professional learning community: ­Analysing CLIL units of work implemented in teacher education. In D. Lasagabaster & A. Doiz (Eds.), CLIL experiences in secondary and tertiary education: In search of good practices (pp. 161–196). Peter Lang. Serna-Bermejo, I., & Lasagabaster, D. (2022). Translanguaging in Basque and English: Practices and attitudes of university teachers and students. International Journal of Multilingualism. DOI: 10.1080/ 14790718.2022.2086984

121

9 ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN FRANCE Marc Deneire and Hanane Benmokhtar

Introduction The last two decades have seen a flurry of studies exploring the spread of EMI in Europe (Block & Khan, 2020; Dimova, Hultgren, & Jensen, 2015; Doiz, Lasagabaster, & Sierra, 2013). This interest may be surprising, perhaps even overblown (Grin, 2014) considering the relatively small proportion of such programmes in most European countries (with an average of 5.9% according to the 2014 Wächter and Maiworm report). In our view, this interest can only be explained by the fact that it also involves broader issues concerning globalisation and internationalisation and their potentially negative effect such as standardisation, domain loss, damaging competition, and increasing inequalities. Of course, internationalisation is not a new concept in higher education (HE); it is consubstantial with the birth of the University itself in the middleages (Scot, 2006; Teichler, 2009). Yet its importance and centrality have changed over time as the University’s mission evolved. From being relatively church-dependent with a teaching mission up to the eighteenth century, it became increasingly subservient to the state, which it served by providing an educated class whose purpose was to participate in nation-building efforts, and/ or simply to provide a well-trained, competent administration (Scot, 2006, p. 25; van Zanten & Maxwell, 2015). For some, this participation took place mainly in the economic sphere; as a result, some early twentieth-century critics such as Thorstein Veblen already complained that the University’s mission ‘was, in reality, submission to business power or to the industrial status quo, and faculty complained over business leaders’ involvement in their institutions’ (Scot, 2006, p. 24). For some scholars such as Anthony Giddens (1999), a major qualitative shift involving all institutions occurred at the turn of this century with the advent of globalisation. For Manuel Castells, this shift is marked by the fact that knowledge itself has become the basic resource in what he calls the informational society, a society in which it is not information itself that provides basic resources as was the case in the past, but rather ‘a specific form of social organization in which information generation, processing and transmission become the principal sources of productivity and power’ (2000, p. 21). Hence, knowledge transfer and mobility are essential to the survival of society itself, to its institutions, whether political, economic, social, or cultural. These are precisely the processes that European Union (EU) tried to set in motion through the Bologna process in 1999. DOI: 10.4324/9781003011644-11 122

English-medium instruction in higher education in France

The initial purpose of the 1999 Bologna declaration was to establish a common European HE structure to facilitate transfers through content and mobility, as well as through multilateral cooperation in this new emerging network society. International organisations, the EU, but also UNESCO, the OECD, and the World Bank, started building comprehensive strategies to develop and actively participate in international HE networks across the globe (de Witt & Deca, 2020, p. 4). Yet, the Bologna declaration also asserts that: ‘We must in particular look at the objective of increasing the international competitiveness of the European system of higher education’. Therefore, it is not surprising that in the broader context of globalisation and a market economy, collaboration (which exists at the grassroots) was superseded by an all-out competition as measured by reputation, rankings, and a struggle for a central position in international HE networks. As summarised by de Witt and Deca (2020, p. 4), ‘[over the past 30 years] international education became an industry, a source of revenues, and a means for enhanced reputation and soft power’, and for Christophe Charle (2008, p. 96), ‘Far from giving an extra cultural and civic soul to Europe, higher education became subject to the general economic principles of the initial six [EU founders]: open market, competition, competitiveness, and efficacy’. Key to ‘enhanced reputation’ are exchanges and collaborations with top-ranked Anglo-Saxon universities, as well as the number of publications in high-impact American or British journals.With reference to publishing, in the field of applied linguistics, for example, six of the ten top-ranked journals1 are American, three are British, and one is Dutch. As a result, English is increasingly becoming hegemonic in HE world-wide, both in research and in teaching. Refusing to anglicise means virtual death as Castells (2000, p. 134) reminds us: ‘[In a network society] … everything and everyone which does not have value, according to what has value in the networks, or ceases to have value, is switched off the networks, and ultimately discarded’. The (unofficial) adoption of a single language in the context of Europeanisation is not surprising as it relies on a ‘regime of truth’ that is based on (at least) two ideological components: (1) That a single language is necessary for institutional cohesion, and (2) that the prevalence of a single language makes access to all spheres of social life easier for all (Rojo, 2015, p. 4), even though this imposition at the national level has been shown to have the opposite effect (Bourdieu, 1991). Indeed, European construction does not rely so much on top-down processes but rather on complex multiple power relations that, in the words of Foucault, ‘must be understood in the first instance as the multiplicity of force relations immanent in the sphere in which they operate and which constitute their own organization’ (1987, p. 92). The EU is a perfect example of such an organisation. As is the case with most European Agreements, the Bologna process consisted of a series of meetings that led to the 1999 Bologna Declaration signed by 29 countries. These meetings exist within, and by themselves, form an assemblage (an agencement in Deleuze and Guattari’s words, 1987) that led to a variety of assemblages within EU education systems, depending on national and local cultures. The Bologna process itself is built on the 1998 Sorbonne Declaration signed by the ministers of France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Italy. Of interest for our purpose is that these states had, up to that point, been very protective of their language and culture, which they defended through the principle of subsidiarity that rules out Union intervention in issues that are best dealt with at the state level. Yet by elevating their project to the European level through Bologna and later integrating it with the 2000 Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Jobs, state-level concerns for education and culture made room for EU economic interests, thereby sacrificing national languages on the altar of economic efficiency. For Martens and Wolf, Bologna is the result of attempts by some governments ‘to instrumentalize the EU to better manipulate the domestic distribution of power’ (2009, p. 90) as is often the case in other matters (that is, asking the EU to enforce decisions that are unpopular at the state level, then, blaming the EU institutions for it). Through this new agenda, the EU commission managed to ‘creep into’ the Bologna process and 123

Marc Deneire and Hanane Benmokhtar

to link its objectives to economic gains, thereby, be it indirectly, promoting English as a highly valued, even unavoidable commodity (Amaral & Neave, 2009).

The Bologna process in France France fully entered the Bologna process rationale with the so-called 2007 LRU law (Loi relative aux libertés et responsablités des universités) whose aim was threefold: ‘to make the university more attractive’, ‘to get out of the paralysis of current governance’, and ‘to make university research visible on an international scale’, thereby renationalising the Bologna process (Musselin, 2009). Through a series of regional mergers, the university system was reorganised into nationally and internationally competitive ‘poles of excellence’, following the model of top-ranked American universities, resulting in the relegation of smaller ‘non-competitive’ teaching institutions whose duty it is to prepare students for the job market through the training of specific marketable competences and skills. This transformation was all the easier to implement as it followed the general ideological trend inherent to globalisation (Cerny, Menz, & Soederber, 2005). Additionally, a segment of the French education system, that of its elitist Grandes Écoles, had already integrated the managerial, competitive model of HE and become partly or fully anglicised (see next section). By following that model, the French government gave the impression of modernising the university system, of getting out of ‘the paralyzing mode of governance’ and of opening its most elitist segment to a greater number of students. However, in this context, ‘autonomy’ and ‘responsibility’ means being responsible for finding one’s own funding through collaborations with the private sector and through tuition raises, that is, bringing an end to the traditional public-funded universities open to all and, paradoxically, having less autonomy in terms of research agendas. In the spirit of the Bologna process, the French government could have chosen a unified HE system in which elite tracks would have become part of a unified HE system. However, such a solution was rejected by parts of the political elite and by institutions themselves. Rather, the latter developed strategies in which they gained in academic prestige through international faculty and student hiring and partnerships with selected universities abroad. To justify their protectionist move, elite institutions, beginning with Sciences Po Paris, promised to integrate scholarship students from the least favoured high school student population. However, these efforts have so far yielded poor results and have come at the expense of considerable suffering for these students. In this way, the LRU law and subsequent laws further divided the HE system. Adapting to the demands of the Bologna process, it further increased the gap between those who are in and those who are out, between the elite and the masses, a duality that had already been described by Bourdieu and Passeron 40 years ago as one of the main characteristics of the French educational system.

EMI in higher education in France Despite the recent waves of reorganisation described in the previous section, French HE is still traditionally divided between the selective system of Grandes Écoles, and the university. Grandes Écoles can further be divided between business schools, engineering schools, and other ‘specialty schools’ such as Sciences Po, the École Nationale d’Administration (ENA), and others. The most prestigious business schools (HEC, INSEAD, ESSEC) are private institutions. One of their primary concerns is to remain competitive in the national and, more recently, the international market, which explains to a large extent why they were among the first institutions to adopt EMI curricula. Indeed, in the past, they were mainly business and commerce training schools without any academic pretensions. With the appearance of international rankings, they realised that they 124

English-medium instruction in higher education in France

could not compete internationally and mainly used two strategies to upgrade their rankings: (i) hey hired a large number of American-trained and publishing scholars, many of whom had very little or no knowledge of French; and (ii) they aggressively attracted English-speaking (including NNESs) international students. As a result, some of the most prestigious business schools function almost exclusively in English. Less prestigious business schools followed the same path, creating English tracks and EMI programmes in France and in their international branches abroad. As a result of this internationalisation process, most of them dropped their language departments, arguing that they only recruited students who were already highly proficient in English. Most Engineering schools are also Grandes Écoles and share similar curricular structures and selection processes, yet most of them are public institutions and were integrated into the University system in the most recent waves of the reorganisation of HE within a limited number of competitive research and teaching ‘poles of excellence’. Consequently, Engineering schools, which were originally mainly technical training schools (even though most faculty were also part of the CNRS), gained in academic credentials, expanded their research and student cooperation internationally, and developed a limited number of EMI programmes in that context. In contrast to the Grandes Écoles, the universities’ role is to educate a greater number of students. They open their doors to all students with a baccalaureate (high school) degree and apply very low tuition rates with tuition waivers for scholarship holders. Yet, the reorganisation has led universities to enter the competitive race in terms of research, and a commodification of education in terms of employability in the national and international market. This growing internationalisation has led to a push for the opening of EMI programmes, often perceived as a necessity in some sectors within the new global educational context.

Internationalisation and EMI, the global picture Of the 1.3 million HE students welcomed by the EU from elsewhere in 2018, 17% were studying in France, which ranked second only to Germany (23%), surpassing Italy (7.9%) and the Netherlands (7.8%). However, this position has been declining in recent years according to the organisation Campus France; according to their findings, this decline is attributed to ‘the everstronger appeal of English as a language of instruction and from the appearance of new destinations’ (Campus France, 2020, p. 40). Among the 196 countries represented in France, 46% were from Africa and 25% form Europe. While student populations from Africa and the Middle East have been growing, especially from Côte d’Ivoire (+77% in five years), India (+130%), and Italy (+58%), those from Asia have seen a significant drop, especially from Vietnam and China (−6%). These trends are closely related to the more or less restrictive immigration policies whose aim is to attract more ‘desirable’ populations in terms of culture, education, and finance. In addition, some fields of study are ascribed value through the attribution of French government grants. A sharp 2019 tuition fee raise for non-EU students (from 170 to 2,770 € at the licence (BA) level and from 243 to 3,770 € at the master’s level) should be viewed in light of these policies. Indeed, students in the humanities and social sciences are less likely to obtain these grants, leading to some form of selective student immigration. In the 2014 Wächter and Maiworm report on English-taught programmes in Europe, France ranked fourth after the Netherlands, Germany, and Sweden in terms of the number of EMI programmes. However, the report observed considerable differences between Nordic countries, where 60% of the institutions offered Bachelor and/or Master programmes in English, and South Western European countries (France, Italy, Portugal, and Spain), where only 18.3% offered English-medium programmes. In the former countries, EMI programmes accounted for 19.9% of the total number 125

Marc Deneire and Hanane Benmokhtar Table 9.1  Number and percentage of EMI programmes in 2020: EOP figures Field of study Business and management Tourism, hotel, and catering management Sciences, environment, health science Agriculture and agro-industries Mathematics Engineering Law and economics Humanities and social science Architecture, design and fashion Total

Number

%

501 53 244 45 55 327 138 102 94 1,559

5.4 5.5 1.6 3.0 5.6 4.8 3.7 1.4 1.6 3.0

of programmes, while, in the latter group of countries, the comparable figure was only 2.1% (3.4% in France). Wächter and Maiworm’s figures were slightly lower2 than those of Christian Tremblay, the Chair of the European Observatory for Plurilingualism. Tremblay also computed the figures for the following years and obtained a moderate increase of 11% per year between 2015 and 2020. In 2020, Tremblay counted a total of 1,480 EMI programmes, of which 1,248 were English-only, and 232 partially English-taught. Tremblay also computed the number of English-taught courses per field of study for the year 2018. Table 9.1 illustrates a strong presence of business studies, which can be attributed in part to the presence of private business schools. In addition, the commodification of HE has resulted in management programmes in science and humanities departments (such as health management and tourism management). Conversely, the relatively low rates in the humanities and other programmes have been observed in other countries and have been attributed to the limited interest of students in these domains for EMI (Bolton & Kuteeva, 2012). Furthermore, challenges have arisen from the difficulty to address ‘deep concepts’ in other languages, different knowledge-making processes and literacy goals (Kuteeva & Airey, 2014), and disciplinary identities (Huang, 2019). Unsurprisingly, the attempts to develop EMI programmes in those fields have been faced with a low availability of competent instructors.

EMI and French language policy Given the relatively small percentage of EMI programmes in French HE, it may seem rather odd to observe so much negative political and media uproar following any minor change in policy. This may be due to the fact that, in the words of French linguist Gilles Siouffi (2021), ‘in the long history of French language policy, top-down decisions have had little impact on language use’ in spite of highly visible language controversies. As is the case in many other areas, political and related media discourse develop their own rationale that is often disconnected from everyday life. In 2001, Gordon and Meunier already observed that ‘France is actually adapting to the globalized world economy to a far greater degree than French leaders—who must maintain the notion that the French state is still in control—are prepared to admit’ (p. 9). As a result, there is often a miscomprehension abroad concerning the impact of these policies. As our study demonstrates, this certainly applies to EMI, which is by and large accepted in university circles despite the vociferous reactions of the Academie Française and the French press, encompassing both conservative and liberal perspectives (Deneire, 2015). 126

English-medium instruction in higher education in France

The 1994 Toubon law has probably been the most discussed language policy in recent decades. Its aim was to restrict the use of foreign languages (with English in mind) in various aspects of life, including education, commerce, and industry, for example in product-labelling, business working language, software, and instruction manuals. While it seems legitimate to protect citizens and workers and enable them to function in their native language, Jacques Toubon, himself, then Minister of Culture, did little to enforce the law. He labelled it as une loi d’esprit whose main purpose was not to seek practical changes but ‘to reaffirm the attachment to the Republic, to its language, and to its [related] values and principles’ (Graziani, 2014, p. 163). This was a way to show that the government acts, without much concern for the effects of the law. And indeed, one year later, Jacques Toubon, then Minister of Justice, did very little, if anything at all, to enforce his own law (Eloy, 1997, p. 16). According to the Toubon law, ‘[French] is the language of teaching, work, communication and public services’ (Blattes, 2018, p. 15). The code of education specifies that exceptions are allowed for the teaching of foreign languages and courses taught by foreign instructors who are allowed to teach in their native language. Article 6 of the law also imposes translation services in conferences and colloquia given in foreign languages with a type 4 penalty (one of the lowest on a scale of 5) of 750 € in the absence of such services. However, at the beginning of 2013, 613 programmes were taught in English only, especially in prestigious business and engineering schools, and 90% of the conferences in foreign languages had no translation services. One university president admitted that ‘the Ministry has always been pragmatic and understanding’, and added that ‘I am violating the Toubon law every day because it is not adapted to our modern world’. Further, Campus France, the publicly financed agency for the promotion of French HE explained that: ‘It is not necessary to speak French to study in France and invited French universities to develop EMI programmes to attract Indian and other international students’ (Graziani, 2014, p. 170). Reactions to the July 2013 Fioraso law, which proposes to add exceptions to the Toubon law for classes given in the context of international exchanges and European programmes, therefore, came as a surprise to many (Blattes, 2018). Opponents argued that the law could symbolically be interpreted as a form of weakness and surrender to English (Blattes, 2018, p. 23), that it meant a loss of sovereignty (p. 24) or reflected a form of fascination towards an English-speaking global cosmopolitan elite. Proponents, on the other hand, including Minister Fioraso herself, used the arguments of openness, international influence (rayonnement), progress, employability, and equity. Indeed, as indicated earlier, EMI programmes first developed in prestigious private Grandes Ecoles. Therefore, depriving universities from developing their own would increase the distance between these institutions and universities that cater to the less privileged students. For Ms Fioraso, the intent of the law was simply to ‘regularize what’s being done today because many Grandes Ecoles and universities are in breach of the Toubon law’ (Graziani, 2014, p. 166). Parliamentary debates led to some restrictions because, in the words of Ms Fioraso, ‘we had to get the law through and to put an end to the controversy, we had to negotiate some amendments’ (Blattes, 2018, p. 32). These amendments used fairly vague language to leave all options open (Blattes calls them ‘cosmetic’) and, by the end of the day, as figures show, they did not change anything to the slow progress of EMI in France.

The study For this study, we developed three surveys using our university survey tool, Limesurvey. These surveys were designed for three specific groups: University and programme administrators, EMI instructors, and students enrolled in EMI programmes. Questionnaires were adapted from existing 127

Marc Deneire and Hanane Benmokhtar

surveys conducted in other countries for ease of comparison (Broggini & Costa, 2017; Gürtler & Kronewald, 2015). We also conducted nine one to two-hour interviews with administrators and instructors. Response rates were fairly low, probably due to special circumstances, such as the impact of Covid-19, and a general tendency observed among other surveys addressed to French respondents in international studies (Wächter & Maiworm, 2014, p. 34). After eliminating all partial responses, we retained 27 entries for administrators, 93 for instructors, and 403 for students. About half the responses were from our own institution, the University of Lorraine, and half from other universities.3 Questionnaires contained several closed-ended questions, with each question being followed by some space for comments and further elaboration.

Administrators and programme directors Administrators were asked about their main motivation in the implementation of EMI programmes. They were requested to select two among 10 possible options. The main reason appeared to be ‘to attract foreign students’ (84%) followed by ‘to increase the university’s profile internationally’ (53%), ‘to increase student mobility’ (42%), and ‘to prepare French students for the world market’ (34%). Only 15% responded ‘to promote interculturality,’ even though the issue was discussed in most interviews’ and only one person responded ‘to increase financial resources for the university.’ The financial aspect is a sensitive issue and was discussed in some of the interviews. Indeed, in 2019, as mentioned earlier, the government decided to strongly increase tuition fees. While the long-term impact of this raise is still uncertain, it resulted in an immediate drop in applications from African countries. Whether it will limit the decline in applications from China and other Asian countries, a decline usually attributed to the belief that ‘cheap means lower quality’ also remains to be seen. Administrators were also asked about their perceptions of the main difficulty in implementing EMI programmes. According to their responses, the main issue is the lack of English proficiency among University faculty and staff (31%). This was followed by limited cooperation between faculty (16%) and a limited interest from students (16%). Some programme directors added a qualifier to their answer to the first item, pointing out that many of their colleagues were competent enough to teach in English but felt uncomfortable doing so. They attributed this lack of confidence to the ‘very French’ rapport with language and the fear of losing face when teaching students whose English proficiency might be superior to their own. It is important to note that some university administrators insisted the need for a more comprehensive process of ‘internationalization at home’ that addresses all sectors of the university, including non-mobile students and non-teaching staff. For example, they encourage e-twinning initiatives, in English and/or in other languages for the 95% or so of the student population that does not participate in exchange programmes. They also advocated for an increased qualitative dimension on intercultural and international issues across all disciplines. They also facilitated exchange opportunities for library and secretarial staff in the neighbouring French-speaking parts of Belgium and Switzerland, thereby avoiding the ‘language barrier’.

Faculty and instructors EMI instructors are mostly seasoned researchers and teachers who have spent at least some time abroad, and are, therefore, confident concerning their ability to teach in English. They often cite their desire to share their international experience with students after their return to France and to extend their collaboration with the universities that hosted them. A minority are ‘native speakers’ 128

English-medium instruction in higher education in France

of English. Most of them have initially acquired English through formal schooling (65%), then later through studying abroad (30%), and other types of travel (30%). They rate their own level of English as advanced (70%) or intermediate (30%) in all four language skills. The decision to teach EMI classes is motivated by various factors. Some instructors choose to do so voluntarily (39%), while others have entered this domain on other’s recommendation based on their competence and experience (43%). Additionally, some instructors are required to teach EMI classes based on institutional mandates (35%). Instructors were questioned about the types of courses in which they implemented EMI. The most frequent course types were lectures (77%), followed by tutorials (travaux dirigés) (70%), practical work (travaux pratiques) (42%), and seminars (30%). Interestingly, the course in which interaction significantly takes place (such as seminars) had the least use of EMI. This may be due to the traditional form of teaching in French universities that is still dominated by transmission and ex-cathedra types of teaching. However, according to some instructors, participation and interaction are more difficult to obtain in EMI classes. Truchot (2013) also observed that EMI classes are often recited mechanically without much teacher-student interaction. Unfortunately, this is also often the case when classes are taught in French. In that sense, EMI only seems to amplify an existing trend for the worst. Respondents were further asked to report on their in-class language use. Approximately 66% of them responded that only English was used in their classes, 25% a mixture of English and French, and in 21% of the classes, instructors use English, but students are allowed to use either English or French. Similarly, exams and assignments were English-only 82% of the time, in French 7% of the time, and student had the choice between English and French, sometimes even Spanish or German, the rest of the time. Instructors were also asked about their main difficulty in implementing EMI programmes. For 43% of them, the low English proficiency of French students was the main problem, 19% cited a lack of cooperation and support from their colleagues, and 18% mentioned a lack of interest from French students. When asked what major benefits they saw in EMI, they argued that it better prepared students for the job market (52%), that it allowed students to develop their competence in English (43%), and boosted their confidence in using English internationally (43%). During interviews, some instructors added that EMI classes also enhanced the self-confidence of students because they previously believed that they would be unable to enter such programmes. Despite instructors’ general enthusiasm of EMI, responses were more mixed when they were asked whether such programmes ought to be generalised across the university: 55% were in favour of such generalisation, whereas 35% were against it. Some argued that this might impoverish students’ competence in French; others observed that ‘many students have neither the necessary competence nor the desire for classes in English’. One colleague noted that ‘there is a loss in pedagogical transmission and reception in English-taught classes’ and some argued that ‘such a decision would be discriminating towards French students’. Finally, one colleague exclaimed: ‘We are not going to give up our language!’ (on ne va quand même pas abandonner notre langue!). In summary, most of our colleagues seem to be quite satisfied with the present state of EMI in their university. Most instructors insist on the preservation of the French language; however, they do not consider EMI to be a threat to the French language in daily life (50% no versus 10% yes) nor in science (36% no versus 23% yes). Some note that most of the literature has been in English for a long time without any impact on the students’ competence in French. One colleague contend that: ‘On the contrary, better English means better French’; and another that ‘we are far from being submerged by English’. However, some instructors fear domain loss in French, arguing that ‘there is a risk of vocabulary cannibalization’. To sum up, most agree that a balance needs to be maintained between French and English. 129

Marc Deneire and Hanane Benmokhtar

Students The 311 student respondents to our survey are from various schools, including law, economics and management, science, social science, and engineering, with a majority of students coming from economics and management from the local private Grande École. This distribution is representative of the imbalance in EMI programmes at the national level (see Table 9.1). We anticipated differences between business schools, engineering schools, and university students on certain aspects. However, general linear model (GLM) procedures followed by pairwise comparisons (Tukey) performed on the SPSS statistical package displayed no significant differences between these three groups. Most students claim to have an advanced (49.5%) or intermediate (40.5%) level of English; though half of them (52%) find EMI classes more challenging than classes conducted in French. Additionally, 50% indicated that attending English-taught programmes and classes was their own choice, while 34% stated that English had been imposed on them. When asked about the main difficulties they encountered, students mentioned speaking (31%) as the top challenge, followed by listening comprehension (25%), and interaction with instructors (23%). One student pointed out that ‘really understanding, in depth, takes more time in English than in French’, while others cited specialised vocabulary and the additional effort and concentration that such courses require. Students reported acquiring their English language skills through various means, including secondary school, university classes, travel, but notably ‘mainly by themselves’ for 55% of them. Some Grande École business students expressed regret over the absence of English classes in their school. Others expressed a desire for more Englisg for Specific Purposes (ESP) classes related to their field of study, while others advocated for an intensification in English instruction in secondary schools. As far as motivation for EMI is concerned, most students believe that it will facilitate access to employment (78%), followed by travel (58%), access to documents in everyday life (49%), general culture (40%), access to scientific literature (22.4%), and to social media (16.5%). However, it should be noted that students were limited to choosing from two options; therefore, some added ‘all of the above’ in the comments section. Many also added that English had become necessary for professional life, but also for intercultural communication and understanding.

Conclusion Most studies on EMI in Europe attribute the spread of English in higher education to the 1999 Bologna process. This contribution has been an opportunity to illustrate how this process, together with other EU initiatives – mainly the 1998 Sorbonne Declaration and the 2000 Lisbon strategy – has provided the EU institutions with opportunities to provide for a new assemblage that articulates several neo-liberal priorities such as employability, competitiveness, mobility, and quality. These priorities were later renationalised to fit existing educational policies. As a result, the EU institutions (mainly the commission) managed to ‘creep into’ and ‘buy into’ local cultures that had previously been protective of their languages and cultures (Amaral & Neave, 2009). Language policies, including the adoption of English in higher education throughout Europe, can, therefore, be viewed as a major side-effect of neo-liberal policies as only one component, but a necessary one, of these new assemblages. In spite of its largely overblown reputation for linguistic and cultural resistance and protectionism, France has fully embraced this new agenda. It has partly reshaped its higher education protocols to foster international programmes and has adapted curriculum content in terms of ‘employability’ and ‘quality’ as defined by international rankings. Our survey shows that HE

130

English-medium instruction in higher education in France

s­ takeholders have fully incorporated these values. Administrators have prioritised international visibility for their institution and employability for their students over, for example, interculturality and European citizenship. Faculty and instructors have seized this opportunity for English language research, and students have come to appreciate the broader access to employment, general culture, and travel that the English proficiency they have gained through EMI provides. We observed neither blind fascination, nor heated reactions. It is rather the case that stakeholders have developed EMI programmes only in the context of international programmes, and, most of the time, have taken their students’ level of proficiency into account. By and large, they are satisfied with this approach and do not see the introduction of English as a threat. One major difference between administrators and faculty is that the latter privilege cooperation and collaboration over competition, and appreciate international programmes for their students’ and their own intercultural enrichment. However, many faculty have also noted the severe selection process that students undergo in accessing these programmes, thus resulting in the gathering of ‘cream of the crop’ students. An important question that we address in evaluating EMI in France is whether, all things considered, it has lived up to its promises. Our study reveals a highly unequal impact. At the institutional level, competition has led to an ever-increasing gap between the very expensive private grandes écoles, which only very few students can afford, and public universities throughout the country. More than ever, these elite private schools are reserved for an economic elite whose ‘cultural, linguistic and social capital, largely inherited, reinforced by international school curricula in several countries, is particularly well adapted to the changes and transformation of companies’ (Wagner, 2011). This ‘profit of distinction’ is something they intend to preserve for themselves, as evident from the resistance to institutional change and the diminishing number of working-class students in these institutions. Within higher education, most international programmes are also subject to severe selection processes that exclude all students who have had less opportunity to develop their proficiency in English. As a result, these students are potentially subject to discrimination. Thus, rather than providing access to higher levels of employment and careers, English, more often than not, serves as a gatekeeper for most students and increases inequality within the French higher education system.

Notes 1 The rankings system referred to here is that of Scimago, whose website can be found here: https://www. scimagojr.com/ 2 This difference may be due to the low rate of returns for France obtained by Wächter and Maiworm and to the inclusion of non-ACA institutions in the OEP data. 3 With a student population of 60,000, including 12% foreign students (slightly above the national average), we believe that the University of Lorraine provides a representative sample of the national context. This was partly confirmed through pairwise comparison of our results with those from other institutions on most items (GLM procedures, followed by Tukey test on the SPSS statistical package).

References Amaral, A., & Neave, G. (2009). On Bologna, weasels and creeping competence. In A. Amaral, G. Neave, C. Musselin, & P. Maasen (Eds.), European integration and the governance of higher education and research (pp. 281–300). Springer. Blattes, M. (2018) Policy development for English-medium instruction in French universities. European Journal of Language Policy, 10(1), 13–37.

131

Marc Deneire and Hanane Benmokhtar Block, D., & Khan, S. (2020). The secret life of English-medium instruction in higher education: Examining microphenomena in context. Routledge. Bolton, K., & Kuteeva, M. (2012). English as an academic language at a Swedish university: Parallel language use and the ‘threat’ of English. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33, 429–447. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Harvard University Press. Broggini, S., & Costa, F. (2017). A survey of English-medium instruction in Italian higher education. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 5, 238–264. Campus France. (2020). Key figures 2020. Retrieved from https://ressources.campusfrance.org/ publications/ chiffres_cles/en/chiffres_cles_2020_en.pdf Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Blackwell. Cerny, P. G., Menz, G., & Soederber, S. (2005). Different roads to globalization: Neoliberalism, the competition state, and politics in a more open world. In S. Soederberg, G. Menz, & P. G. Cerny (Eds.), Internalizing globalization: The rise of neoliberalism and the erosion of national models of capitalism (pp. 1–30). Palgrave Macmillan. Charle, C. (2008). La loi LRU dans une perspective européenne. Mouvements, 3–4, 94–101. de Wit, H., & Deca, L. (2020). Internationalization of higher education, challenges and opportunities for the next decade. In A. Curaj, L. Deca, & R. Pricopie (Eds.), European education area: Challenges for a new decade (pp. 3–12). Mouton de Gruyter. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus (B. Massumi, Trans.). Anthlone Press. Deneire, M. (2015). Images of English in the French press. In A. Linn, N. Bermel, & G. Ferguson (Eds.), ­Attitudes toward English in Europe (pp. 55–70). Mouton de Gruyter. Dimova, S., Hultgren, A. K., & Jensen, C. (Eds.). (2015). English-medium instruction in European higher education. Mouton de Gruyter. Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, M. S. (Eds.). (2013). English-medium instruction at universities. ­Multilingual Matters. Eloy, J.-M. (1997). “Aménagement” ou “politique” linguistique? Mots, 52, 7–22. Foucault, M. (1987). The history of sexuality: Volume 1: An introduction (R. Hurley, Trans.). Pantheon. Giddens, A. (1999). Runaway world: How globalisation is reshaping our lives. Profile Books. Gordon, P. H., & Meunier, S. (2001). The French challenge: Adapting to globalization. Brookings Institution Press. Graziani, J-F. (2014). De la loi Toubon à la loi Fioraso: Quel cadre légal pour les formations en anglais dans les universités françaises. European Journal of Language Policy, 6, 159–174. Grin, F. (2014). Dépasser les idées reçues. Débats, 178, 125–137. Gürtler, K., & Kronewald, E. (2015). Internationalization and English-medium instruction in German higher education. In S. Dimova, A. K. Hultgren, & C. Jensen (Eds.), English-medium instruction in European higher education (pp. 89–114). Mouton de Gruyter. Huang, Y. P. (2019) English-medium instruction in law and the humanities in higher education: The role of teacher identity. Higher Education Research and Development, 38, 1183–1196. Kuteeva, M., & Airey, J. (2014). Disciplinary differences in the use of English in higher education: ­Reflections on recent policy developments. Higher Education, 67, 533–549. Martens, K., & Wolf, K. D. (2009). Boomerangs and Trojan horses: The unintended consequences of internationalising education policy through the EU and the OECD. In A. Amaral, G. Neave, C. Musselin, & P. Maasen (Eds.), European integration and the governance of higher education and research (pp. 81–108). Springer. Musselin, C. (2009). The side effects of the Bologna process on national institutional settings: The case of France. In A. Amaral, G. Neave, C. Musselin, & P. Maasen (Eds.), European integration and the ­governance of higher education and research (pp. 181–200). Springer. Rojo, L. M. (2015). Five Foucaultian postulates for rethinking language and power. Working Papers in ­Urban Language and Literacies, Paper 176. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/16881720/WP176_ Mart%C3%ADn_Rojo_2015_Five_Foucauldian_postulates_for_rethinking_language_and_power Scot, J. C. (2006). The mission of the university: Medieval to postmodern transformations. The Journal of Higher Education, 77, 1–39. Siouffi, G. (2021). Ecriture inclusive: La France a une longue expérience de politique ­linguistique. France Culture. Retrieved from https://www.franceculture.fr/emissions/ affaire-en-cours/affaires-encours-du-vendredi-26-fevrier-2021

132

English-medium instruction in higher education in France Teichler, U. (2009). Internationalisation of higher education: European experiences. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10, 93–106. Truchot, C. (2013). Un enseignement en anglais dans les universités françaises? Mémoires des luttes. ­Retrieved from http://www.medelu.org/Un-enseignement-en-anglais-dans van Zanten, A., & Maxwell, C. (2015). Elite education and the state in France: Durable ties and new challenges. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 36, 71–94. Wächter, B., & Maiworm, F. (Eds.). (2014). English-taught programmes in European higher education: The state of play in 2014. Lemmens. Wagner, A-C. (2011). Les classes dominantes à l’heure de la mondialisation. Actes de la Recherche en ­Sciences Sociales, 190, 4–9.

133

10 ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN GERMANY Sandra Bohlinger and Thi Kim Anh Dang

Introduction English-medium instruction (EMI, in German Englisch als Lehrsprache) is commonly defined as ‘the use of the English language to teach academic subjects in countries or jurisdictions where the first language (L1) of the majority of the population is not English’ (Dearden, 2014, p. 2). While Dearden’s definition provides a good point of reference, it is a contestable concept (Dang, Bonar, & Yao, 2023; Dang & Vu, 2020), given that EMI is a fast evolving and complex phenomenon (Macaro, 2018). EMI may refer to both study programmes conducted in English only and study programmes in which English is one of, at least, two languages of instruction. There are indeed various design approaches to EMI (Dang et al., 2023) including CLIL – Content and Language Integrated Learning (Aguilar, 2015) and ICLHE – Integrating Content and Language in Higher Education (Ament & Pérez-Vidal, 2015). CLIL is an umbrella term integrating language and content teaching to varying degrees (Aguilar, 2015). While CLIL (also) focusses on students’ language learning, EMI is mostly restricted to content teaching, and learning and improving English language skills is not at the core of EMI. Also, EMI refers to English only, while CLIL refers to any foreign language. Moreover, CLIL is mainly used in primary and secondary education, while EMI is mainly applied in higher education contexts (Aguilar, 2015). Moreover, EMI can be perceived as part of English as a lingua franca research, which, in turn, covers English language teaching and teacher training, academia and teaching in higher education, business, immigration, or student mobility (Gundermann, 2014, p. 30). Against this background, this article aims to provide an overview of the current situation of EMI in Germany. We begin with an overview of German higher education institutions and then turn to the emergence of EMI as a key feature of the internationalisation and globalisation of higher education. We focus our discussion on aspects relating to EMI students and educators in Germany, such as their entry to EMI programmes as well as challenges facing them. Next, we present a summary of key findings from our empirical research project on EMI across German higher education institutions conducted in 2020−2021 to provide a snapshot of the EMI context in Germany from EMI educators’ perspectives. Finally, we examine the implications for EMI in higher education in Germany and an outlook for future research.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003011644-12 134

English-medium instruction in higher education in Germany

An overview of German higher education institutions Germany has two types of higher education institutions including ‘universities’ (Universitäten) and ‘universities of applied sciences’ (Fachhochschulen bzw. Hochschulen für angewandete Wissenschaften). The core differences lie in the scope and aim of disciplines, as well as in the tradition of the institutions. Universities are much older than universities of applied sciences,1 which emerged during the 1960s. Additionally, while universities provide the whole range of fundamental research and teaching of traditional subjects such as medicine, theology, or philosophy, universities of applied sciences (UAs) focus on applied subjects such as business administration, applied healthcare, or social work (Gürtler & Kronewald, 2015, p. 91). Regarding programmes of studies in higher education, through the adoption of the Bologna Process, most degree programmes today lead to either a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree, while the much older degree type called Diplom (equivalent to a Master’s degree in STEM and some social science disciplines) is restricted to few technical programmes. Programmes have become more similar given that the traditional Magister (equivalent to a Master’s degree in arts and social science), the Diplom, and the state examination (Staatsexamen) were replaced by two respective three cycles in higher education (Bachelor, Master, and PhD). For doctoral degrees, there are few programmes leading to a PhD and the individual dissertation de-coupled from any formal programmes is the typical career path in higher education. Also, it is only universities that are entitled to award the doctoral degree, while UAs can confer Bachelor and Master degrees only. Regarding teaching positions, the main positions in higher education comprise such posts as: professors, research associates and post-docs (wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiter), lecturers (Lehrkräfte für besondere Aufgaben) and adjunct teaching staff (Lehrbeauftragte). Most professors obtain lifelong civil servant posts (Beamtenstatus), with the exception of junior professors (W1) or professors at private HEIs. Research associates and lecturers are usually employed on a temporary contract, while adjunct teaching staff are paid on an hourly basis and hired semester-by-semester. (Gürtler & Kronewald, 2015, p. 92) While publicly-funded universities are the biggest share of German higher education institutions, the number of private universities and UAs has increased during the past years. Last but not least, while the teaching load is less dependent on the public versus private status of a higher education institution, it massively differs between the levels of position and between universities and UAs, with the UAs having the highest teaching load of their teaching staff.

EMI in Germany today The issue of language(s) in German higher education At one point in history, German enjoyed its status as lingua franca in academia (Ammon, 2015). The roots of German as a language of research go back to the eighteenth century when it replaced Latin and became an important element in nation building: It rose to a major international scientific language by the end of the 19th century, especially in the natural sciences, but began losing ground to English after WWI. What followed

135

Sandra Bohlinger and Thi Kim Anh Dang

was its rather continuous downfall as an international scientific language in the course of the 20th century. Lately, it has even lost ground to English within the German-speaking countries. (Ammon, 2015, p. 59) While German has had a long and strong tradition as an academic language (Ammon, 1998),2 this status has transformed massively during the past decades resulting from the introduction of EMI in higher education. Over the last decade, policy changes have brought about a 1,300% increase in English-medium programmes, although, ‘the retention of a high number of German-language programs in combination with the German language’s strong scientific and academic heritage provide powerful backing for instructors who would prefer to continue teaching in German for any number of reasons’ (Gürtler & Kronewald, 2015, p. 90). Today, courses in German higher education are typically offered in German with few exceptions outside language learning, while English has become the most important language for research activities such as publications, academic talks, reporting, and so on. The same situation applies to Austria and the German-speaking parts of Switzerland where German is the official language. As mentioned earlier, the common teaching language in higher education is German. This holds true even though English is accepted and fostered to share research findings internationally and to ensure competitiveness of the German higher education sector. Against this background and in view of the Bologna process, the HRK (Hochschulrektorenkonferenz), the German Rectors’ Conference that represents the universities and is the central body of the German higher education and research sector, has developed and signed multiple resolutions to promote English courses and programmes. Moreover, in 2011, the HRK signed the ‘Helsinki Initiative on Multilingualism’ to foster multiple languages in both teaching and research at higher education levels (HRK, 2011) and thus embracing the European cultural and language diversity.

The rationale for EMI, and the challenges to EMI in Germany Since the beginning of the European Bologna process in 1999, the number of English courses, that is courses other than English language courses, in Germany has increased massively (Erling & Hilgendorf, 2006; Gürtler & Kronewald, 2015; Wächter & Maiworm, 2014). As of May 2021, the database ‘International study programs in Germany’ run by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) lists 1,397 study programmes for the Summer term 2020 in English, which are provided at Bachelor, Master, or PhD levels. Another 191 study programmes were offered in both German and English and most of them are offered by universities (Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst, 2020). The biggest share of English programmes is provided at the Master’s level with 1,276 programmes (DAAD, 2020; Soltau, 2008a, 2008b; Wächter & Maiworm, 2014). Within Europe, Germany is the third largest provider of English-only study programmes (Gundermann, 2014; Wächter & Maiworm, 2014). However, in relation to its overall number of study programmes and higher education institutions, Germany ranks as a middle-ranking country in terms of its share of English-only study programmes. English programmes are mostly offered in economics and law, social science, philology, and cultural studies, as well as natural science (Gundermann, 2014; Gürtler & Kronwald, 2015; Wächter & Maiworm, 2014). While the ranking of the disciplines varies in these studies, it is only economics and law that rank first in all the studies.

136

English-medium instruction in higher education in Germany

There are multiple reasons to develop, implement, and extend English courses and programmes, which is also fostered politically and in the light of both English as lingua franca and globalisation. Some of the many reasons for implementing EMI in Germany include:   i The opening up of higher education for international students by overcoming language obstacles (Ammon, 1998; Wächter & Maiworm, 2014);   ii The recruitment of foreign skilled workers by integrating students into society and enabling them to participate in the German labour market (Gundermann, 2014); iii The general importance of internationalising higher education including an increase in the international competition universities have to face (Gundermann, 2014; Lanvers, 2018); iv The increasing trend towards publicly financing higher education institutions according to their degree of internationalisation (Dunst, 2005);   v Improved labour market opportunities and employment advantages for students and teaching staff resulting from their improved English language skills because, with English as lingua franca, they can access and participate in the global labour market (Lanvers, 2018); vi The mutual exchange of expertise and resources including the establishment of global (research) networks at higher education institutions (Gundermann, 2014); vii The use of English in higher education to foster student and staff mobility (Erling & Hilgendorf, 2006). In sum, higher education institutions in Germany: can no longer afford to remain local if they want to raise external research funds and attract excellent scholars and students. To remain competitive, they have to aim for an international profile and strive for top reputations in rankings such as the international Times Higher Education World Reputation Rankings or the national ranking conducted by the Centrum für Hochschulentwicklung (CHE, Centre for Higher Education). (Gundermann, 2014, p. 3) As English is the dominating lingua franca (Lanvers, 2018) in research and is becoming more important in teaching, many universities follow the trend towards Englishisation of programmes. However, Ammon (1998) points out that other forms of internationalisation (such as cooperation with international partners) were more relevant in the 1990s. In the DACH region (Germany, Austria, and Switzerland), the implementation of English programmes has been discussed both critically and positively in research and in the public media. Positive aspects concern the internationalisation, career advantages for students and staff, and the implementation of innovative practices in EMI and in teaching per se (Lanvers, 2018). In contrast, critical voices point out the loss of status of German as lingua franca and as language of instruction and research (Ammon, 1998, 2015; Lanvers, 2018).3 It is particularly language reforms financed by the government that are criticised as they have a weakening effect on German as the mother tongue (Ammon, 1998, 2015; Erling & Hilgendorf, 2006) and prevent the languagerelated integration of international students into the German society (Ammon, 2015). Additional concerns relate to challenges to higher education institutions, and to individual students and staff in the process. Among these, challenges are a lack of professional development for staff, especially lecturers, instructors, and teaching assistants, added workload to staff (Lanvers, 2018), additional

137

Sandra Bohlinger and Thi Kim Anh Dang

comprehension difficulties for students (Lanvers, 2018), sometimes a decrease in teaching quality (Gundermann & Dubow, 2018; Studer, 2013), as well as additional costs to higher education institutions (Erling & Hilgendorf, 2006; Lanvers, 2018). Implementation of EMI in higher education can lead to numerous challenges to universities and other types of higher education institutions. For example, while the use of EMI has increased, this is not the case with the number and range of English language courses and support for students and staff, which results in insufficient preparation for EMI programmes (Erling & Hilgendorf, 2006). Even if higher education institutions decide in favour of expanded language courses, they will have to face increasing costs, namely costs for the design and delivery of additional English language courses, for developing quality assurance instruments or for providing language certificate training (Erling & Hilgendorf, 2006; Lanvers, 2018). As there are no tuition fees (with very few exceptions) for European students in the German (and Austrian) higher education system, higher education institutions often must face a lack of financial and human resources in this respect. Several authors point out that a lack of training can have a negative impact on instruction quality (Erling & Hilgendorf, 2006; Gundermann & Dubow, 2018; Studer, 2013) and higher education institutions must develop quality assurance instruments for EMI programmes (Gundermann & Dubow, 2018; Studer, 2013). Quality assurance is particularly important given the heterogeneity of intercultural cohorts and insufficient language skills of students and staff (Studer, 2013), and intercultural training is a key issue in terms of quality assurance. Some universities such as the German University of Freiburg developed a quality assurance process, which is a fundamental element of the university’s EMI centre (Gundermann & Dubow, 2018). Here, the evaluation of English programmes is based on the sociolinguistic and communicative skills of teaching staff whereby data was collected from three perspectives, namely teachers, students, EMI experts’ perspectives. Every study programme that is quality assured and receives a quality certificate has to prove that a particular share of teaching staff has participated in the quality assurance process and received special training (Gundermann & Dubow, 2018).

Students in EMI programmes Student cohorts and their perspectives on EMI Most student cohorts who enrol in English courses or English programmes in Germany are commonly diverse in terms of their cultural background, language skills, and socialisation in academic contexts (Gundermann, 2014). Thus, cultural and linguistic aspects gain importance alongside pedagogical and didactical issues in EMI in Germany. In addition, interaction between teachers and students (Pullin & Weil, 2011) and interactivity within an EMI programme are important factors that affect the effectiveness of EMI (Studer, Pelli-Ehrensperger, & Kelly, 2009). In turn, interaction is characterised by stronger collaboration among students and between students and instructors, as well as content-orientation instead of language orientation (Gundermann, 2014). Overall, EMI is a complex interplay between teachers and students’ diverse and complex cultural, disciplinary, and sociolinguistic backgrounds and abilities, which enables those involved in the process to gain new teaching and learning strategies. Many German students adopt a critical or negative attitude towards EMI (Gnutzmann, Jakisch, & Rabe, 2015) or even develop avoidance strategies (Gnutzmann et al., 2015; Knapp & Münch, 2008). This is particularly true for German students in programmes where German is the general medium of instruction (GMI) and EMI is only offered in elective courses. In contrast, students in international programmes where English

138

English-medium instruction in higher education in Germany

is the only language of instruction emphasise the sociolinguistic aspect as key to their choice of degree (Soltau, 2008a, 2008b). Even though most students in GMI programmes dismiss EMI, still, they find more reasons in favour of EMI programmes than reasons against it (Knapp & Münch, 2008). One of the main reasons in favour of EMI is the opportunity to improve their English language skills (Gundermann, 2014). However, insufficient language skills of teaching staff in these EMI courses are perceived as a negative impact on the students’ English language development. From students’ perspective, their acceptance of EMI is dependent on: (1) The international composition of student cohorts and learners’ groups including diversity of their first languages (or mother tongues) (Gürtler & Kronewald, 2015; Studer, 2013); (2) The provision of instruction by guest researchers and guest professors whose native language is other than German (Studer, 2013); (3) The instruction in English based on English teaching material or with reference to the English-speaking culture and language region, or the Anglosphere (Studer, 2013); and (4) The provision of study contents that prepare for a language certificate (Studer, 2013). From a student’s perspective, an absence of these factors (or the presence of only one of them) in EMI programmes could lead to a negative attitude towards EMI as it is perceived as an artificial EMI teaching and learning situation (Studer, 2013).

Language-related challenges Applying EMI presupposes adequate English language skills (Erling & Hilgendorf, 2006). Though there are mandatory English tests for admission, such tests do not solve existing problems, as ‘the evidence of their prospective students’ level of proficiency in English, mostly by means of the TOEFL Test […], does not rule out every problem with the English language’ (Maiworm & Wächter, 2002, p. 95; see also Gnutzmann et al., 2015). Given the fact that Germany is an Expanding Circle context, students are mostly EFL learners (English as a Foreign Language) or ESOL learners (English for Speakers of Other Languages); they often face challenges for which they are insufficiently prepared (Schäfer, 2016) as such challenges go far beyond receptive skills in terms of listening and reading (Gnutzmann et al., 2015). Instead, writing, speaking and communicative, methodological, and intercultural skills are considered important (Knapp, 2015; Knapp & Aguado, 2015). However, compared to the overall number of EMI programmes (1,345, as cited earlier), only 14% offer language preparation courses for students (DAAD, 2020). One of the main critical issues is the focus on formal and domain-specific requirements such as higher education access certificates, BA degree, and so on, and students’ negligence in developing English language skills other than those proven by traditional language certificates such as the Goethe language diploma (Erling & Hilgendorf, 2006). In this respect, Knapp and Münch (2008) have shown that (German) students who tend to insufficiently reflect on their language skills have problems with following courses and lectures in English. This, in turn, impacts on their active participation in learning activities in the classroom. Specifically, these students feel challenged by using English in academic contexts and/ or at academic levels, and perceive high obstacles to pose questions and to engage in EMI courses (Breitsprecher, 2010; Erling & Hilgendorf, 2006; Knapp, 2015). Regarding oral communication, such students tend to focus on content-related questions and problems (Knapp & Münch, 2008). Maiworm and Wächter (2002) criticise EMI settings in which students are not able to speak, understand, and write in English adequately while, at the same time, they are taught by those who also experience problems with English language communication. If instructors lack sufficient

139

Sandra Bohlinger and Thi Kim Anh Dang

language skills, students are likely to develop implicit or explicit strategies to address these challenges, which may include having open communication if they have questions or need support with finding the correct wording and so on (Gundermann, 2014). Regarding note-taking in EMI courses, students tend to take notes in the language of instruction and switch between languages only, if necessary, which is referred to as ‘code switching’. This phenomenon has become known as a principle of continuity and refers to the fact that oral and written input is kept in the language of instruction (Knapp, 2014). This is seen critically as some authors doubt whether students can actually transfer the meaning of their foreign-language notes correctly (Knapp, 2014). However, there is also evidence that some students are able to translate their notes when given sufficient time (Knapp, 2014).

Intercultural challenges Intercultural settings are common in EMI programmes, and they present one of the most prominent challenges to students. Many studies point out the relevance of language skills in this context: EMI settings are varying in terms of content, grade, admission requirements, and language skills. Consequently, there is a wide range of language quality as regards dialogues and discussions (Labi, 2011; Studer, 2013). In the worst-case scenario, a lack of adequate language skills can have a negative impact on both the delivery of content and on culture sensitivity. A lack of intercultural understanding and common (inter-)cultural practices as well as varying interpretations of autonomy and self-responsibility may result in misinterpretation and a weak quality of the course (Gundermann, 2014; Knapp, 2011). In this context, we can assume that international students have undergone a large diversity of socialisation processes, which, in turn, impacts institutional roles and communicative practices (Gundermann, 2014; Knapp, 2011; Schäfer, 2016).

Educators in EMI programmes Requirements for EMI educators Higher education educators, also referred to as instructors and teaching staff, are crucial for EMI and internationalisation ‘as they are often the ones implementing the educational policy. Thus, it is essential to the long-term success of the internationalization agenda that educators be trained and willing to fulfil their role’ (Gürtler & Kronewald, 2015, p. 93). With reference to recruitment requirements for EMI educators, Germany has strict and quite clear requirements for staff to teach at higher education levels. However, these requirements mostly refer to subject-related aspects and there is no overall regulation or framework for academics teaching in English. Instead, there are a couple of recommendations and guidelines including that: (i) The English level of those providing courses in English should be at least C1 of the Common European Reference Framework for languages (Studer et al., 2009, in Kling & Hjulmund, 2008); and (ii) Teaching staff should have clear pronunciation and a high level of fluency in speaking English (Gundermann, 2014). In general, there seems to be a massive gap between staff when it comes to English-medium instruction. Gürtler and Kronewald identify: a perceptual divide between teaching staff with experience in foreign-language instruction, who at this stage in the internationalization of German higher education are primarily self-selecting and motivated by personal interest, and those with experience only in

140

English-medium instruction in higher education in Germany

domestic-language instruction, who exhibit a broad and resolute array of rationales against the introduction of instruction in a foreign language. (Gürtler & Kronewald, 2015, p. 89) Voegeli (2005) also shows that some teachers feel unprepared to teach in English and that their English language skills directly affect students’ perception. Students who rate their own English language skills higher than their teachers’ skills tend to question teachers’ authority (Gundermann, 2014).

Challenges to EMI educators EMI causes a higher workload to most instructors (Studer, 2013). Preparing courses in English requires more effort than just translation (Pullin & Weil, 2011; Schäfer, 2016, p. 506); preparing and marking English exams takes more time than German exams, which is partly due to students’ English language skills (Gürtler & Kronewald, 2015). German native speaking educators tend to enjoy English courses less than courses taught in German (Studer, 2013). Additionally, teaching in English requires teachers to identify students’ language skills and their language proficiency level as well as the intercultural setting and cultural heterogeneity of their students, and all of this must be done right at the beginning of the term (Gürtler & Kronewald, 2015). As academic backgrounds and cultural habitus may vary among students and between students and staff, teachers need to be culture-sensitive and they also need a broad overview of disciplines. Furthermore, cultural differences may lead to problems, misinterpretations, and conflicts, which occur most often when high levels of self-responsibility and interactivity are expected (Clear, 2005; Knapp, 2011). With reference to communication in courses, instructors report that they tend to be less spontaneous, flexible, and humorous when teaching in English (Clear, 2005; Voegeli, 2005). They also report having more difficulties explaining complex issues or arguing at complex levels (Knapp, 2015). Clear (2005) found that some teachers have difficulties with pronunciation. Having clear pronunciation is important and relevant, as students often judge their teachers against this criterion (Clear, 2005) and may doubt on teachers’ authority due to their incorrect pronunciation (Gundermann, 2014). Grammatical and lexical mistakes can lead to misinterpretations (Clear, 2005), for example, when a teacher uses ‘false friends’ or incorrect prepositions. In contrast, Knapp (2015) found that teaching staff hardly have any difficulties with technical lexis or technical literature in English. Regarding teachers’ professional development and English qualifications, there are no standardised pathways or prerequisites to provide courses in English (Gürtler & Kronewald, 2015). If offered, courses for staff are restricted to English language courses which most often involve preparing them for the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). However, the TOEFL is perceived as insufficient since teaching in English is not restricted to written communication and listening or having monologue, as is the case with the TOEFL test format.4 Studer et al. (2009) also found a scarcity of qualified principal lecturers capable of adequately preparing staff for EMI courses. Moreover, several authors point out that insufficient support for those interested in providing EMI courses is one of the key obstacles to EMI (Gürtler & Kronewald, 2015; Studer, 2013).

Empirical research on EMI in German higher education This section presents a summary of findings from an empirical research project on EMI in German higher education that the authors conducted in 2020−2021. This qualitative research explored educators’ motivation to engage in EMI, their perceptions of EMI, the challenges, and strategies 141

Sandra Bohlinger and Thi Kim Anh Dang

in their roles as EMI educators within the German higher education. While much research on EMI in Germany has addressed EMI in general or focussed on students’ perspective or on the quality of teaching, our focus was on the educators as their role is key to success in realising and implementing EMI.

Method and participants The research reported here is part of a bigger cross-national comparative study conducted in Vietnam and Germany. Here, we focus on the German part of the study only. For this part, 15 semistructured interviews were conducted in Germany, covering a wide range of educators in German higher education. By ‘educator’, we refer to the whole range of teaching staff at German higher education institutions, including research associates (PhD candidates), post-docs, lecturers, associate professors (Juniorprofessoren, Habilitierte), and full professors. Our study covered various disciplines, including education, sociology, business administration, physics, psychology, and art history. The 15 educators interviewed for this study covered a wide spectrum of years of teaching experience in higher education in Germany (ranging from 9 months to 48 years), and of EMI teaching experience in higher education, ranging from less than one year (one month) to 30 years. Of these interviewees, eleven are male and four are female, and in most cases, German was their first language (10 persons), with some exceptions where Spanish (three persons), Polish (one person), and Korean (1) was the native language. Interviews were conducted either in German or in English, depending on the interviewees’ choice of language, and transcribed afterwards, with the German ones translated into English for comparison.

Educators’ motivation for EMI Our findings revealed that the interviewed EMI educators were engaged in EMI on a voluntary basis. There are no financial incentives or incentives associated with reputation provided by their higher education institutions for them to engage in EMI courses. Thus, in line with previous findings, for example, by Gürtler and Kronewald, participants here are ‘primarily self-selecting and motivated by personal interest’ (Gürtler & Kronewald, 2015, p. 89). Data shows their primary sources of motivation include the opportunities for learning and improving their own English language skills, learning from and interaction with students, for personal development and intercultural exchange. One educator said, I notice that at conferences, when you feel comfortable presenting and communicating in Engish I have no inhibitions and I think that is a huge advantage overall in the whole professional activity. So someone who has a very hard time there, probably won’t dare to go out into the external world like that. Or possibly avoid things, and I don’t really do that, and I am always quite open, and I have already done that in different settings: I’ve given workshops in English for doctoral students at conferences. So I think that is no problem at all, and I am happy to do it. (DE06) In that sense, educators appreciate the opportunity to learn about other cultures, engage in intercultural exchange with both educators and students, and broaden their horizon. Some interviewees mention the opportunity to bring together conflicting cultures and perceive international students as open-minded persons who enrich courses and include diverse perspectives. Part of their 142

English-medium instruction in higher education in Germany

motivation also stems from benefits outside the teaching context, such as building a collection of English materials that enable flexibility and reduce the amount of effort needed for preparation. They also view EMI as means to gain international recognition or prestige, for example, through publications in English, and thus to establish international networks as well as gain more confidence by presenting at conferences in English. Another source of motivation to engage in EMI is personal development as educators see themselves developing in terms of language, instruction, and correcting errors. In that sense, educators appreciate that they keep practising English and can improve their linguistic abilities, which holds true particularly for speaking and presenting skills. Finally, educators see EMI as a channel for personal development in terms of cultural knowledge and cultural sensitivity.

Educators’ perceptions of EMI Our study revealed that overall EMI educators held positive views towards EMI. The interviewed EMI educators perceived English as an extended communication tool and highlighted the value of English as lingua franca and as a scientific language. They also mentioned the role of language in teaching in higher education in general and in EMI in particular. For example, one educator stated: For me, language is ultimately the vehicle, a tool so to speak […] So, if I am lacking the terminology, then I am also lacking a professional competence in the specific case. (DE05)

The interviewees mentioned that, as a global lingua franca, English is a key to ensure that a wide range of students can participate in higher education, and, as a tool for communication, it brings together cultures and facilitates mutual understanding. Additionally, our study found that, to educators, EMI fosters access to more literature and materials when preparing classes and courses. Since English is viewed as a scientific language, the interviewees noted an advantage that many technical terms are already in English. It is particularly the case in subjects in which English is the lingua franca. EMI and English per se also foster the spread of researchers’ publications and findings and provide the opportunity to discuss findings and discourses with researchers from all over the world.

Challenges and strategies In terms of challenges, most interviewees point out difficulties teaching in English due to insufficient institutional support, language barriers, and general challenges in communication. For example, educators point out the need for intercultural sensitivity and the challenge to interact with international students as exemplified in the following quote: When you are confronted with a Chinese group for the first time and stand in front of them as a teacher, they don’t say a word. They don’t ask questions either. It is very difficult to interact with them. I then asked them, ‘Why don’t you talk to me?’. ’Yes, it is rude. It is rude to ask the lecturer a question, because that could express that the lecturer didn’t explain it properly.’ So that is a different understanding of the roles that students have and what they bring as cultural background, and you have to adjust to that a little bit first. (DE15) 143

Sandra Bohlinger and Thi Kim Anh Dang

Apart from intercultural challenges, educators are confronted with linguistic challenges (­vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation), as well as with the presentation and mediation of the content. In general, educators are not used to communicating in English orally, they commonly write in English and thus feel unsure about the correct pronunciation of specific terms and vocabulary in English. Consequently, they feel less flexible and express concerns if students understand them correctly. Educators perceive conversations as flat (or ‘flatter’ in English than in German) and less detailed in scientific explanations. They report challenges in formulating their thoughts and ideas in English. They also feel uncertain if what they said was comprehensible and correct in terms of language. Most interviewees also state they need(ed) an adaptation phase to teaching in English and EMI requires more effort for preparation because educators need to look up vocabulary or pronunciation. Challenges arise particularly in those subjects, such as education, for which German used to be one of the most important scientific languages. They explained technical terms are hard to translate into English, and many terms need detailed descriptions to be comprehensible. One challenge mentioned by almost all interviewees is assessment. Educators report that they need more effort for preparing exams and feel unsure how to assess students’ language mistakes. This is particularly prominent in social science and humanities where educators may experience difficulties in interpreting what students mean if their answers are incomprehensible due to language issues. In business administration, for example, language is seen as part of formal aspects and students are expected to be able to express themselves in English. In some cases, educators provide exams in both English and German, which massively increases preparation costs. In this respect, student feedback and marking become especially important and sensitive issues, as direct confrontation with failure is hardly accepted in some cultures, whereas in German assessment contexts, it is widely accepted. Our study also revealed that educators developed various strategies in response to the challenges. These include using simplified language, using additional languages (other than German or English), or enhancing linguistic competences, for example, by taking language courses, vacation in English-speaking countries, or private tutoring. In this context, it is striking to notice that educators did not report any institutional support (or at least, they were not aware of it) and response to challenges stems mainly from educators’ personal initiative. All in all, educators reported manifold strengths, opportunities, and challenges related to EMI. Findings indicate a high motivation of educators who engage with EMI on a voluntary basis and adopt several strategies to cope with challenges stemming from language barriers, cultural barriers, assessment barriers, and institutional barriers.

Conclusion Despite the current tremendous growth in programmes taught in English in the higher education worldwide (Aizawa & Rose, 2019; Macaro & Han, 2020; Wächter & Maiworm, 2014), we still ‘do not yet know what EMI is’ (Rigg, 2013, p. 3), having a ‘lack of consensus regarding what EMI in HE actually is’ (Macaro, Curle, Pun, An, & Dearden, 2018, p. 67). This chapter contributes to our understanding of EMI by providing a snapshot of the EMI situation in the German higher education. By providing an overview of the higher education system in Germany before zooming in on the emergence and current situation of EMI in German higher education, and exploring aspects relating to the key stakeholders, students and educators, and their perspectives on day-to-day EMI practices, this chapter has positioned EMI in higher education in Germany within its macro-mesomicro context. Drawing on both the extant literature and our recent empirical research with EMI

144

English-medium instruction in higher education in Germany

educators across German higher education institutions, our chapter has helped to establish the dynamics between EMI context and its key stakeholders. This chapter has highlighted how context matters to EMI design and implementation. First, at the macro level, the linguistic landscape in Germany would differ starkly from other EMI contexts, such as that of Vietnam where one author comes from, given the history of German being a lingua franca of instruction and research at some point in time. Second, at the meso level, the degree level where most of the EMI programmes are being offered is typically a post-graduate level in Germany. This has implications for sources of funding for these programmes and student cohorts. Third, admission requirements decide the cohort of students and staff involved in EMI programmes. These key stakeholders in turn bring specific linguistic and cultural, academic resources together with particular associated strengths and challenges to the micro context. Fourth, this chapter has highlighted the need for support mechanism, both for students and educators, and a quality assurance process to achieve quality EMI programmes. Examining the EMI situation in German higher education by bringing the voices of educators in EMI programmes, through the relevant literature and, particularly, from our empirical data, this chapter sheds light on EMI educators’ motivation towards and perceptions of EMI practices as well as their perceived experience with EMI. Their challenges, such as those related to language and pedagogy, as well as EMI preparation and professional development, tend to resonate the international literature (Dang et al., 2023). Their reported motivations to engage in EMI and strategies in response to challenges in EMI practice suggest their strong agency, as academics and educators, in interacting with the EMI context to optimise opportunities for professional and personal development as well as supporting and productively engaging with their EMI students. This finding in the German higher education context corresponds with the literature that highlights the importance of teacher agency in EMI implementation (Baldauf, 2012; Dang & Vu, 2020). Given the fast-growing area of EMI programmes in Germany, with 1,397 for the Summer term 2020 only (DAAD, 2020), and the need to better understand EMI and its ramifications, future research should shed more light on the institutionalised preparation and ongoing support for EMI educators, understanding their particular EMI practices, especially with a focus on the currently little-known assessment practices, as well as broader quality assurance processes. Future research on EMI in Germany and elsewhere should also take into account contextual factors in understanding EMI-related phenomena, beyond the linguistic, pedagogical or knowledge dimensions of this growing trend.

Acknowledgements We acknowledge the Faculty of Education (Monash University) for funding the empirical research reported in this chapter. Sincere thanks are to the 15 educators in Germany for their participation in the research. We thank Theresa Nadler and Alina Praun for their continuous support with the literature review and for their assistance with the data selection.

Notes 1 The University of Heidelberg is the oldest German University (1386) that has been continually providing teaching since its foundation. Among the oldest Universities are Cologne (1388), Erfurt (1392), and Würzburg (1402). 2 Ammon analyses the decline of German as lingua franca pointing at the fact the researchers from all over the world used to come to Germany to do their studies in German at German universities until the early

145

Sandra Bohlinger and Thi Kim Anh Dang years of the twentieth century. His findings reach back to the 1960s when the German government run initiatives to stop the decline of German as international academic language (Ammon, 1998, p. 15f.). 3 According to Ammon, German is/was among the most important languages of research together with Sanskrit, Chinese, ancient Greek, Latin, ancient Arab, Italian, Spanish, French, Dutch, Russian, Japanese, and English (Ammon, 2015, p. 60). See www.ets.org/toefl.

References Aguilar, M. (2015). Engineering lecturers’ view on CLIL and EMI. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20, 722–735. Aizawa, I., & Rose, H. (2019). An analysis of Japan’s English as medium of instruction initiatives within higher education: The gap between meso-level policy and micro-level practice. Higher Education, 77, 1125–1142. Ament, J. R., & Pérez-Vidal, C. (2015). Linguistic outcomes of English medium instruction programmes in higher education: A study on economics undergraduates at a Catalan university. Higher Learning Research Communications, 5, 47–68. Ammon, U. (1998). Ist Deutsch noch internationale Wissenschaftssprache? Englisch auch für die Lehre an den deutschsprachigen Hochschulen. de Gruyter. Ammon, U. (2015). Deutsch und Englisch in Forschung und Lehre an deutschen Universitäten: Geschichte, gegenwärtige Situation und Zukunftsperspektiven. In G. Stickel & C. Robustelli (Eds.), Language use in university teaching and research: Contributions to the Annual Conference 2014 of EFNIL in Florence (pp. 59–83). Peter Lang. Baldauf Jr, R. B. (2012). Introduction-language planning: Where have we been? Where might we be going? Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada, 12, 233–248. Breitsprecher, C. (2010). Studentische Mitschriften: Exemplarische Analysen, Transformationen ihrer Bedingungen und interkulturelle Forschungsdesiderate. In D. Heller (Ed.), Deutsch, Italienisch und andere Wissenschaftssprachen: Schnittstellen ihrer Analyse (pp. 201–216). Peter Lang. Clear, J. (2005). The problems a German higher education institution faces when offering courses conducted in English. In M. Motz (Ed.), Englisch oder Deutsch in Internationalen Studiengängen? (pp. 193–202). Peter Lang. Dang, T. K. A., Bonar, G., & Yao, J. (2023). Professional learning for educators teaching in English-mediuminstruction in higher education: A systematic review. Teaching in Higher Education, 28, 840–858. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1863350 Dang, T. K. A., & Vu, T. T. P. (2020). English-medium instruction in the Australian higher education: ­Untold stories of academics from non-native English-speaking backgrounds. Current Issues in Language ­Planning, 21, 279–300. Dearden, J. (2014). English as a medium of instruction – A growing global phenomenon. British Council. Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst. (2020). International programs in Germany – Database. ­Retrieved from www.daad.de/international-programs Dunst, D. (2005). Internationale Studiengänge an der Technischen Universität Hamburg-Harburg. In M. Motz (Ed.). Englisch oder Deutsch in Internationalen Studiengängen? (pp. 89–98). Peter Lang. Erling, E. J., & Hilgendorf, S. K. (2006). Language policies in the context of German higher education. ­Language Policy, 5, 267–292. Gnutzmann, C., Jakisch, J., & Rabe, F. (2015). Englisch im Studium: Ergebnisse einer Interviewstudie mit Lehrenden. In A. Knapp & K. Aguadi (Eds.), Fremdsprachen in der Hochschullehre – Chancen und Herausforderungen für den Wissenserwerb/Foreign languages in higher education – Opportunities and challenges for the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 17–46). Peter Lang. Gundermann, S. (2014). English-medium instruction: Modelling the role of the native speaker in a lingua franca context. Albert-Ludwigs-Universität. Gundermann, S., & Dubow, G. (2018). Ensuring quality in EMI: Developing an assessment procedure at the University of Freiburg. Bulletin suisse de linguistique appliquée, 107, 113–125. Gürtler, K., & Kronewald, E. (2015). Internationalization and English-medium instruction in German higher education. In D. Slobodanka, K. Hultgren, & C. Jensen (Eds.), English-medium instruction in European higher education (pp. 89–114). Walter de Gruyter.

146

English-medium instruction in higher education in Germany HRK. (2011). Language policy at German universities: Resolution of the 11th General Meeting of 22 ­November 2011. HRK. Kling, J., & Hjulmund, L.-L. (2008). Project in language assessment for teaching in English. In R. Wilkinson & V. Zegers (Eds.), Realizing content and language integration in higher education (pp. 191–200). Maastricht University Press. Knapp, A. (2011). Using English as a lingua franca for (mis-)managing conflict in an international university context: An example from a course in engineering. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 978–990. Knapp, A. (2014). Language choice and the construction of knowledge in higher education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2, 165–203. Knapp, A. (2015). Englisch als Lehr- und Lernsprache im deutschen Universitätskontext. Deutsche Sprache, 2015, 324–339. Knapp, A., & Aguado, K. (2015). Einleitung. In A. Knapp & K. Aguado (Eds.), Fremdsprachen in der Hochschullehre – Chancen und Herausforderungen für den Wissenserwerb/Foreign languages in higher education – Opportunities and challenges for the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 7–16). Peter Lang. Knapp, A., & Münch, A. (2008). Doppelter Lernaufwand? Deutsche Studierende in englischen Lehrveranstaltungen. In A. Knapp & A. Schumann (Eds.), Mehrsprachigkeit und multikulturalität im studium (pp. 171–196). Peter Lang. Labi, A. (2011, February 13). Europe’s push to teach in English creates barriers in the ­classroom. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/europes-push-to-teach-in-englishcreates-barriers-in-the-classroom/ Lanvers, U. (2018). Public debates of Englishization of education in Germany. European Journal of L ­ anguage Policy, 10, 39–76. Macaro, E. (2018). English medium instruction. Oxford University Press. Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J., & Dearden, J. (2018). A systematic review of English medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching, 51, 36–76. Macaro, E., & Han, S. (2020). English medium instruction in China’s higher education: Teachers’ perspectives of competencies, certification and professional development. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 41, 219–231. Maiworm, F., & Wächter, B. (Eds.). (2002). English-language-taught degree programs in European higher education: Trends and success factors. Lemmens Verlags- & Mediengesellschaft. Pullin, P., & Weil, M. (2011). Teaching in English. Didaktische Konsequenzen der internationalen Hochschullehre. In B. Berendt, H.-P. Voss, & J. Wildt (Eds.), Neues Handbuch Hochschullehre (pp. 1–20). Raabe. Rigg, P. (2013). English as the lingua franca of higher education? University World News. Retrieved from http://www.universityworldnews.com Schäfer, A. (2016). Englischsprachige Fachlehre an deutschen Hochschulen. Wirtschaftswissenschaftliches Studium, 45(9), 504–507. Soltau, A. (2008a). Englisch als Lingua Franca in der wissenschaftlichen Lehre: Charakteristika und Herausforderungen englischsprachiger Masterstudiengänge in Deutschland (PhD thesis). The University Hamburg, Hamburg. Soltau, A. (2008b). Englischsprachige Masterprogramme in Deutschand: Qualitätssicherung in der akademischen Lingua-Franca-Kommunikation am Beispiel von sprachlichen Zulassungskriterien. In A. Knapp & A. Schumann (Eds.), Mehrsprachigkeit und Multikulturalität im Studium (pp. 155–170). Peter Lang. Studer, P. (2013). Englisch als Unterrichtssprache in Bachelorstudiengängen der ZHAW Züricher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften: eine Bestandsaufnahme. Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 5. ZAHW Züricher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften. Studer, P., Pelli-Ehrensperger, A., & Kelly, P. (2009). Mehrsprachichkeit an universitären Bildungsinstitutionen: Arbeitssprache Englisch im Hochschulfachunterricht. ISBB Working Papers. Züricher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaft. Voegeli, W. (2005). Internationale Studiengänge an der Hamburger Universität für Wirtschaft und Politik. In M. Motz (Ed.), Englisch oder Deutsch in Internationalen Studiengängen? (pp. 99–108). Peter Lang. Wächter, B., & Maiworm, F. (2014). English-taught programs in European higher education: The state of play in 2014. Lemmens.

147

11 ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN ITALY Francesca Costa

Introduction This chapter aims to provide an overview of English-medium instruction (EMI) in Italian higher education. The situation in Italy today regarding EMI is not noticeably different from the rest of southern Europe, as noted by several authors (Dimova, Hultgren, & Jensen, 2015; Doiz, Costa, Lasagabaster, & Mariotti, 2019; Wächter & Maiworm, 2014). EMI has gained momentum in Italy since the inception of the Bologna Process (Ammon & McConnell, 2002; Wächter & Maiworm, 2014), growing steadily until apparently reaching a sort of plateau during the second half of the 2010s (Broggini & Costa, 2017). The Bologna declaration has provided a real boost to the internationalisation of universities and consequently to EMI, since EMI is often implemented to make universities and their curricula more international (Costa & Mariotti, 2023a, 2023b; Doiz, Lasagabaster, & Sierra 2013; Kuteeva & Airey, 2014; Roquet, Vraciu, Nicolás-Conesa, & PérezVidal, 2022). Furthermore, knowledge is often transmitted mainly in English, especially in certain fields (Economics and Engineering), where English is adopted for scientific publications and conferences (Coleman, Hultgren, Li, Tsui, & Shaw, 2018; Wilkinson, 2004; Wilkinson & Zegers, 2008). The chapter will discuss the general sociolinguistic background in Italy, the history of languages of instruction in the Italian higher educational system, official language policies relating to EMI in Italian higher education, summary data relating to EMI in Italy in higher education, problems associated with EMI in Italian higher education, and how the realities and practices of EMI in Italy compare to the official policies and the future prospects for EMI in Italy. Elements of the ROAD-mapping framework (Dafouz & Smit, 2020, 2022) will be discussed, namely the roles of English, agents, practices and processes, internationalisation, and globalisation.

The sociolinguistic background in Italy Contrary to what one might assume, Italy has a rich history of multilingualism (De Mauro, 2014). While Italy obviously has languages belonging to the Romance group, it also hosts Albanian, ­Germanic, Slavic, and Greek minorities. Some of the local languages spoken in Italy are called ­dialects. The most widely-spoken language in Italy is Italian, and this form of the language is

DOI: 10.4324/9781003011644-13 148

English-medium instruction in higher education in Italy

derived mainly from the one originally spoken in Tuscany. It was only after the Italian unification from 1861, the beginning of compulsory education, and the advent of the mass media that Italian became the most widespread language in Italy. According to Istituto Nazionale di Statistica (ISTAT, 2015), 45.9% of Italians aged six and over speak Italian in the family, while about 32.2% speak both Italian and one of the various dialects; 14% speak mainly the dialect. In addition, 90.4% of the population are Italian ‘native speakers’ and 9.6% ‘non-native speakers’. Furthermore, 60.1% of those over the age of six speak one or more foreign languages. Among them, 48.1% know English, 29.5% French, and 11.1% Spanish. Italian is undoubtedly the official language of the Italian Republic even if the 1948 Italian Constitution does not explicitly state this. The assertion that Italian is the official language of the Republic is to be found in other legislative documents: For example, the Ordinary Law n. 482/1999, Art. 1, titled ‘Rules on the protection of historical linguistic minorities’, states that ‘the official language of the Republic is Italian’ (more on this topic in the succeeding text) or the Statue of the Autonomous Region Trentino-Alto Adige (DPR n. 670/1972).

The history of languages of instruction in Italian higher education Italian universities have a long history of instructional languages. As in many other European countries, the dominant language of instruction historically was Latin. In the Middle Ages, universities were established as corporations of teachers and students (universitas). The subjects taught were those of the trivium: rhetoric, logic, and grammar, and of the quadrivium: music, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, all of which were taught in Latin. It should also be noted that some of the oldest universities in Europe were founded in Italy during the Middle Ages, the oldest of which being the Alma Mater Studiorum in Bologna in 1088, followed by the University of Padua in 1222, and the University of Naples in 1224. From the inception of the first universities until around the eighteenth century, Latin was, in fact, the language of instruction. It is believed that the first university classes conducted in the Italian language were held at the University of Turin in 1734 (Librandi, 2014). The first laws on higher education in Italy during the period of the unification were promulgated in the second half of the nineteenth century (for example, the Casati Law in 1859). Most Italian universities are state-owned. The first appearance of private universities dates to 1902, when the Bocconi School of Business Studies was established in Milan, followed by the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in 1921. From then on, Italian universities would undergo various changes and an increase in number. A major change took place at the end of the 1990s with the Bassanini Law n. 59/1997, which aimed to align Italy with other European countries concerning the duration of degree programmes. The Gelmini Law n. 240/2010 reformed university recruitment and provided for evaluation procedures for universities. The linguistic question in general had already been regulated by the Italian Constitution, which was promulgated and then came into force in 1948 (Costituzione della Repubblica Italiana, 1948).1 In this regard, the Italian Constitution is a very modern document. In fact, it aims at safeguarding all languages, even minority ones. It contains specific articles regarding the freedom of teaching and the autonomy of universities, declaring that: (i) a language represents a principle of equality (Art. 3 of the Constitution); (ii) the Republic protects linguistic minorities by means of special regulations (Art. 6); (iii) art and science are free, as is their teaching (Art. 33); and (iv) the Italian Republic must guarantee the highest levels of education to those who are capable, even if they should lack the financial means (Art. 34).

149

Francesca Costa

Official EMI language policies in Italian higher education As previously indicated by citing the Italian Constitution, an official policy governing EMI in Italian higher education does not really exist at the time of writing. However, there are some laws that indirectly touch upon and influence this issue. Furthermore, when considering the legal framework in the form of court decisions on specific matters, a fairly impactful case (which will be discussed in this section) makes clear reference to EMI. The fact that there is an overlap of laws regulating EMI does not make its treatment particularly easy. Both of these aspects (laws and judgments) will be dealt with in this section. The first legislative reference is the Law on Universities 240/2010 (Gelmini Law),2 which partially reformed the Italian university system. Article 2, clause 2 of this law promotes ‘strengthening internationalisation also through greater mobility of teachers and students, integrated study programmes, interuniversity cooperation initiatives for study and research activities, and the activation, in the field of human, financial, and instrumental resources available to current legislation, of courses, study courses, and forms of selection carried out in a foreign language’. This article contains many elements that impact the EMI policies of universities. Above all, reference is made to the importance and strengthening of internationalisation, explaining how this should be accomplished by bringing together various elements such as the mobility of teachers and students, cooperation among universities, and the ‘activation of [… courses, courses of study, and forms of selection carried out in a foreign language’, thus implicitly referring to the need to institute courses taught through a foreign language. This is an implicit first call for EMI even though the law formally speaks of a foreign language and not necessarily English. Nevertheless, this ‘foreign language’ is, in most cases, English. The second reference, this time present in the case law, derives from a series of decisions following a legal action initiated in 2012 by the Politecnico of Milan. In 2012, the Politecnico and the Academic Senate approved the 2012–2014 strategic guidelines, voting in favour of master’s and PhD courses being fully taught in English beginning in 2014. This resolution was strongly opposed by some of the faculty, who successfully appealed it before the Regional Administrative Tribunal (TAR). The resulting TAR Lombardia judgment No. 1348 of 20133 states that: The resolution by the Academic Senate is illegitimate in the part that approved the motion on the adoption of the English language for master’s degree and PhD courses. The central role the legal system attributes to the Italian language as an expression of the linguistic and cultural heritage of the state means that it cannot be given a subordinate role within the state in relation to other languages. The imposition of English as a teaching and learning tool runs counter to both the freedom of teaching, guaranteed by Art. 33 of the Constitution, and the related right to study. […] The objective of internationalisation, in exceeding the means allowed for this purpose, in relation both to Art. 271 of Royal Decree. 1933 n. 1559, and to Art. 2, clause 2, letter (i) of Law 2010 n. 240, cannot extend to the possibility of suppressing the use of the Italian language for entire degree courses. The victorious faculty members, therefore, opposed the violation of, among other things, the following principles: (1) the freedom of teaching (Art. 33 of the Constitution), which implicitly indicates that a medium of instruction language cannot be imposed; (2) discrimination based on language (which goes against Article 3 of the Constitution), since imposing the exclusive use of English would discriminate against other languages; and (3) the fact that this exclusive role for 150

English-medium instruction in higher education in Italy

English went against an old Royal Decree on the Language of Universities (n. 1592/1933), Art. 271, which states that: ‘The Italian language is the official language of teaching and examinations in all university establishments’. The long and detailed judgment of the TAR also highlights some very significant aspects, the first of which is that EMI must be proposed while also assessing the nature of the disciplines it should be applied to. The disciplines mentioned in the judgement – town planning law, administrative law, and environmental law – all have a close link to the culture and language of the country, and therefore it makes little sense to teach these in English: The information before us reveals the unreasonableness of the decisions that are being challenged […] since there are courses included in the master’s degrees and doctorates, such as town planning law, administrative law, and environmental law, which, even though they refer to the regulatory and legal landscape of Italy, should be given in English, just as should the corresponding examinations. This will result in an outcome which is not in line with the declared aim of promoting internationalisation, since even those courses which, by nature, are closely linked to the Italian language and culture, impose the use of English. (Tar Lombardia, 2013) Another critical aspect relates to the preparation of students and teachers. In this excerpt from the TAR judgment, specific reference is made to EMI as the only apparent way to achieve internationalisation and the recognition that knowing a language does not mean knowing how to teach effectively in that language. The point is particularly relevant, because a knowledge of English does not in itself imply the ability to teach in English, since it is clear that this ability requires a unique familiarity and mastery of the language. In the same way, students who intend to complete their training at the Politecnico, and thus also to attend the two-year master’s degree or a doctorate, will necessarily have to abandon the use of Italian. In other words, the interests of teachers and students are being sacrificed to a far greater extent than is necessary to achieve internationalisation. It bears repeating that this objective does not mean bending the teaching and scientific culture practiced in an Italian public university in favor of a particular foreign language, however widespread the language may be as a means of communication between people of different nationalities; rather, it means adopting methods that allow foreign students to experience and learn about the Italian teaching approach and Italian students to enrich their knowledge in specific subject areas by studying those subjects in foreign universities. (Tar Lombardia, 2013) The Politecnico, together with the Ministry of Education, challenged the TAR decision by appealing to the Constitutional Court, which ruled in favour of a model of parallel language use with its judgment n. 42 of 24 February 2017.4 The judgment of the Constitutional Court was followed by the Council of State5 in January 2018. In its judgment, which was in fact based on principles outlined in the Constitution, the Council stated that: ‘these “constitutional principles”, if incompatible with the option that entire courses should be provided exclusively in a language different from Italian […] certainly do not prevent those universities that see fit to do so from coupling the supply of university courses in Italian with courses in a foreign language, especially in consideration of the specificity of certain “scientific and disciplinary areas”’. In view of this, ‘an educational opportunity which 151

Francesca Costa Table 11.1 Laws and legal framework regulating language policies at Italian universities Legislative reference

Policy

Royal Decree (1592/1933)

Exclusive use of Italian in universities → monolingualism (Italian) No language discrimination → safeguarding of multilingualism Official language of the Italian Republic (Italian) Activating courses ‘in a foreign language’ → safeguarding of multilingualism No exclusive adoption of English → safeguarding of multilingualism Parallel language use → adoption of two languages (Italian and a foreign language) as a medium of teaching/learning

Italian Constitution Ordinary Law n. 482, Art. 1, of 15 December 1999 Gelmini law (240/2010) on university study Judgment of the TAR in Lombardy (1348/2013) Judgment of the Constitutional Court (42/2017) + Council of State (617/2018)

provides for some courses to be held both in Italian and in a foreign language’ is certainly not against the aforementioned principles, ‘nor does such an offer sacrifice such principles, given how it allows, at the same time, for the pursuit of internationalisation’. Table 11.1 outlines the summary of the laws and the legal framework governing language policies, and thus EMI, in Italian universities. The aforementioned autonomy of universities, therefore, allows for the desired coupling of languages while maintaining an educational offering accessible to all. This choice has already been made by one Italian university: The Free University of Bolzano, which was founded as an openly trilingual university, with Italian, German, and English as a medium of instruction. In fact, the statute of this university states that: Taking into account the international direction of the university and the multilingual teaching needs that derive therein, foreign languages, English in particular, are usually used, in addition to the local German, Italian, and Ladin languages. In accordance with the guidelines on multilingualism, particular attention is paid to the balanced use of the official languages in which lessons are held. For practical and educational reasons, a disjointed use of the aforementioned languages may also be used. The use of languages is defined in the academic regulations of the individual courses of study.6

Research on EMI in Italian higher education The Transnational Alignment of English Competences (TAEC) literature database offers a comprehensive overview of the studies on EMI conducted in various European countries between 1999 and 2018, including Italy (Molino, Dimova, Kling, & Larsen, 2023).7 According to the database, there were 52 publications on EMI in Italy. Of these, 36 were empirical studies, with a sharp spike in their number in 2017. Studies on EMI in Italy are increasing and encompass all stakeholders (institutions, students, and lecturers) through different perspectives and different research methodologies. To provide information in the context, it is, therefore, important to refer to the studies that have identified the specific features of EMI. In Italy, there are 61 public universities, 17 non-public universities, and 11 remote learning universities (Campagna & Pulcini, 2014). 152

English-medium instruction in higher education in Italy Table 11.2 Number of EMI courses in Italian higher education 2020–2021 Number

Level

Private/public

Geographical area

673

72 bachelor of science 601 master’s

86 private 587 public

79 south 166 centre 428 north

Source: Universitaly (2023).

The degree courses are three-year programmes, with the possibility of a subsequent specialised two-year degree. Some faculties have a single cycle, such as medicine (six years). Following the specialist degree, students can opt for a PhD programme.

Institutions and policies What follows is an overview of EMI studies and context from the point of view of the institutions, students, and teachers. The Universitaly website was used for an initial updated overview of the situation regarding EMI in Italy.8 The website reported 673 EMI courses for the 2020–2021 academic year, mostly in public universities since these are more numerous (private universities are smaller in number but the presence of EMI in these universities is very high). Most of the courses are in the north, followed by the centre and the south (Table 11.2). Most of the EMI courses, totalling 601, were at the master’s degree level. This data mentioned is sourced from an institutional website. However, independent surveys and studies regarding higher education institutions and their policies provide a more detailed picture of the situation (Anderson, 2019; Broggini & Costa, 2017; Campagna & Pulcini, 2014; Cicillini, 2021; Costa, 2016; Costa & Coleman, 2013; Pulcini, 2015; Pulcini & Campagna, 2015; Santulli, 2015). Using a silmilar questionnaire survey approach, two surveys conducted among all Italian institutions revealed that there was an increase in EMI courses in Italy from 74% to 85% between 2013 and 2017 (Broggini & Costa, 2017). EMI programmes were present throughout the country, with stronger presence in northern Italy and in private universities, which were pioneers in implementing such courses in the early 1990s. The number of EMI programmes saw significant growth during this period, perhaps due to the need for these institutions to develop international contacts. Even universities in the south, which were lagging behind, demonstrated an increase in EMI courses from 22% to 100%. However, there was a slowdown in EMI programmes in 2017, indicating that a certain level of saturation had been reached. Economics and Engineering faculties had the highest number of EMI courses, with Engineering witnessing a particularly sharp increase. Most courses were at the master’s level, and the institutions evaluated the EMI experience positively. The primary reasons for the implementation of such programmes, largely self-funded, were to make Italian universities and students more internationally oriented and, to a lesser degree, to attract foreign students. As far as teacher training is concerned, it is still not sufficiently widespread, though there has been an increase from 23% in 2013 to 40% in 2017.

Students In Italy, universities are generally open to students who have completed secondary school. However, some faculties (such as medicine) have an entrance test, resulting in closed enrolment for the degree course. Entering an EMI programme generally does not require entry tests to assess the 153

Francesca Costa

level of English proficiency level, even if university websites sometimes recommend a level from B1 to C1 (Cicillini, 2021; Costa & Mariotti, 2020). Empirical studies of Italian university students have mainly been conducted through questionnaires and interviews (apart from one study by Dalziel and Guarda (2021) based on transcriptions and exploring translanguaging). These studies have investigated students’ points of view, perceptions, and beliefs (Ackerley, 2017; Bagni, 2021; Clark, 2017; Costa & Mariotti, 2017a, 2020; Doiz et al., 2019; Guarda, 2018). They have generally found out that students hold positive view of EMI (Argondizzo & Laugier, 2004), with some expressing doubts about not understanding lectures and with differences between local and international students (Costa & Mariotti, 2020; Ricci Garotti, 2009, for German). Ackerley (2017) surveyed 111 master’s students and found that some students expect language learning and for any lack of understanding they blame themselves more than their teachers. Costa and Mariotti (2020) conducted a study involving a sample of 357 students who received a questionnaire and participated in two focus groups. The study revealed differences in their attitudes toward instruction in English between international and local students. At the sociolinguistic level, with regard to linguistic diversity, 23 languages were represented in the sample, with a preponderance of Hebrew, Arabic, and Russian. Local students generally considered themselves less competent in English than did international students. The reasons students gave for taking an EMI course show that linguistic gains had less importance for them than content objectives. As for the language skills developed through EMI, students felt they had improved their specific vocabulary but less so their pronunciation (Costa & Mariotti, 2017a). Their language profile reveals an interest in languages as well as in foreign cultures and countries (Ackerley, 2017; Clark, 2017; Costa & Mariotti, 2020). Costa and Mariotti’s (2017a) survey of 160 students produced a language profile that revealed an interest in foreign languages and travelling abroad, and a positive attitude towards formal language learning. Student performance was also examined through statistical comparisons of the results obtained for cohorts of students with the same teachers, where the latter taught the same subject in Italian and English (Costa & Mariotti, 2017b,c). The data show that there were no significant differences in the marks obtained by the two cohorts, even though there was a slightly lower performance for EMI students in the case of science subjects and at the bachelor’s level.

Lecturers Studies conducted in Italy on lecturers were mainly carried out through interviews, questionnaires, and classroom data. The interviews and questionnaires aimed to uncover the views and perceptions of respondents (Costa, 2016; Guarda & Helm, 2016, 2017; Helm & Guarda, 2015; Johnson & Picciuolo, 2020; Long, 2017). The studies by Guarda and Helm, as well as Helm’s research on a sample of 115 teachers, revealed that those involved in EMI programmess were generally positive about them, although there were some concerns regarding English competence. Among the negative aspects, the teachers stated that preparing the lessons is time consuming and they felt they were somehow losing control of the situation due to the use of a second language (in fact, 90% of EMI teachers in Italy are non-native speakers). They also saw the need to improve some of their skills, mainly oral ones but also fluency, vocabulary, and grammar. The classroom data focussed mainly on teacher talk, which was examined through the lesson or oral exam transcriptions (Bier, 2020; Bowles, 2017; Broggini & Murphy, 2017; Costa, 2012, 2016, 2017, 2021; Costa & Mair, 2022; Costa & Mariotti, 2020; Degano & Zuaro, 2019; Gotti, 2015; Molino, 2015, 2017, 2018; Zuaro, 2023). These studies emphasised the strategies adopted by teachers (Quick, 2021) to facilitate understanding and learning to students. The strategies adopted include Q-DRESS 154

English-medium instruction in higher education in Italy

(questions, definitions, repetitions, examples, summarising, and signposting; Costa & Mariotti, 2021, 2023a,2023b), in particular the use of interrogative discourse markers and repeats (Molino, 2015, 2017); the use of metadiscourse strategies (Broggini & Murphy, 2017); the use of paralinguistic and extralinguistic strategies; the use of defamiliarising categories, pre-emptive focus on form, input enhancement, humour (Costa, 2016, 2017; Costa & Mariotti, 2020); the use of multimodality as a semiotic mix (Costa & Mair, 2022); the elicitation of interactional patterns (Degano & Zuaro, 2019); the exercising of argumentative functions (Bowles, 2017); and strategies of attention to language through focus on form, even through codeswitching (Costa, 2012, 2016, 2017, 2021; Gotti, 2015). Furthermore, exploring online EMI teaching is a growing area of interest (Cicillini & Giacosa, 2020a,2020b; Costa & Mair, 2023).

Aspects of EMI in Italian higher education As explained in the preceeding section, EMI is not without its issues in Italy, as in other European countries. The objections and the open debate (Campagna, 2017; Pulcini, 2015), including contributions by the Italianists at the Accademia della Crusca, are evident proof of this (Beccaria & Graziosi, 2015; Maraschio & De Martino, 2013). This section will briefly list some issues concerning EMI in Italy. The first topic of debate is that EMI, as the acronym itself implies, concerns only and exclusively the English language, so much so that the concept of the internationalisation of universities is sometimes linked with Englishisation (Coleman, 2006; Murphy & Zuaro, 2021; Pulcini, 2015). In fact, fears about EMI in Italy often revolve around the fact that the Englishisation of universities in non-English speaking countries is based on phenomena such as Anglo-American cultural hegemony (Coleman, 2006) and the consequent penetration of Soft Power (Nye, 2004). While the use of English is ‘the most cost- and hassle-free choice’ (Coleman, 2013, p. XIV), as Grin (2014) points out, at an economic level multilingualism is an asset, and it is very important not to lose sight of the potential that pursuing multilingualism offers (Räisänen & Fortanet-Gómez, 2008). As academics at the Accademia della Crusca also note, excessive focus on English could lead to a weakening of academic tradition and domain loss (Knight, 2008). The second factor is that, whatever language is used as a medium of instruction, there is always little attention paid to the language itself (Costa & Mastellotto, 2022; McKinley & Rose, 2022; Pecorari & Malmström, 2018). In this sense, English is seen as necessary but at the same time ends up becoming ‘invisible’ (Costa & Mariotti, 2017b). Scant importance is given to balancing linguistic and content objectives (Wilkinson, 2004), thereby reducing the language to to an instrument and consequently diminishing the importance of teacher and student interaction (Costa & Mariotti, 2020). In fact, as Coleman (2013) and Macaro (2019) point out, these concerns are more evident to linguists than to other academics; but pragmatically speaking, there are doubts as to how much content is actually learned in EMI courses since the English used by teachers and the basic skills of students are not always up to standards. The third area of discussion is directly related to the previous factor and concerns the training of EMI lecturers (Bier & Borsetto, 2020; Borsetto & Bier, 2021; Costa & Grassi, 2022; Hartle, 2020). Costa (2013), when writing about EMI in Italy, is in line with Fortanet-Gómez (2010), emphasising the need for training that arises from the assumption that subject teachers have a real, even though at times unconscious, interest in the language. The problem of training is twofold: it not only concerns competence in English but also methodological competence, especially in a country such as Italy, where at the time of writing there there is no specific training for lecturers, even for those who teach in their native language. The pretext of EMI training could, therefore, lead to a modernisation of teaching methods in the broadest sense. 155

Francesca Costa

EMI programmes and official policies As mentioned earlier, there are few official EMI policies, and those that exist are often the result of overlapping laws (Campagna, 2017), for example, the Italian Constitution and the Royal Decree that were mentioned before. Furthermore, these policies are often interpreted differently and are very wide-ranging and open-ended, as in the example of the Italian Constitution. In fact, with regards to the latter, the decisions by the Constitutional Court and by the Council of State on the situation at the Politecnico of Milan revealed a divergence between what is stated in the Constitution and what actually occurs in the universities. Openness towards multilingualism at the constitutional level is not always reflected in academic practice and reality, where English is often the only real alternative to Italian as a medium of instruction with the institutional exception of the Trilingual University of Bolzano (Mastellotto & Zanin, 2021). On the other hand, it is also true that Italian remains the most used language in Italian universities (Broggini & Costa, 2017); English as a medium of instruction, as Beccaria and Graziosi (2015) state, does not really at the present moment a threat to its survival. Moreover, the addition of English as a medium of instruction in universities does not necessarily prevent other languages from being used as one. In short, the current situation in Italy is not always truly multilingual, although the parallel language use advocated by the judgment of the Council of State, if truly adhered to, could be a significant step in this direction.

Conclusion This article has provided an overview of EMI programmes in Italy. Starting from the assumption confirmed by Macaro (2015, p. 7), among others, that EMI is an ‘unstoppable train’, it is hoped that some fundamental elements will be put in place to permit the best possible implementation of EMI along with its necessary regulation. Needless to say, EMI is very complex and certainly expanding in Europe. In general, the feeling is that EMI is now an established fact, which, however, has spread without being accompanied by a well-reasoned implementation plan. Three policies will be crucial for the future of EMI in Italy: (i) A national or at least institutional plan that regulates EMI on the basis of needs. Directly linked to this is (ii) maintaining experiences of true multilingualism, as is also desired in other contexts (Bolton & Botha, 2017), as well as (iii) promoting true parallel language use (Pulcini & Campagna, 2015). Finally, programming in terms of the training of lecturers and students, always keeping local needs in mind, would be appropriate to ensure that EMI courses have high quality standards. In conclusion, with reference to the TAR judgment, two separate founding principles must be maintained: first, the freedom of teaching and linguistic non-discrimination (new regulatory policies could help in this respect); and, second, the knowledge that knowing English does not mean knowing how to teach in English, therefore, providing training courses as a solution in this regard.

Notes 1 https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/documenti/download/pdf/Costituzione_della_Repubblica_italiana. pdf. All the translations of the official documents from Italian into English are by the author of the article. 2 https://www.anvur.it/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/1.%20Legge%20240_2010.pdf. 3 https://www.osservatorioaic.it/images/rivista/pdf/Sentenza_Tar_Lombardia_n._1348_del_2013_-_Massime.pdf. 4 https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/actionSchedaPronuncia.do?anno=2017&numero=42. 5 https://www.eius.it/giurisprudenza/2018/044.

156

English-medium instruction in higher education in Italy 6 https://www.unibz.it/assets/Documents/University/unibz-statut-2016.pdf. 7 http://taec.ffri.uniri.hr/assets/files/TAEC%20Database%20Report_2606.pdf. 8 https://www.universitaly.it/

References Ackerley, K. (2017). What the students can teach us about EMI and language issues. In K. Ackerley, F. Helm, & M. Guarda (Eds.), Sharing perspectives on English-medium instruction (pp. 257–284). Peter Lang. Ammon, U., & McConnell, G. (2002). English as an academic language in Europe. Peter Lang. Anderson, L. (2019). Internationalisation and linguistic diversity in a mid-sized Italian university. In J. Jenkins & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Linguistic diversity on the EMI campus (pp. 50–73). Routledge. Argondizzo, C., & Laugier, R. (2004). A più voci: The implemetation of a language and content based interdisciplinary course at the university level. In R. Wilkinson (Ed.), Integrating content and language: Meeting the challenge of multilingual higher education (pp. 275–286). Universitaire Pers Maastricht. Bagni, M. (2021). Learners’ views of EMI: Non-native speaker teachers’ competence and ELF in an Italian master’s degree programme. In L. Mastellotto & R. Zanin (Eds.), EMI and beyond: Internationalising higher education curricula in Italy (pp. 133–163). Bozen University Press. Beccaria. G. L., & Graziosi, A. (2015). Lingua madre: Italiano e inglese nel mondo globale. Il Mulino. Bier, A. (2020). On the interplay between strategic competence and language competence in lecturing through English findings from Italy. EL.LE, 9, 345–366. Bier, A., & Borsetto, E. (2020), Una buona pratica di supporto all’insegnamento accademico: L’esperienza di academic lecturing a Ca’ Foscari. Expressio, 4, 31–53. Bolton, K., & Botha, W. (2017). English as a medium of instruction in Singapore higher education. In B. Fenton-Smith, P. Humphreys, & I. Walkinshaw (Eds.), English medium instruction in higher education in Asia-Pacific: From policy to pedagogy (pp. 133–152). Springer. Borsetto, E., & Bier, A. (2021). Building on international good practices and experimenting with different teaching methods to address local training needs: The academic lecturing experience. Alicante Journal of English Studies, 34, 107–130. Bowles, H. (2017). Immunologically speaking: Oral examinations, ELF and EMI. Lingue e Linguaggi, 24, 185–201. Broggini, S., & Costa, F. (2017). A survey of English-medium instruction in Italian higher education: An updated perspective from 2012 to 2015. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 5, 240–266. Broggini, S., & Murphy, A. (2017). Metadiscourse in EMI lectures: Reflections on a small corpus of spoken academic discourse. L’analisi linguistica letteraria, 2, 325–340. Campagna, S. (2017). English-mediated instruction in Italian universities: A cuckoo nest scenario? In C. Boggio & A. Molino (Eds.), English in Italy: Linguistic, educational and professional challenges (pp. 143–159). Franco Angeli. Campagna, S., & Pulcini, V. (2014). English as a medium of instruction in Italian universities. Textus, 1, 173–190. Cicillini, S. (2021). English language entry requirements in EMI degree programmes at Bachelor level in Italy. Lingue e Linguaggi, 44, 53–66. Cicillini, S., & Giacosa, A. (2020a). Online English-medium instruction (EMI) classes. What we have learned so far. In G. Adorni, A. Lorenzo, L. De Manzoni, & E. Medvet (Eds.), Atti Convegno Nazionale DIDAMATiCA (pp. 178–185). AICA. Cicillini, S., & Giacosa, A. (2020b). Communication and interaction from face-to-face to online EMI degree programmes in the students’ perspective – a case study. EDEN Conference Proceedings, 1, 422–432. http://dx.doi.org/10.38069/edenconf-2020-rw0047. Clark, C. (2017). Perceptions of EMI: The students’ view of a master’s degree programme. In K. Ackerley, F. Helm, & M. Guarda (Eds.), Sharing perspectives on English-medium instruction (pp. 285–308). Peter Lang. Coleman, J. (2006). English-medium teaching in European higher education. Language Teaching, 39, 1–14. Coleman, J. (2013). Foreword. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster, & J. M. Sierra (Eds.), English-medium instruction at universities (pp. viii–xvi). Multilingual Matters.

157

Francesca Costa Coleman, J., Hultgren, K., Li, W., Tsui, C-F. C., & Shaw, P. (2018). Forum on English-medium instruction, TESOL Quarterly, 52, 701–720. Costa, F. (2012). Focus on form in ICLHE lectures. Evidence from English-medium science lectures by native speakers of Italian. AILA Review, 25, 30–47. Costa, F. (2013). ‘Dealing with the language aspect? Personally, no’: Content lecturers’ views of teaching through English in a ICLHE context. In S. Breidbach & B. Viebrock (Eds.), CLIL in Europe: Research perspectives on policy and practice (pp. 117–127). Peter Lang. Costa, F. (2016). CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) through English in Italian Higher Education. LED. Costa, F. (2017). Defamiliarisation vs automatism: The cognitive added value of CL(English)IL – Humour and other strategies. In C. M. Coonan, L. Favaro, & M. Menegale (Eds.), A journey through the content and language integrated learning landscape (pp. 123–139). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Costa, F. (2021). Alternation between the L1 (Italian) and the L2 (English) in three CLIL and EMI contexts. Cambridge Scholars. Costa, F., & Coleman, J. (2013). A survey of English-medium instruction in Italian higher education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16, 3–19. Costa, F., & Grassi, R. (2022). Perceived needs of English-medium instruction lecturers in an Italian university: Before and after training. In J. McKinley & N. Galloway (Eds.), English medium instruction practices in higher education: International perspectives (pp. 137–148). Bloomsbury. Costa, F., & Mair, O. (2022). Multimodality and pronunciation in ICLHE (Integrating Content and Language in Higher Education) training. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 16, 281–296. Costa, F., & Mair, O. (2023). Online input and EMI pedagogy in the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy. In F. Costa & C. Mariotti (Eds.), Input in English-medium instruction (97–115). Routledge. Costa, F., & Mariotti, C. (2017a). Students’ profiles and their reception of English-medium instruction in Italian universities. In C. Boggio & A. Molino (Eds.), English in Italy: Linguistic, educational and professional challenges (pp. 160–181). Franco Angeli. Costa, F., & Mariotti, C. (2017b). Differences in content presentation and learning outcomes in Englishmedium instruction (EMI) vs Italian-medium instruction (IMI) contexts. In J. Valcke & R. Wilkinson (Eds.), Integrating content and language in higher education: Perspectives on professional practice (pp. 187–204). Peter Lang. Costa, F., & Mariotti, C. (2017c). Students’ outcomes in English-medium instruction: Is there any difference related to discipline? L’analisi linguistica letteraria, 2, 361–371. Costa F., & Mariotti, C. (2020). EMI students “international coexistence” at one Italian university. In H. Bowles & A. Murphy (Eds.), English-medium instruction and the internationalisation of universities (pp. 229–258). Palgrave Macmillan. Costa, F., & Mariotti, C. (2021). Strategies to enhance comprehension in EMI lectures: Examples from the Italian context. In A. Doiz & D. Lasagabaster (Eds.), Global perspectives on language aspects and teacher development in English-medium instruction (pp. 80–99). Routledge. Costa, F., & Mariotti, C. (2023a). The use of questions as a form of interaction in the Italian EMI setting: Faceto-face and online lectures. Journal of Multilingual Theories and Practices, 4, 32–52. Costa, F., & Mariotti, C. (Eds.). (2023b). Input in English-medium instruction. Routledge. Costa, F., & Mastellotto, L. (2022). The role of English for specific purposes (ESP) in supporting the linguistic dimension in English-medium instruction (EMI). CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 5(2), 37–52. Costituzione della Repubblica Italiana. (1948). Costituzione della Repubblica Italiana [The Italian Constitution]. Retrieved from https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/documenti/ download/pdf /Costituzione_della_ Repubblica_italiana.pdf Dafouz, E., & Smit, U. (2020). ROAD-MAPPING English medium education in the internationalised university. Palgrave Macmillan. Dafouz, E., & Smit, U. (2022). Towards multilingualism in English-medium higher education. Journal of English-Medium Instruction, 1, 29–47. Dalziel, F., & Guarda, M. (2021). Student translanguaging practices in the EMI classroom: A study of Italian higher education. In B. A. Paulsrud, Z. Tia, & J. Toth (Eds.), English-medium instruction and translanguaging (pp. 124–140). Multilingual Matters. De Mauro, T. (2014). Storia linguistica dell’Italia repubblicana dal 1946 ai nostri giorni. Laterza.

158

English-medium instruction in higher education in Italy Degano, C., & Zuaro, B. (2019). Oral examinations in EMI: A focus on pragmatic competence. Textus, 31, 141–162. Dimova, S., Hulgren, A., & Jensen, C. (Eds.). (2015). English-medium instruction in European higher education. Mouton de Gruyter. Doiz, A., Costa, F., Lasagabaster, D., & Mariotti, C. (2019). Linguistic demands and language assistance in EMI courses: What is the stance of Italian and Spanish undergraduates? Lingue e Linguaggi, 33, 69–85. Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2013). English as L3 at a bilingual university in the Basque Country, Spain. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster, & J. M. Sierra (Eds.), English-medium instruction at universities (pp. 84–105). Multilingual Matters. Fortanet-Gómez, I. (2010). Training CLIL teachers for the university. In D. Lasagabaster & Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training (pp. 257–276). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Gotti, M. (2015). Code-switching and plurilingualism in English-medium education for academic and professional purposes. Language Learning in Higher Education, 5, 83–103. Grin, F. (2014). Managing languages in academia: Pointers from education economics and language economics. In G. Stickel & C. Robustelli (Eds.), Language use in university teaching and research (pp. 99–118). Peter Lang. Guarda, M. (2018). ‘I just sometimes forget that I’m actually studying in English’: Exploring student perceptions on English-medium instruction at an Italian university. RILA - Rassegna italiana di Linguistica Applicata, 2/3, 129–143. Guarda, M., & Helm, F. (2016). ‘I have discovered new teaching pathways’: The link between language shift and teaching practice. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20, 897–913. Guarda, M., & Helm, F. (2017). A survey of lecturers’ needs and feedback on EMI training. In F. Helm, K. Ackerley, & M. Guarda (Eds.), Sharing perspectives on English-medium instruction (pp. 167–194). Peter Lang. Hartle, S. (2020). Professional development for EMI. The choice of a blended learning format for training EMI lecturers at the University of Verona. Iperstoria, 16, 169–191. Helm, F., & 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, 353–373. ISTAT. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.istat.it/it/archivio/207961 Johnson, J. H., & Picciuolo, M. (2020). Interaction in spoken academic discourse in an EMI context: The use of questions. Sixth International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAd’20). Universitat Politècnica de València, http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/HEAd20.2020.11018. Knight, J. (2008). Higher education in turmoil. Sense Publishers. Kuteeva, M., & Airey, J. (2014). Disciplinary differences in the use of English in higher education: Reflections on recent policy developments. Higher Education, 67, 533–549. Librandi, R. (2014). Le lingue delle università italiane nel passato [Language use in university teaching and research]. In G. Stickel & C. Robustelli (Eds.), Language use in university teaching and research (pp. 47–58). Peter Lang. Long, L. (2017). Have we got the lecturing lingo? L’Analisi Linguistica e Letteraria, 2, 311–324. Macaro, E. (2015). English medium instruction: Time to start asking some difficult questions. Modern English Teacher, 24(2), 4–7. Macaro, E. (2019). Exploring the role of language in English medium instruction. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23, 263–276. Maraschio, N., & De Martino, D. (Eds.). (2013). Fuori l’italiano dall’università? Inglese, internazionalizzazione, politica linguistica. Editori Laterza. Mastellotto, L., & Zanin, R. (2021). South Tyrol and the challenge of multilingual higher education. In L. Mastellotto & R. Zanin (Eds.), EMI and beyond: Internationalising higher education curricula in Italy (pp. 215–239). Bozen University Press. McKinley, J., & Rose, H. (2022). English language teaching and English-medium instruction Putting research into practice. Journal of English-Medium Instruction, 1, 85–104. Molino, A. (2015). Comprehension and interaction in university lectures delivered in English. RiCognizioni, 2(4), 129–143. Molino, A. (2017). Repetition and rephrasing in physical sciences and engineering English-medium lectures in Italy. In C. Boggio & A. Molino (Eds.), English in Italy: Linguistic, educational and professional challenges (pp. 182–202). FrancoAngeli.

159

Francesca Costa Molino, A. (2018). ʻWhat I’m speaking is almost English…ʼ: A corpus-based study of metadiscourse in English-medium lectures at an Italian university. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 18, 935–956. Molino, A., Dimova, S., Kling, J., & Larsen, S. (Eds.). (2022). The evolution of EMI research in European higher education. Routledge. Murphy, A. C., & Zuaro, B. (2021). Internationalization vs Englishization in Italian higher education: Reframing the issue. In B. Wilkinson & R. Gabriëls (Eds.), The Englishization of higher education in Europe (pp. 163–188). Amsterdam University Press. Nye, J. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. PublicAffairs. Pecorari, D., & Malmström, H. (2018). At the crossroads of TESOL and English medium instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 52, 497–515. Pulcini, V. (2015). L’inglese veicolare: Opinioni a confronto. RiCognizioni, 2(4), 111–121. Pulcini, V., & Campagna, S. (2015). Internationalisation and the EMI controversy in Italian higher education. In S. Dimova, A. Hultgren, & C. Jensen (Eds.), English-medium instruction in European higher education (pp. 65–87). Mouton de Gruyter. Quick, E. (2021). Aligning policy and practice: Linguistic and pedagogical strategies for the EMI classroom. In L. Mastellotto & R. Zanin (Eds.), EMI and beyond: Internationalising higher education curricula in Italy (pp. 53–76). Bozen University Press. Räisänen, C., & Fortanet-Gómez, I. (2008). The state of ESP teaching and learning in Western European higher education after Bologna. In I. Fortanet-Gómez & C. Räisänen (Eds.), ESP in European higher education (pp. 11–51). John Benjamins. Ricci Garotti, F. (2009). Potential and problems of university CLIL. In F. Sisti (Ed.), CLIL methodology in university instruction: Online and in the classroom: An emerging framework (pp. 24–36). Guerra Soleil. Roquet, H., Vraciu, A., Nicolás-Conesa, F., & Pérez-Vidal, C. (2022). Adjunct instruction in higher education: Examining the effects on English foreign language proficiency. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25, 1377–1398. Santulli, F. (2015). English in Italian universities: The language policy of Polimi from theory to practice. In S. Dimova, A. Hultgren, & C. Jensen (Eds.), English-medium instruction in European higher education (pp. 269–290). Mouton de Gruyter. Tar Lombardia. (2013). Tar Lombardia, sez. III, 23 maggio 2013, n. 1348 – Presidente Leo - Redattore Fornataro. https://www.osservatorioaic.it/images/rivista/pdf/Sentenza_Tar_ Lombardia_n._1348_del_2013_-_ Massime.pdf Universitaly. (2023). Retrieved from https://www.universitaly.it/ Wächter, B., & Maiworm, F. (2014) English-taught programmes in European higher education: The state of play in 2014. Lemmens. Wilkinson, R. (2004). Introduction. In R. Wilkinson (Ed.), Integrating content and language: Meeting the challenge of multilingual higher education (pp. 9–12). Universitaire Pers Maastricht. Wilkinson, R., & Zegers, V. (Eds.). (2008). Researching content and language integration in higher education. Universitaire Pers Maastricht. Zuaro, B. (2023). Content adaptations in English-medium instruction: Comparing L1 and English-medium lectures. English for Specific Purposes, 70, 267–279.

160

12 ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE NETHERLANDS René Gabriëls and Robert Wilkinson Introduction On 29 March 2019, the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant published an article titled Kamerleden, de toekomst van het Nederlands ligt in uw handen (‘Members of Parliament, the future of Dutch lies in your hands’) signed by 194 professors, writers, and representatives of the cultural sector (De Volkskrant, 2019). ‘By not appreciating Dutch’, they argued, the universities that embrace the Englishisation ‘are ignoring its important role in shaping our national identity and traditions’ (BON, 2019). The signatories were concerned about the consequences of the enormous increase in Englishmedium instruction (EMI) programmes in the Netherlands. Almost three-quarters of the master’s courses at Dutch universities are in English. In addition, more and more bachelor’s programmes are switching to EMI. The upshot, argued the signatories, is that the Dutch language is losing its academic status. The quality of education would suffer too. For professionals (doctors, policy officers, psychologists, and judges) that depend on highly proficient Dutch language skills at an academic level, the marginalisation of Dutch at universities is very disadvantageous. This development would also create a divide between the university and Dutch society. In this light, the deepening entrenchment of English would have repercussions for the cultural identity of the Netherlands, because it is largely based on a shared language. Failure to provide education in Dutch at an academic level would lead to an impoverishment of cultural life (Jensen, Pas, Rovers, & Gulik, 2019). Concerns about EMI in higher education have often been the subject of public controversy in the Netherlands, and they are also the subject of scholarly research. This contribution aims to describe and reflect on academic research into EMI in higher education in the Netherlands. First, we outline the sociolinguistic landscape of the Netherlands. This is helpful in understanding the background of the development of EMI in higher education. We then outline various characteristics of EMI in the Netherlands. In doing so, we consider, among other things, the history of EMI in the Netherlands, the language policies related to it, and the various ways in which universities give shape to this in practice. We then discuss the scope of Dutch scholarly research on the advent of EMI programmes in the Netherlands. This leads to a brief summary of the arguments voiced in the current controversy, as indicated earlier, and the public debate which culminated in a pivotal court case, leading to a change in the law. Finally, we discuss the future prospects of EMI in the

161

DOI: 10.4324/9781003011644-14

René Gabriëls and Robert Wilkinson

Netherlands and point to areas for further and more rigorous research. It is expected that EMI will become politicised not only in the Netherlands but also in other countries if certain related problems are not solved.

The sociolinguistic background in the Netherlands Worldwide, there are about 24 million people whose mother tongue is Dutch. About 17 million of these live in the Netherlands, 6.5 million in Belgium, 400,000 in Suriname, and the rest elsewhere (Taalunie, 2021). Dutch is an official language not only in these countries, but also on the Caribbean islands of Aruba, Curacao, and Sint Maarten. In addition to the European Union (EU), the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) also recognises Dutch as an official language. In the EU, Dutch ranks eighth in terms of the number of citizens for whom it is a native language. On a global scale, it is one of the 40 most widely spoken languages (Taalunie, 2021). Dutch, an Indo-European language, is one of the estimated 6,000 languages in the world. Languages are often not sharply distinguished from each other, because people often understand something from someone who speaks another language. Abram de Swaan characterises this demarcation problem as follows: ‘In this respect they are somewhat like clouds: it is often difficult to tell where one begins and the other ends, while many clouds and languages ​​are undeniably different’ (De Swaan, 2002, p. 13). The cloud we call Dutch has changed over the centuries (Van der Sijs, 2019). In the current Dutch language area, mainly the Netherlands and that part of Belgium where Dutch is spoken, Flanders, Germanic dialects were spoken long ago. According to linguists, modern Dutch (from ±1900) that is spoken today evolved from Old Dutch (±700–1150 AD), Middle Dutch (±1150–1500 AD), and New Dutch (±1500–1900) (Jansen, van der Gucht, van der Sijs, & De Caluwe, 2017; Van der Sijs, 2019), through factors such as contact with people who speak other languages or ​​ dialects, including by migration and media, as well as force of power through conquest, for example. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, significant changes in power dynamics and the advent of the printing press played pivotal roles in the development of a standardised Dutch language (Van der Sijs, 2019, pp. 112–152). The Reformation brought about new power relations that had an impact on the sociolinguistic landscape. Since a large part of the low countries had become Protestant in the sixteenth century, they distanced themselves from the official language of the Catholics: Latin. Bible translations and the printing press led to the steady emergence of a standardised language, which was further promoted by the fierce resistance of the low countries against Spanish rule, which in 1588 also led to the establishment of the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands. When the republic became a world power in the seventeenth century, it strengthened self-consciousness to such an extent that many writers and scientists started writing in Dutch and the first newspapers appeared in this language (Van der Sijs, 2019, pp. 112–118). The standardisation of Dutch gained momentum in the nineteenth century (Van der Sijs, 2019, pp. 153–159). For example, by the end of the nineteenth century, the expression Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands (ABN, ‘General Civilised Dutch’) was used to indicate the existence of a standardised form of Dutch. Individuals who adhere to this standard do not reveal their regional origins through their spoken language. With the introduction of compulsory education in the Netherlands (1900) and Belgium (1914), it also became the standard in education. However, the expression Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands suggests that those who do not meet the standard are uncivilised. As a result, it has been replaced by the expression Algemeen Nederlands (AN, ‘­General Dutch’). This expression acknowledges that, in practice, there are all kinds of variations of Dutch that do not have to stand in the way of good communication. Notwithstanding Algemeen 162

English-medium instruction in higher education in the Netherlands

Nederlands, in some regions of the Netherlands, the dialectic differences are highly distinctive, such as the Limburg dialects in the southernmost province of the same name (Hinskens & Taeldeman, 2013). Limburgs is often the dominant language of early schooling and social life (Cornips, 2013; Crompvoets, 1987/2006). In the northern province of Fryslân (Friesland), the Frisian language (Frysk) evolved as a separate language around 500–700 AD, and more than half the population report Frisian as their first language (L1) (Gorter, van der Meer, & Riemersma, 2008). Nevertheless, the dominant language of secondary and higher education is standardised Dutch (AN). For a long time, Belgian-Dutch, spoken in the north of Belgium, was considered a variant of the language spoken mainly in the west of the Netherlands. Dutch was seen as a monocentric language, with a leading norm-setting centre that everyone would focus on because the correct Dutch is supposed to be spoken there (Jansen et al., 2017, p. 166). Dutch is now a pluricentric language with more than one centre because, in Belgium, many citizens look to people who are present in the Belgian media when it comes to the correct use of the language. An indicator for the transformation of Dutch from a monocentric language into a pluricentric language is that, since 2009, a widely used dictionary indicates whether words or expressions are Dutch-Dutch (NN) or Belgian-Dutch (BN) (Jansen et al., 2017, p. 166). The Netherlands and Belgium work closely together to protect the Dutch language. For example, in 1980, a treaty was signed that created the Dutch Language Union (de Taalunie). Its main purposes are to monitor and advise on literacy skills in Dutch, as well as to give advice on grammar, spelling, and vocabulary, and make Dutch literature available to a large audience. The Dutch Language Union also promotes education in Dutch. These institutionalised forms of cooperation between Belgium and the Netherlands must be taken seriously because they have repercussions for higher education. For example, higher education institutions that want to start a bachelor’s or master’s programme must be accredited by the Dutch-Flemish Accreditation Organization (NVAO), which monitors the quality of higher education in the Netherlands and Flanders.

The rapid emergence of EMI programmes The Netherlands has long been one of the countries in the forefront of the global trend towards EMI. Dearden (2014, p. 4) defines EMI as ‘the use of the English language to teach academic subjects in countries or jurisdictions where the first language (L1) of the majority of the population is not English’. The Netherlands was one of the first countries to initiate full EMI programmes, as opposed to single EMI courses within a programme largely in the local first language, that is, in Dutch (Jochems, 1991). The early implementation of EMI programmes predates the harmonisation of higher education in Europe under the Bologna Declaration of the common first phase (Bachelor’s) and second phase (Master’s) levels. EMI programmes began in the late 1980s at Maastricht University and spread rapidly to other universities by the early 1990s, notably Groningen, Erasmus (Rotterdam), Nijmegen (later renamed Radboud), and Tilburg (Wilkinson, 2013, p. 7), as well as the technical universities of Delft, Eindhoven, and Twente. In 2002, Dutch government policy mandated the rapid introduction of the two-phase Bologna structure, which, coupled with the widespread participation of universities in the Erasmus exchange system, underpinned a stellar growth in EMI programmes at all Dutch universities. This growth in EMI programmes indicates that higher education in the Netherlands has evolved significantly over the past 50 years. In the middle of the twentieth century, students entering university would have been expected to be proficient in Dutch and three foreign languages: German, French, and English (Schuyt & Taverne, 2000/2011, pp. 316–317). Such a situation gradually changed in the last quarter of the twentieth century, with French and German in sharp decline 163

René Gabriëls and Robert Wilkinson

(Michel, Vidon, de Graaff, & Lowie, 2021). English is now the only compulsory language that all Dutch secondary school students learn (Wilhelm, 2018, p. 20). Universities naturally have noticed this trend. Since the end of the twentieth century, they have felt obliged to internationalise to cope with pressures of a globalised academic world (Münch, 2009). Thus, in the twenty-first century, they have extensively recruited international students at both bachelor’s and master’s level, with numbers more than doubling from 2006 reaching 62,000 in 2019, which is over 20% of the university student population (Nuffic, 2020). All 13 Dutch research universities have at least 10% of their student population and a quarter of their academic staff that come from abroad. In 2020, the percentage of bachelor’s and master’s programmes offered at Dutch universities through the medium of English is one of the highest in Europe, with 28% of all bachelor’s programmes and 77% of master’s programmes in English only, with an additional 19% and 9%, respectively, where students may choose between a Dutch and an English variant (VSNU, 2021). Correspondingly, the change in the percentage of Dutch-medium bachelor’s programmes in the past four years is striking, showing a decline from 70% in 2016 to 53% five years later (VSNU, 2021). Some universities offer programmes with a Dutch and an English variant. However, notwithstanding Dutch still being the language of instruction in the majority of bachelor’s programmes, there is clearly a trend towards more programmes with English as the medium of instruction, as shown in Table 12.1. Compared to the bachelor’s programmes, the dominance of English as a medium of instruction in master’s programmes is even more significant (see Table 12.2). The impact of EMI programmes differs from sector to sector. In some sectors, especially engineering and the interdisciplinary sector (as in university colleges), EMI is more dominant than in others. This is shown in Figure 12.1 for the bachelor’s and master’s programmes for 2016 and 2020 (VSNU,

Table 12.1  The number and proportion of university programmes (Dutch; Dutch/English; English [EMI]) in bachelor’s programmes

Dutch variant Dutch/English variant English variant

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

287 [70%] 40 [10%]

265 [65%] 47 [12%]

237 [58%] 60 [15%]

229 [55%] 63 [15%]

227 [53%] 79 [19%]

83 [20%]

94 [23%]

114 [28%]

123 [30%]

119 [28%]

Source: VSNU (2021).

Table 12.2 The number and proportion of university programmes (Dutch; Dutch/English; English [EMI]) in master’s programmes

Dutch variant Dutch/English variant English variant

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

122 [17%] 86 [12%]

106 [15%] 75 [11%]

99 [14%] 70 [10%]

97 [14%] 72 [10%]

101 [14%] 18 [9%]

491 [70%]

516 [74%]

533 [76%]

548 [76%]

560 [77%]

Source: VSNU (2021).

164

English-medium instruction in higher education in the Netherlands

Bachelor's programmes 2016

Bachelor's programmes 2020

100 80 60 40 20 0

100 80 60 40 20 0

2016 English

2016 English/Dutch

2016 Dutch

2020 English

Master's programmes 2016

2020 English/Dutch

2020 Dutch

Master's programmes 2020

100 80 60 40 20 0

100 80 60 40 20 0

2016 English

2016 English/Dutch

2016 Dutch

2020 English

2020 English/Dutch

2020 Dutch

Figure 12.1  Bachelor’s and master’s programmes per sector in 2016 and 2020.  Source: VSNU (2021).

2021). Over the five-year period, there has been a growth in the number of EMI programmes at bachelor’s level in most sectors. Most striking is the decline in the number of Dutch-medium programmes in all sectors except medical sciences and law, even if overall there are far more Dutch programmes than English. The figures for master’s programmes illustrate a striking contrast. EMI programmes dominate throughout, except in law. In 2020, in five sectors, Dutch-medium programmes scarcely exist (economics, agricultural sciences, natural sciences, interdisciplinary studies, and engineering). Even in humanities and linguistics, there are relatively few programmes solely in Dutch, which is a serious concern for possibilities to contribute to local public debate (Altbach & de Wit, 2020). The number of international students at research universities has increased almost fivefold between 2006 and 2019 (from 12,697 to 62,516), but numbers have also almost doubled at universities of applied sciences over the same period (from 18,832 to 31,720) (Nuffic, 2021). Breetvelt (2018) argues that the trends outlined are policy-driven, and do not derive from pressures within the academic community (see also Macaro, Curle, Pun, An, & Dearden, 2018). However, the growth of EMI in the Netherlands is not always the result of an explicit policy decision but more through force of circumstance. For example, as faculties at Dutch universities found themselves recruiting more and more international students, they faced a choice of either extensive investment in Dutch language training or allowing communication to function in English or any other common language. In most cases, the desire to recruit ‘excellent’ students and staff from everywhere led to English becaming the dominant language (Kruse, 2016). Investment in Dutch was limited and international students were usually not obliged to learn the local language. Thus, universities found themselves compelled to translate or rewrite relevant regulations and ensure that administrative staff could cope with student encounters in English. Signposting became bilingual and sometimes only in English (Bronkhorst, 2019; Edwards, 2016). Furthermore, a joint report in 2018 from the Vereniging Hogescholen (the association of Dutch universities of applied sciences) 165

René Gabriëls and Robert Wilkinson

and VSNU (the association of Dutch research universities) forecast an expected 7% decline in the total number of Dutch students but a significant increase in international students to over 26% of all university students (16% of all students in Dutch higher education) by 2029–2030, underpinning the associations’ concern for the future quality of Dutch education (Ministerie van Financiën, 2019; Vereniging Hogescholen & VSNU, 2018). This will have an impact on the language policy of universities, requiring regular updating as the university population changes, especially with respect to Dutch society. Language policy as expressed in overt regulations is developed at a meso level (university) and macro level (government). At the national level, language policy is enshrined in Article 7.2. WHW (Wet op het hoger onderwijs en wetenschappelijk onderzoek, ‘Higher Education and Scientific Research Act’), currently being amended. The article prescribes that a language other than Dutch may be used if the teaching is provided in the context of a guest lecture by a non-Dutchspeaking lecturer, or if the specific nature, organisation, or quality of the teaching or origin of the students so requires. Dutch universities are, thus, offered a wide degree of interpretation of national law when establishing their own language policy. A study of instructional language by Edwards (2020) analysed university language policies (incorporated in institutional gedragscodes, codes of conduct) at 12 of the Dutch research universities. Her analysis shows that universities use a range of discoursal practices and arguments, sometimes circular, to justify their provision of EMI programmes. For example, the international profile of the university warrants the offering of programmes in English (Edwards, 2020, pp. 47–48) or the presence of international students leads to the need to offer EMI programmes (p. 50). Edwards characterises the arguments as ‘chickenand-egg’ (p. 50). Moreover, she found that less than half the universities had updated their policies in the last five years. At a public level, Dutch universities use their annual reports to demonstrate their internationalisation policy and, by extension, how they enact language policy. A study by Wilkinson and Gabriëls (2021a) of the annual reports (in Dutch) of the 13 research universities noted that six universities make no explicit reference to language policy, and two others only scant mention, although they vicariously refer to the number of international students and aspects such as the international classroom. Three universities (Maastricht, Twente, and the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) report extensively on language policy, which seems to reflect recent public controversy (see the subsequent text) and adverse media coverage. Only Leiden and Groningen contain moderately detailed reports on language policy that do not seem engineered by external forces. It is worth noting that the annual reports also reveal two other tendencies in Dutch higher education. Firstly, all Dutch universities use English terms and concepts extensively in their Dutch language reports, without translation, demonstrating the pervasiveness of Anglophone terminology stemming from structural changes under New Public Management (Pollitt, van Thiel, & Homburg, 2007). The structure appears partly modelled on British and American universities, as reported by Dekker (2015, p. 109), and originates in the changes under the Reagan and Thatcher administrations in the United States and the United Kingdom, respectively (Lorenz, 2012, pp. 603–604). This is related to the second tendency, the growth of ‘audit culture’ (Shore & Wright, 2000), of which the annual report is a visible sign. Through the annual report, universities come to resemble business firms who have to report to shareholders (Currie, DeAngelis, de Boer, Huisman, & Lacotte, 2003), in that academic language is ‘replaced with corporate and business language’ (Parker, 2011, p. 441). In this light, Dutch universities’ annual reports demonstrate the subservience of the academic to private sector corporate philosophies (Parker, 2011, p. 448) emanating from Anglo-American accounting practices.

166

English-medium instruction in higher education in the Netherlands

This brief analysis suggests that language policy does not play a prominent role in the perceptions of university management except where EMI has led to a perception of detriment to Dutch language and culture, eliciting serious negative publicity. However, reports have shown that risks to internationalisation policies are present, such as continuity of incoming students and the universities’ liability and exposure to policies set by governments in other countries (Ministerie van Financiën, 2019; Vereniging Hogescholen & VSNU, 2018). Nevertheless, universities so far seem set to continue their current path and, thus, to expand the provision of EMI.

EMI research in the Netherlands The growth of EMI, however, has not proceeded without critical scholarly comment. Since the early 1990s, researchers have focussed on several aspects, most noticeably the competences of students and staff to learn and teach through English, whether different methodological approaches from those used in Dutch-medium education are required, the nature of assessment, what the position of the first language should be, and how languages other than English might be accommodated. Early research focussed on lecturer’s ability to function in English. Vinke (1995) observed that although most lecturers themselves perceived teaching in English and in Dutch as comparable, they needed more time to prepare in English and they experienced problems in expressing themselves or in improvising. Vinke also showed a small detrimental effect for Dutch students in learning content in English compared to Dutch. Similar adverse effects were reported by Jochems (1991) and Jochems, Snippe, Smid and Verweij (1996), although these findings reflected an English-medium course in what was essentially a Dutch degree programme. Klaassen’s (2001) study of lecturer behaviour in EMI reported that it was not necessarily language competence that affected the relative performance of lecturers, but pedagogical skills. Improving pedagogy would have a greater influence on quality of teaching and learning than simply improving language competences (Klaassen, 2002). Other strands of research had focussed on the need for modifying teaching and learning methodology when offering EMI, especially adopting a more student-centred approach. Wilkinson and Geerligs (1994, p. 19) suggest three contrasting approaches: Simply offering or translating a programme in English and letting students and lecturers get on with it; redesigning programme based on evidence to ensure content and language are promoted together; or running a content programme in English but offering adjunct language support. In practice, EMI in the Netherlands is often run as a variant of the third approach, with relatively limited language support (frequently restricted to academic writing skills). Dutch universities such as Twente and Eindhoven have eschewed the balanced multilingual models proposed by van Leeuwen and have adopted a single language of instruction and administration, English (van Leeuwen, 2004, pp. 580–581). Other universities may not be far behind. Early research also frequently placed what have become EMI programmes in the context of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) (Hellekjaer & Wilkinson, 2001; Wilkinson, 2002), on the grounds that language goals and content goals were equally important. However, by the mid-2010s, the acronym EMI had come to characterise higher education programmes through English where the disciplinary content goals were paramount (Klaassen & Räsänen, 2006). Apart from programme design, researchers in the Netherlands have examined, among other aspects, the preparation of lecturers for EMI (Klaassen, 2008), institutional complexity and EMI (Unites, 2014), the implications for practice (Den Heijer, 2015), evaluation (Grift, Meijer, & van der Salm, 2012), inclusion (Haines, Kroese, & Guo, 2020), lecturer accent and pronunciation

167

René Gabriëls and Robert Wilkinson

(Hendriks, van Meurs, & Usmany, 2021; Schüppert & Heisterkamp, 2021) and implications for EMI achievement (de Vos, Schriefers, & Lemhöfer, 2020; Vinke & Jochems, 1993). The challenge of assessing language competences has also been raised (Wilkinson & Zegers, 2006), with the need to address adequately entry competences, throughput assessment, exit competences, mother tongue competences, and staff assessment. Furthermore, the relationship of programme implementation with internationalisation has featured in research (Haines, 2020; Huang, 2006; Slof, Mittelmeier, & Rienties, 2021), as well as how to embed language policy into EMI practice (Haines & Dijk, 2016). Research in the Netherlands has often addressed the perception of EMI. Early research into Dutch teachers’ perceptions (Klaassen, 2001; Vinke, 1995; Wilkinson, 2005) revealed that teachers were not always aware of how EMI teaching might require changes in teaching approaches compared with teaching in Dutch. Due to the vast increase of EMI in the Netherlands, including the numbers of international staff,1 similar comparative studies are rare, although Duarte and van der Ploeg (2019) have studied the opinions of academic teachers from the perspective of plurilingualism. Grift et al. (2012), for example, concluded that the perceptions of Dutch and non-Dutch economics students revealed that the teacher’s didactic skills are a more important factor than their language skills when it comes to the rating of a course. Analysis of perceptions of linguistic justice (the fair distribution of the burdens of language) reveals that students are aware that EMI does not offer equal opportunities to all, with the Dutch reporting stronger opinions than students from elsewhere (Wilkinson & Gabriëls, 2020). There is also research on stakeholders outside academia. Edwards and Fuchs (2018) compared the attitudes to English among the general public in Germany and the Netherlands. In both countries, respondents with positive attitudes towards English tended to be younger, urban, better educated, and more proficient in English than those with more negative attitudes. This concerns a linguistic fault line within a country that is not unique to the Netherlands and Germany, but also occurs in other countries (Preisler, 2003). Bearing in mind that students and lecturers in EMI may have diverse first languages and other plurilingual competences, Duarte and van der Ploeg (2019) explored the extent to which lecturers used plurilingualism as a resource in EMI. Their respondents were generally reluctant to deviate from the use of the main language of instruction (English), while they saw the use of additional languages as a ‘resource to tackle language and social challenges’ (p. 280). Plurilingualism appears an underused resource in EMI (Wilkinson & Gabriëls, 2021b). It is remarkable that, in a relatively short time, Dutch higher education has abandoned recognising the plurilingual competences of students and expecting them to be proficient not only in Dutch and English, but also in German and French. When this was the case, Dutch students fulfilled the European Union’s ideal of mastering two other languages in addition to their mother tongue. Recent research by Michel et al. (2021), however, shows that the increase of EMI programmes entails a move in the opposite direction. This is evident in the sharp decline over the past 30 years in the number of students who choose to study a language other than English engendering a shortage of secondary language teachers, especially for French and German, and language departments at universities being forced to close down or merge. As Michel et al. (2021, p. 177) conclude, ‘the general lack of interest in languages as an academic field of study will inevitably result in scientific knowledge and expertise being lost’. In their comparative study of the implications of learning through EMI on study achievement, de Vos et al. (2020) observed a significant negative effect for Dutch students learning through English compared with Dutch students studying an identical programme through their first language. This contrasts with the findings of a Spanish study of two identical programmes, one EMI, the other first language, which found no difference in achievement (Dafouz, Camacho, & Urquia, 2014). 168

English-medium instruction in higher education in the Netherlands

De Vos et al. (2020), however, found no difference between Dutch and German students on the EMI programme. Nevertheless, the finding of an adverse effect, even if small, of EMI on the learning of Dutch students compared to learning in the first language is in line with Breetvelt’s (2018) conclusion on the basis of research evidence. A recent study by van den Doel, Edwards, van Beuningen, Breetvelt and de Graaff (2021) examined the effects of EMI on students’ learning performance, concluding that there is no unequivocal answer. In some cases, there is a negative effect and in others no effect (van den Doel et al., 2021, p. 27). According to the researchers, various factors mitigate or cancel out negative effects, such as academic competence, language support, the importance of language in a field of study (for example, in the humanities more than in the natural sciences), and prior knowledge of the study subject. Van den Doel et al. (2021, p. 47) also studied the effects of learning and interaction processes on learning performance. They found that a student-centred approach that focusses on involvement and participation has positive effects in an EMI learning environment with heterogeneous student groups with diverse prior knowledge, native languages, and pedagogical expectations. It is important that teachers have the opportunity to develop intercultural competences that meet the heterogeneity of student groups and to promote an inclusive learning environment, but the researchers point out that not all universities have created sufficient preconditions for this (such as courses and coaching). Indeed, the larger offer of EMI programmes at research universities (Tables 12.1 and 12.2) renders the preconditions better than they are at universities of applied sciences. However, van den Doel et al. (2021, p. 9) underline that many teachers are not motivated to take extra courses because of the high workload.

The public controversy about EMI The growth of EMI is not only the subject of scientific research in the Netherlands, but also the subject of public controversy. Although public controversies about the advance of English have arisen periodically since the 1990s, the liveliest one took place between May 2018 and February 2020 (Breetvelt, 2018; Gabriëls & Wilkinson, 2020; Salomone, 2018). It is noteworthy that the public controversy about the growth of EMI talks in terms of Englishisation, a term that has a negative connotation. More neutrally, Englishisation can be defined as ‘the process in which the English language is increasingly gaining ground in domains where another language was used’ (Gabriëls & Wilkinson, 2021, p. 14). The public controversy about EMI was triggered by Beter Onderwijs Nederland2 (BON, Better Education Netherlands), an association of intellectuals and teachers that campaigns for the improvement of the quality of education. BON was concerned that too many programmes were being switched to English as the official language (BON, 2017). BON argued that Englishisation not only has ‘disastrous consequences for the quality of education, but also for the Dutch language proficiency of graduates’ (BON, 2018). On 18 May 2018, BON sued the University of Twente, Maastricht University, the universities with the most EMI programmes, on the grounds that were violating the Higher Education and Scientific Research Act (WHW). According to Article 1.3, paragraph 5 of this Act, higher education must be aimed at ‘promoting expression skills in Dutch’ (BON, 2018). BON further argued that Article 7.2, which states that education must be given in Dutch unless the necessity for education in another language can be demonstrated, has also been infringed. The lawsuit received considerable media attention. Opinions differed about the consequences of Englishisation for the quality of education, with some arguing that complete Englishisation would not improve the quality of education and others holding that students’ Dutch would suffer 169

René Gabriëls and Robert Wilkinson

serious damage as a result of studying in English (Bouma, 2018; de Bruin, 2018). Besides the quality of higher education, a central issue in the public controversy was the impact of Englishisation on cultural identity. Language is assumed to be constitutive of the cultural identity of individuals and collectives (Guerra, 2015; Preece, 2019). Moreover, the Dutch language is not only an expression of the culture and history of the Netherlands, but also that it is of great importance for democracy, and the ‘demos’ is largely based on a shared language (Scheffer, 2018). This opinion is supported by the Royal Dutch Academy of Science (KNAW): ‘Science has an important task to make democracy function good: in order to be able to participate in debates about social issues citizens must be informed in their own language about new insights’ (KNAW, 2018, p. 42). In July 2018, the court ruled in favour of the universities (Rechtspraak, 2018). Furthermore, the court would not intervene in the ongoing political debate about the Englishisation of higher education. However, the court indicated points of concern about the law, which led the Minister of Education, Culture, and Science to propose an amendment to the law on the language of instruction. Her intention was to preserve the valuable aspects of internationalisation while simultaneously ensuring the accessibility of education and the role of the Dutch language (Van Engelshoven, 2019). Before the proposed law was discussed in the Dutch parliament, Jensen et al. (2019) published Against English. Pleidooi voor het Nederlands (‘Plea for Dutch’). The book, which received much media attention, argued that the Englishisation of higher education was detrimental to Dutch culture, because Dutch would disappear as an academic language, the gap between academia and society would be widened, the quality of education would decrease, and the collective identity would be increasingly weakened. The law was amended and passed by the lower house of the Dutch parliament, though it has still to receive approval from the Senate. However, that did not end the controversy about EMI. It flared up again because the University of Twente decided that from 1 January 2020, the university’s official language would be English, not only in education and research, but also in management and administration (University of Twente, 2019). This provoked furious reactions in the media (Bouma, 2020; Smouter, 2020). Many who had criticised the Twente’s language policy received confirmation of their view that Englishisation was not being stopped in practice.

Conclusion Over the past three decades, EMI has gained a dominant position in master’s level higher education in the Netherlands and a very strong position at bachelor’s level. The extensive provision of EMI has attracted an increasing number of students from abroad, who now make up more than a fifth of the total student population. A quarter of university staff are also non-Dutch. This rapid change in Dutch higher education has not induced a change in Dutch teaching approach which has long been centred on openness and active, student-centred learning. One could argue that the advent of EMI has not changed the Dutch approach, rather the Dutch approach has been conducive to the introduction of EMI. Yet, despite this, EMI is not uncontroversial. During the recent public controversy, it was suggested that the increase in EMI programmes is detrimental to the quality of education, the cultural identity of the Netherlands, the relationship between science and society, and the future of Dutch as an academic language. Scholarly research is indispensable to test the validity and sustainability of these claims. However, so far, research in this direction is scarce (see, for example, de Vos et al., 2020, on quality of education; van den Doel et al., 2021, on the learning effect). Moreover, different stakeholders voice contrasting opinions, with critics in the debate claiming that EMI is detrimental to the quality of education and the 170

English-medium instruction in higher education in the Netherlands

research. However, EMI students seem to perceive the opposite, albeit with Dutch students being less pronounced in their view than international students (Gabriëls & Wilkinson, 2020). One may expect that quality itself is in the eye of the beholder and is perceived from different perspectives depending on the stakeholder. Moreover, all stakeholders could be right. Scholarly research, however, is also indispensable to further explore Dutch society’s concerns about EMI that were expressed during the controversy. While the research emphasis has so far mainly focussed on EMI issues within academia, new strands of research will address EMI issues concerning the relationship between the academic and non-academic world. This includes the accessibility of EMI programmes for less privileged sections of the population. Are EMI programmes only accessible to an elite? Are talented Dutch-speaking students being supplanted by students from abroad? Are such Dutch students stimulated to migrate abroad? Another issue concerning the relationship between the academic and non-academic world is the consequences of EMI programmes for the cultural identity of the Netherlands. If language is constitutive of cultural identity, the question is whether the academic world’s declining cultural input in Dutch is detrimental to Dutch culture. The linguistic fault lines brought up during the public controversy (between students who have and those who have not followed EMI programmes, between the English-speaking academic community and the Dutch-speaking average citizen in the vicinity of universities) may also be expected to attract the attention of researchers. For instance, where these fault lines raise questions about linguistic justice, they can lead to a politicisation of EMI. In this light, Englishisation is a political issue, because it touches upon the allocation of resources and budgetary constraints. As Runia, a historian and psychologist, claims: At all Dutch universities, recruiting as many foreign students as possible is official policy. These students must provide the money that the universities think they need to compete with their sister universities, where the entrepreneurial spirit has also been arrived. (Runia, 2019, p. 71) The commodification of higher education forces universities to attract as many international students as possible (Lorenz, 2008; Münch, 2009; Radder, 2010). The growth in the numbers of both Dutch and international students, lured by the EMI programmes, has not been accompanied by a proportional increase in the higher education budget. The government grant per student was 25% lower in 2020 compared to 2003, while there are 83% more students in the Netherlands3 (VSNU, 2021). Because EMI programmes touch upon the allocation of resources, future research into EMI can be expected to address EMI from the perspective of political economy. It is expected that a saturation of the supply of EMI programmes will take place. Universities that only offer EMI programmes in the context of internationalisation run risks. This research may also yield useful insights concerning disciplinary differences.

Notes 1 Between 2014 and 2019, the number of Dutch academic staff, measured as full-time equivalents, has remained stable at around 10–11,000 (but a decline in percentage terms from around 70% to 62%), but there has been an increase in international staff from 4,500 (2014) to 6,800 (2019), that is from 29.9% to 37.3% (VSNU, 2021). 2 BON (Beter Onderwijs Nederland): https://www.beteronderwijsnederland.nl. 3 While the numbers of Dutch students have grown by 50% over the period of 2003–2020, international students have increased eightfold from under 8000 in 2003 to over 70,000 in 2020 (VSNU, 2021).

171

René Gabriëls and Robert Wilkinson

References Altbach, P. G., & de Wit, H. (2020). The dilemma of English. International Higher Education, 100, 28–30. BON. (2017). BON bereidt rechtszaak tegen Nederlandse staat voor inzake verengelsing hoger onderwijs [BON prepares legal case against Dutch state regarding Englishization of higher education]. Retrieved from https://www.beteronderwijsnederland.nl/nieuws/2017/05/ rechtszaak-verengelsing/ BON. (2018). Persbericht: BON sleept universiteiten voor rechter [Press release: BON takes universities to court]. Retrieved from https://www.beteronderwijsnederland.nl/nieuws/2018/05/persbericht-bon-sleeptuniversiteiten-voor-rechter/ BON. (2019). Oproep aan de Tweede Kamer van 194 prominenten: volledige tekst [Appeal to the Second Chamber by 194 eminent scholars: full text]. Retrieved from https://www.beteronderwijsnederland.nl/ nieuws/2019/03/oproep-tk-nederlands-volledig/ Bouma, K. (2018). Hoe zeg je dat ook alweer in het Nederlands? [How do you say that again in Dutch?]. De Volkskrant, June 12. Bouma, K. (2020). Op University of Twente klinkt het Nederlands alleen nog bij de koffieautomaat [At the University of Twente, you hear Dutch only at the coffee machine]. De Volkskrant, January 7. Breetvelt, I. (2018). English-medium instruction in Dutch higher education: A policy reconstruction and impact study. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 18(2), 1–24. Bronkhorst, X. (2019, December 18). Wordt Engels de voertaal aan Nederlandse universiteiten? [Will English be the instructional language in Dutch universities?]. DUB. Retrieved from https://www.dub.uu.nl/nl/ nieuws/wordt-engels-de-voertaal-aan-nederlandse-universiteiten Cornips, L. (2013). Recent developments in the Limburg dialect region. In F. Hinskens & J. Taeldeman (Eds.), Language and space: An international handbook of linguistic variation, Vol. 3: Dutch (pp. 378–398). Mouton de Gruyter. Crompvoets, H. (1987/2006). Dialect en standaardtaal in Nederlands Limburg [Dialect and standard language in Dutch Limburg]. Mededelingen van de Vereniging voor Limburgse Dialect- en Naamkunde, 43. Retrieved from www.dbnl.org/tekst/crom005dial01_01/colofon.php Currie, J., DeAngelis, R., de Boer, H., Huisman, J., & Lacotte, C. (2003). Globalizing practices and university responses. European and Anglo-American differences. Greenwood Publishing. Dafouz, E., Camacho, M., & Urquia, E. (2014). ‘Surely they can’t do as well’: A comparison of business students’ academic performance in English-medium and Spanish-as-first-language-medium programmes. Language and Education, 28, 223–236. de Bruin, A. (2018). Spreken we over vijf jaar alleen nog maar Engels in het hoger onderwijs? [Will we be speaking only English in higher education in five years’ time?]. Reformatorisch Dagblad, June 19. de Swaan, A. (2002). Woorden van de wereld: Het mondiale talenstelsel [Words of the world: The global language system]. Bert Bakker. De Volkskrant. (2019, March 29). Kamerleden, de toekomst van het Nederlands ligt in uw handen [Members of parliament, the future of Dutch lies in your hands]. Retrieved from www.volkskrant.nl/columns-opinie/ kamerleden-de-toekomst-van-het-nederlands-ligt-in-uw-handen~b89508ac de Vos, J. F., Schriefers, H., & Lemhöfer, K. (2020). Does study language (Dutch versus English) influence study success of Dutch and German students in the Netherlands? Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(1/2), 60–78. Dearden, A. (2014). English as a medium of instruction: A growing global phenomenon. British Council. Dekker, R. (2015). The road to ruin: Dutch universities, past, present and future. Panchaud. Den Heijer, J. (2015). The implications of English-medium instruction. In J. H. C. Walenkamp (Ed.), The world’s mine oyster: Studies in support of internationalisation in higher education (pp. 168–200). The Hague University of Applied Sciences. Duarte, J., & van der Ploeg, M. (2019). Plurilingual lecturers in English medium instruction in the Netherlands: The key to plurilingual approaches in higher education? European Journal of Higher Education, 9, 268–284. Edwards, A. (2016). English in the Netherlands: Functions, forms and attitudes. John Benjamins. Edwards, A. (2020). Language policy and the law: How Dutch universities legally justify English-medium instruction. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(1/2), 38–59. Edwards, A., & Fuchs, R. (2018). A cluster analysis of attitudes to English in Germany and the Netherlands. World Englishes, 37, 653–667.

172

English-medium instruction in higher education in the Netherlands Gabriëls, R., & Wilkinson, R. (2020). Resistance to EMI in the Netherlands. In H. Bowles & A. C. Murphy (Eds.), English-medium instruction and the internationalization of universities (pp. 49–75). Palgrave MacMillan. Gabriëls, R., & Wilkinson, R. (2021). Introduction: The tension between monolingualism and multilingualism. In R. Wilkinson & R. Gabriëls (Eds.), Englishization of higher education in Europe (pp. 11–36). Amsterdam University Press. Gorter, D., van der Meer, C., & Riemersma, A. (2008). Frisian in the Netherlands. In G. Extra & D. Gorter (Eds.), Multilingual Europe: Facts and policies (pp. 185–206). Mouton de Gruyter. Grift, Y., Meijer, A., & van der Salm, F. (2012). The impact of the language of instruction: How economics students in the Netherlands evaluate an English-taught undergraduate programme. Utrecht School of Economics, Tjalling C. Koopmans Research Institute. Guerra, J. C. (2015). Language, culture, identity and citizenship in college classrooms and communities. Routledge. Haines, K. (2020). Policy, principles and practices for the international classroom at a university in the Netherlands: How do we support the lecturers? In D. Gonzalez-Alvarez & E. Rama-Martinez (Eds.), Languages and the internationalisation of higher education (pp. 61–81). Cambridge Scholars. Haines, K., & Dijk, A. (2016). Translating language policy into practice: Language and culture policy at a Dutch university. Language Learning in Higher Education, 6, 355–376. Haines, K., Kroese, M., & Guo, D. (2020). Language use and learning communities in the informal curriculum: The student as protagonist in EMI? In H. Bowles & A. C. Murphy (Eds.), English-medium instruction and the internationalization of universities (pp. 181–203). Palgrave Macmillan. Hellekjaer, G. O., & Wilkinson, R. (2001). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) in higher education: An issue raising workshop. In F. Mayer (Ed.), Language for specific purposes: Perspectives for the new millennium, Vol. 1 (pp. 398–408). Gunter Narr. Hendriks, B., van Meurs, F., & Usmany, N. (2021). The effects of lecturers’ non-native accent strength in English on intelligibility and attitudinal evaluations by native and non-native English students. Language Teaching Research, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820983145. Hinskens, F., & Taeldeman, J. (Eds.). (2013). Language and space: An international handbook of linguistic variation. Vol. 3: Dutch. Mouton de Gruyter. Huang, F. (2006). Internationalization of curricula in higher education institutions in comparative perspectives: Case studies of China, Japan and The Netherlands. Higher Education, 51, 521–539. Jansen, M., van der Gucht, F., van der Sijs, N., & De Caluwe, J. (Eds.). (2017). Atlas van de Nederlandse Taal. Lannoo. Jensen, L., Pas, N., Rovers, D., & Gulik, K. (Eds.). (2019). Against English: Pleidooi voor het Nederlands [Plea for Dutch]. Wereldbibliotheek. Jochems, W. (1991). The effects of learning and teaching in a foreign language. European Journal of Engineering Education, 16, 309–316. Jochems, W., Snippe, J., Smid, H. J., & Verweij, A. (1996). The academic progress of foreign students: Study achievement and study behaviour. Higher Education, 31, 325–340. Klaassen, R. G. (2001). The international university curriculum: Challenges in English-medium engineering education (PhD thesis). Technische Universiteit Delft, Netherlands. Klaassen, R. G. (2002). Higher education programmes in non-linguistic disciplines through English in nonEnglish speaking environments. In M. Koskela, C. Laurén, M. Nordmann, & N. Pilke (Eds.), Porta scientiae I: Lingua specialis (pp. 353–364). Vaasan yliopisto/University of Vaasa. Klaassen, R. G. (2008). Preparing lecturers for English-medium instruction. In R. Wilkinson & V. Zegers (Eds.), Realizing content and language integration in higher education (pp. 32–42). Maastricht University. Klaassen, R. G., & Räsänen, A. (2006). Assessment and staff development in higher education for Englishmedium instruction: A question-raising article. In R. Wilkinson, V. Zegers, & C. van Leeuwen (Eds.), Bridging the assessment gap in English-medium higher education (pp. 235–255). AKS-Verlag. KNAW. (2018). Talen voor Nederland [Languages of the Netherlands]. KNAW. Kruse, J. (2016). Maxi-Min language use: A critical remark on a concept by Philippe van Parijs. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, European and Regional Studies, 9, 63–70. Lorenz, C. (2008). De universiteiten en het New Public Management [Universities and new public management]. In C. Lorenz (Ed.), If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich (pp. 165–196). Boom. Lorenz, C. (2012). If you’re so smart, why are you under surveillance? Universities, neoliberalism, and new public management. Critical Inquiry, 38, 599–629.

173

René Gabriëls and Robert Wilkinson Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J., & Dearden, J. (2018). A systematic review of English-medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching, 51, 36–76. Michel, M., Vidon, C., de Graaff, R., & Lowie, W. (2021). Language learning beyond English in the Netherlands: A fragile future? European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 159–182. Ministerie van Financiën. (2019). IBO Internationalisering van het (hoger) onderwijs [Internationalization of (higher) education]. Inspectie der Rijksfinanciën/Bureau Strategische Analyse. Münch, R. (2009). Globale Eliten, lokale Autoritäten: Bildung und Wissenschaft unter dem Regime von PISA, McKinsey & Co. [Global elites, local authorities: Education and science under the regime of PISA, McKinsey & Co.]. Suhrkamp. Nuffic. (2020). Regions and universities. Retrieved from https://www.nuffic.nl/en/subjects/ facts-and-figures/ regions-and-universities Nuffic. (2021). Facts and figures. Retrieved from https://www.nuffic.nl/en/subjects/facts-and-figures Parker, L. (2011). University corporatisation: Driving redefinition. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22, 434–450. Pollitt, C., van Thiel, S., & Homburg, V. (2007). New public management in Europe: Adaptation and alternatives. Palgrave Macmillan. Preece, S. (Ed.). (2019). The Routledge handbook of language and identity. Routledge. Preisler, B. (2003). English in Danish and the Danes’ English. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 153, 109–126. Radder, H. (2010). The commodification of academic research. Science and the modern university. University of Pittsburgh Press. Rechtspraak. (2018). ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2018:3117 [Court decision]. Retrieved from https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2018:3117 Runia, E. (2019). Genade zesjes: Over de modern universiteit [By the grace of six. On the modern university]. Atheneum-Polak & Van Gennep. Salomone, R. (2018, 27 July). Dutch court defers decision on English in universities. World University News. Retrieved from https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story= 20180724140627526 Scheffer, P. (2018). De heilloze weg naar halftaligheid [The wicked way to semi-lingualism]. NRC Handelsblad, May 23. Schüppert, A., & Heisterkamp, P. (2021). Lecturing in L1 Dutch and in L2 English: A pairwise comparison of speech samples of three HE lecturers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 52, 100993. Schuyt, C. J. M., & Taverne, E. (2000/2011). 1950. Welvaart in zwart-wit [Welfare in black-and-white]. SDU. Retrieved from https://www.dbnl.org/tekst/schu069welv01_01/schu069welv01_01_0014.php Shore, C., & Wright, S. (2000). Coercive accountability. The rise of audit culture in higher education. In M. Strathern (Ed.), Audit cultures: Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics and the academy (pp. 58–89). Routledge. Slof, B., Mittelmeier, J., & Rienties, B. (2021). Students’ perspectives on curriculum internationalisation policies in transition: Insights from a master’s degree programme in the Netherlands. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 58(1), 107–119. Smouter, K. (2020). Universiteit Twente wil alleen nog Engels horen [The University of Twente only wants to hear English]. NRC Handelsblad, January 9. Taalunie. (2021). Feiten en cijfers [Facts and figures]. Retrieved from http://taalunieversum.org/inhoud/ feiten-en-cijfers Unites, B. (2014). The impact of institutional complexity on the implementation of the English-medium instruction (EMI) reform concept in three northern European universities (PhD thesis). University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY. Retrieved from https://uknowledge.uky.edu/epe_etds/21 University of Twente. (2019). Code of conduct languages. Enschede: University of Twente. Van den Doel, R., Edwards, A., van Beuningen, C., Breetvelt, I., & de Graaff, R. (2021). Effecten van Engels als voertaal in het hoger onderwijs: Leeromgeving, leerprocessen, leeropbrengsten [Effects of English as medium of instruction in higher education: Learning environment, learning processes, learning outcomes]. NRO project number 405-00-860. Retrieved from https://www.nro.nl/onderzoeksprojecten/ kortlopend-beleidsgericht-oz-hoger-onderwijs-effecten-van-een-vreemde-taal-als Van der Sijs, N. (2019). 15 eeuwse Nederlandse taal [15 centuries of the Dutch language]. Sterck & De Vreese.

174

English-medium instruction in higher education in the Netherlands Van Engelshoven, I. (2019). Kabinetsreactie op het interdepartementaal beleidsonderzoek Internationalisering van het (hoger) onderwijs [Response of the cabinet to the interdepartmental policy research on the internationalizaton of (higher) education]. Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap. Van Leeuwen, C. (2004). Multilingual universities in Europe: Models and realities. In R. Wilkinson (Ed.), Integrating content and language: Meeting the challenge of a multilingual higher education (pp. 576–584). Universitaire Pers Maastricht. Vereniging Hogescholen & VSNU. (2018). Internationaliseringsagenda hoger onderwijs [Internationalization agenda for higher education]. Vereniging Hogescholen & VSNU. Vinke, A. A. (1995). English as the medium of instruction in Dutch engineering education (PhD thesis). Technische Universiteit Delft, Netherlands. Vinke, A. A., & Jochems, W. M. G. (1993). English proficiency and academic success in international postgraduate education. Higher Education, 26, 275–285. VSNU. (2021). Feiten en cijfers [Facts and figures]. Retrieved from https://www.vsnu.nl/nl_NL/feiten-encijfers.html Wilhelm, F. (2018). Foreign language teaching and learning in the Netherlands 1500–2000: An overview. The Language Learning Journal, 46(1), 17–27. Wilkinson, R. (2002). Merging content and language: Developing domain-specific writing skills in an arts and culture programme. In F. Luttikhuizen (Ed.), V congrés internacional sobre llengües per a finalitats específiques: The language of international communication (pp. 368–376). Universitat de Barcelona. Wilkinson, R. (2005). The impact of language on teaching content: Views from the content teacher. Paper presented at the conference on ‘Bi- and multilingual universities—Challenges and future prospects’, Helsinki. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228749089_The_impact_of_language_ on_teaching_content_Views_from_the_content_teacher Wilkinson, R. (2013). English-medium instruction at a Dutch university: Challenges and pitfalls. In A. Doíz, D. Lasagabaster, & J. M. Sierra (Eds.), English-medium instruction at universities: Global challenges (pp. 3–24). Multilingual Matters. Wilkinson, R., & Gabriëls, R. (2020). Plurilingual students in EMI: Perceptions of educational democracy and linguistic justice. In M. Kuteeva, K. Kaufhold, & N. Hynninen (Eds.), Language perceptions and practices in multilingual universities (pp. 217–244). Palgrave Macmillan. Wilkinson, R., & Gabriëls, R. (2021a). Englishization of Dutch higher education: Divergent language policy and practices In R. Wilkinson & R. Gabriëls (Eds.), Englishization of higher education in Europe (pp. 237–257). Amsterdam University Press. Wilkinson, R., & Gabriëls, R. (2021b). The untapped potentials in EMI programmes: The Dutch case. System, 103, 102639. Wilkinson, R., & Geerligs, T. (1994). Language teaching for specific purposes within a problem-based learning curriculum. In S. Barrueco, E. Hernández, & L. Sierra (Eds.), Lenguas para fines específicos (III): Investigación y enseñanza (pp. 13–28). Universidad de Alcalá. Wilkinson, R., & Zegers, V. (2006). The eclectic nature of assessment issues in content and language integrated higher education. In R. Wilkinson, V. Zegers, & C. van Leeuwen (Eds.), Bridging the assessment gap in English-medium higher education (pp. 25–39). AKS Verlag.

175

13 ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN POLAND Piotr Romanowski

Introduction Over 38 million citizens reside in the Republic of Poland, with a vast majority of them – 95% – declaring Polish to be their native language. The remaining 5% articulate their familiarity with Polish, however, officially they constitute part of so-called national and ethnic minorities of the nation (Komorowska, 2013). Hence, to some extent, it may be stated that Poland is a uniform state in terms of ethnicity, with one of the lowest percentages of minorities in the EU (Romanowski, 2020). However, when looking at the historical context, the territory of the Republic of Poland has a long history of hosting a much higher percentage of national and ethnic minorities, reflecting its huge linguistic diversity (Moskal, 2004). Before the Third Partition of Poland in 1795, about 40% of the population consisted of national and ethnic minorities. In those times, the territories of Lithuania, Belarus, most of present-day Ukraine, and Poland were part of one state or a union of states (the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, 1385–1795). Between World War I and World War II (1918–1939), after Poland regained independence as much as 33% of its citizens declared a different ethnicity. They inhabited over half of the country’s territory (Majewicz & Wicherkiewicz, 1998). According to Kersten (1989), the population of Poland at the time consisted of Ukrainians and Russians (15%), Jews (9.5%), Belarusians (3.5%), Germans (2%), and other minorities (3%). These numbers decreased dramatically to only 3% after World War II, resulting in Poland becoming a one-nation and monolingual state, due to border-shifting, migration, and the holocaust (Dąbrowska, 2014). In the Polish People’s Republic, the country that was created after World War II, the government adopted a policy against linguistic and ethnic minorities, which was typical of the whole Eastern bloc and the newly-created countries of Eastern Europe at the time (Romanowski, 2020). Currently, the largest minority groups in Poland are German, Ukrainian, and Belarusian, and the smallest ones are Slovak, Czech, Armenian, Tatar, and Karaim (Pisarek, 2011). As far as regional languages are concerned, it is worth reiterating that Kashubian spoken in the north of the country is celebrating its revival.

From bilingual education to English-medium instruction In the past two decades, Poland underwent two education reforms. The first, the Education Reform of 1999, implemented changes to improve the overall level of Polish education. It introduced a DOI: 10.4324/9781003011644-15 176

English-medium instruction in higher education in Poland

comprehensive primary school cycle of six years, followed by a lower-secondary school of three years and three- or four-year secondary schools (general upper-secondary or technical schools). The second New Reform enacted by the government in 2017 redrew the existing school system adjusted to other EU member states by implementing radical changes and re-establishing the two-tier education system that had existed prior to 1999. This reform was implemented at the beginning of the 2017/2018 school year, and it aimed to reinvigorate vocational schooling (Romanowski, 2019). The key element of the ‘old-new’ two-level system was eliminating three-year lower-secondary schools and extending the primary school cycle by two years to eight in total, and the secondary school cycle by one year to four and five years. Within both the new structure (after 2017) and the old one (1999–2017), English has always been one of the most popular foreign languages taught in Poland. This might be surprising, considering the historical influences, the languages that were traditionally popular in Poland were Russian and German. However, after 1989, when Poland became a democratic country, and especially after 2004, when it joined the European Union, the Polish education system started to favour English as the primary foreign language (Górowska-Fells, 2012). With compulsory education beginning for a Polish child at the age of six, learning a foreign language becomes instantly obligatory. A second foreign language is introduced in state schools when children turn 13 (seventh grade of primary school). Language education continues until learners graduate from vocational or secondary schools at the age of 18 or 19, respectively. Foreign languages are also taught throughout tertiary education. As already mentioned, English is the most widely taught foreign language, followed by German and Spanish. Its popularity grew exponentially over the years, outrivaling other foreign languages usually perceived by learners as second choices (Romanowski, 2019). Due to the political changes occurring in Poland after 1989 and the integration with the European Union in 2004, the country geared its language teaching to the uniform policy prevailing all over the EU states. The transformations that occurred after 1989 triggered not only socio-economic changes, but also laid the foundations for changes in education in Poland. Language education has always been considered a crucial element of the Polish education system. Poland’s accession to the EU triggered a significant extension of the educational offering in terms of foreign language instruction (Romanowski, 2022a; Wróblewska-Pawlak & Strachanowska, 2000). English, an elitist language available to only a few in the past, evolved to an unprecedented level. Alongside other foreign languages, such as German, French, Italian, and Spanish, English is considered to be the prevalent means of instruction in bilingual programmes that have proliferated across the country in the first decade of the twenty-first century. Furthermore, the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme or the European Baccalaureate began their existence in the Polish educational market. In such contexts, English-medium instruction (EMI) at both secondary and tertiary levels remains the predominant methodology. Bilingual classrooms in state schools have also been available for a very long time for less privileged students who cannot afford high tuition fees (Romanowski, 2019). Clearly, English has witnessed the dominance and ubiquity at all educational levels, making it the most favoured foreign language. Its presence has strengthened thanks to numerous innovative EU approaches that have been implemented in most European states, such as the Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). The first CLIL-related pedagogies were introduced in Poland as far back as the 1970s, when selected content subjects were taught through the medium of a foreign language for the whole duration of a lesson in a secondary school in Gdynia (Zielonka, 2007). The language initially used was English. At the time, this form of instruction was regarded as elitist, and in some environments it still is. Nowadays, a vast number of schools offer CLIL instruction using English, German, 177

Piotr Romanowski

French, Spanish, and Italian as the languages of instruction. It must be underlined that CLIL provision in Polish schooling is labelled as bilingual education (Dzięgielewska, 2008). Special sections are established in primary and secondary schools where learners undergo instruction in a selected foreign language as well as in their mother tongue. The instruction is usually limited to two, three, or four subjects, most commonly mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, geography, and history of art (Romanowski, 2016). While bilingual education in Poland is not a new phenomenon, it should be noted that no uniform methodology has been implemented successfully yet. The reasons are twofold. First of all, as observed by Baetens-Beardsmore (1993), educational traditions in a particular country determine whether certain subjects are to be taught by the medium of a foreign language. Secondly, these are the prevailing linguistic needs that dictate the most desirable provision. As rightly posited by Wolff and Otwinowska-Kasztelanic (2010) and Romanowski (2018), approaches to CLIL vary in specific EU states as a result of administrative decisions taken by governments. Depending on the educational context while implementing CLIL, such factors as the choice of content subjects, the proportion of CLIL and non-CLIL classes, the recruitment process, or the type of school in which CLIL is introduced, are considered (Czura & Papaja, 2013). EMI programmes are not reserved for learners whose background is somehow linguistically distinctive anymore. In the past, it was mainly children from bilingual families who were subject of this type of schooling. However, it was also available for the circles of diplomats, politicians, and entrepreneurs. Initially, the primary focus of such instruction was to educate highly proficient language users although the teaching was conducted by content language teachers whose competence in the target language was not very high (Romanowski, 2019). At present, the extent of foreign language use may range from occasional situations in foreign language classes to covering even the whole curricula. The latter option became possible with the introduction of the requirement on so‐called double qualifications on the part of teachers involved in bilingual teaching as well as informal entrance examinations imposed on the learners willing to be educated in bilingual classrooms. Meanwhile, the range of languages used as a medium of instruction has grown wider with the introduction of German and French in 1990s and the popularisation of Italian and Spanish cultures in Poland in 21st century. However, it must be stated firmly that it is the dominance and ubiquity of English witnessed at all educational levels in Poland. Moreover, various innovative teaching approaches, for example, CLIL, EMI, originated in the last two decades, which are efficiently being implemented nowadays.

English-medium instruction in higher education Throughout Poland, many universities are increasing the number of courses they are offering students through the medium of English. The primary reason for this is the need to attract lucrative international students by internationalising the institution and, thereby, gaining it prestige through global university rankings. The secondary reason is to be able to offer home students an EMI curriculum which will prepare them better for the globalised world (Bolton & Kuteeva, 2012). According to the POL-on register, 362 higher education institutions operated in Poland in the 2021/2022 academic year with 1,218,200 students, by 2.1% fewer than a year earlier. The majority of universities are public, with only a small percentage that are private charging higher fees. Most of the funding for public universities comes from the government, while private universities are financed mainly through private funds and student fees. The number of foreign students increased by 5% in relation to the previous academic year and stood at 84,900, that is 5.6% of all

178

English-medium instruction in higher education in Poland

students. The students from Europe were prevalent – 77,200 in total (86.4%), most of whom were from Ukraine – 36,000 students (40.3%), Belarus – 11,100 students (12.4%), and Turkey – 2,900 students (3.2%) (GUS, 2022). Currently, in Poland, there exist 54 universities, which educate in humanities, social sciences, medical sciences, technical sciences, and natural sciences, and all of them offer programmes in English. As regards faculties providing English degree programmes, 37% are from Economics, 21% from Engineering, 14% from Science, and 7% from Law. This includes full degree programmes at Bachelor or Master level, as well as at the Doctoral level. As might be expected, English-medium teaching is more prevalent in public universities, which have developed international links throughout the past years. On the other hand, several well-established private universities offer selected programmes in English, since they are typically wealthy institutions and charge higher fees. The faculties with the largest number of single English-taught programmes are Economics (56), Engineering (32), and Science (21). The first English degree programmes were introduced in late 1990s by the University of Warsaw, Jagiellonian University in Cracow, Warsaw University of Technology, SGH Warsaw School of Economics, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, and AGH University of Science and Technology in Cracow. Their numbers grew steadily until 2004 when Poland joined the European Union, making it possible to obtain additional funds for the development and implementation of new English-taught programmes. English degree programmes are most frequent at the Master’s level, followed by the Doctoral and Bachelor levels. Unfortunately, no official policies related to EMI exist at the ministerial or institutional level in Poland. Individual universities are responsible for the selection of programmes, and faculty members provide instruction in these programmes. The main documents of general nature referring to education in HEI, constituting the Acts of Parliament, are the Regulation of the Minister of Science and Higher Education of 26 September 2016 on the conditions for conducting studies, and the Regulation of the Minister of Education and Science of 20 July 2018 on The Law on Higher Education and Science. They both lay down the rules for the functioning of the higher education system and science. Any higher education institution is autonomous on the principles outlined in the Acts. One of the tasks of the Senate at each university is to develop study programmes and adopt study regulations. That being said, the Senate may issue resolutions regulating particular study programmes, once the dean of faculty has submitted a proposal for a new degree programme in English. A special Senate committee appointed to evaluate the proposal may either express their approval or disapproval regarding a new degree programme. Departments and/or faculties wishing to introduce new study programmes need to justify the necessity for their existence including the course components, that is, the list of subjects comprising a course of study, and the teaching staff members assigned to instruct. Having been granted the Senate’s acceptance, the Rector (Provost) consents and a Rector’s ordinance is issued. Deans are responsible for the distribution of courses among the members of the faculty and hiring international experts if needed. The question of competence or proficiency in English arises. In fact, there is no set criteria to judge the English proficiency level of an instructor. Many surveyed teachers reported that no grounds had been known to them in relation to the selection procedure. They also expressed the opinion that English language development is primarily the responsibility of the individual teacher. For tertiary teachers, one commonly reported means of reaching the right level of English proficiency related to the academic study of their subject discipline through English is, for example, reading scientific journals in English, writing papers in English, attending and presenting at academic conferences in English. Another common means of language development reported by

179

Piotr Romanowski

tertiary teachers refers to international travel and collaboration as part of their work, studying or working temporarily in an English-speaking country. As a result, a large majority of them admitted that they did not believe they were capable of teaching through EMI.

Summary data on EMI in Polish higher education In order to provide a comprehensive map of EMI in HE in Poland as well as to include numbers and proportion of universities adopting EMI, the data regarding the available programmes will be organised according to the type of HEI. In Poland, universities are classified according to various categories, including ‘classic’ (18), ‘economic sciences’ (5), ‘technical’ (technology) (17), ‘medical’ (8), and ‘life sciences’ or ‘natural sciences’ (6). Each cohort of universities will be discussed considering the available EMI programmes at both Bachelor’s and Master’s levels. Classic universities, which take pride in a diversified offer in humanities, social sciences, technology and engineering, natural sciences, and medical sciences, have the most abundant choice of EMI programmes. Among them, two leading HE institutions, the University of Warsaw and Jagiellonian University, offer the highest number of degrees in English, 18 programmes each (Table 13.1). Table 13.1  Number of EMI university programmes offered by ‘classic’ universities (2021)

University of Warsaw Jagiellonian University in Cracow Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań University of Wrocław University of Silesia University of Gdańsk University of Szczecin Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń University of Białystok University of Varmia and Masuria University of Zielona Góra University of Łódź Maria Curie-Skłodowska University Catholic University in Lublin University of Opole Jan Kochanowski University in Kielce University of Rzeszów Casimirus the Great University in Bydgoszcz

Humanities

Social sciences

Technology and engineering

Natural sciences

Medical sciences

4 3

9 8

3 2

2 3

0 2

4

2

2

2

0

2 0 1 1 0

9 4 3 3 3

4 2 3 0 1

0 2 0 1 1

0 0 0 0 4

0 0

2 3

0 5

2 1

0 1

0 0 1

2 4 3

2 0 3

3 0 1

0 0 0

2

4

1

2

0

1 0

2 1

1 0

0 0

1 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

1 0

Source: Romanowski (2021).

180

English-medium instruction in higher education in Poland

There are five universities of economics in Poland, although quite a few classic universities also offer programmes in Economics, Business, and Finance. All the five universities: SGH Warsaw School of Economics, Cracow University of Economics, Poznań University of Economics and Business, Wrocław University of Economics and Business, and the University of Economics in Katowice, offer programmes in International Business, Finance, and MBA. Their educational offerings are quite diverse. For example, Warsaw has a programme in Global International Economics while Cracow and Wrocław also specialise in Informatics. On the other hand, Poznań has a programme in Business Administration and Katowice has only recently introduced one devoted to E-commerce. Obviously, Warsaw, the most prestigious university in the country, is exceptional as it offers a total of eight programmes altogether, while the remaining universities have five each. In addition, potential candidates can also choose preparatory intensive English language courses before they are admitted (Table 13.2). Of all the technology universities listed here, the highest proportion of programmes is delivered by Warsaw University of Technology (38 degrees in English), followed by AGH University of Science and Technology in Cracow (26 degrees in English), and Silesian University of Technology (22 degrees in English). While Warsaw offers the same number of BSc and MSc programmes, Master’s programmes at other universities prevail. Doctoral programmes are scarce and studying for a PhD is possible at half of the listed universities and only in selected programmes (Table 13.3). The programmes in Agriculture and Food Production taught in English are the most popular ones at the six universities of life sciences in Poland. The former programme is offered by five universities while the latter by four. The widest array of programmes, both at BSc and MSc levels, is available in Poznań (10), Cracow (9), Warsaw (8), Lublin (8), Bydgoszcz (6), and Wrocław (2). Some of the listed HE institutions also offer joint programmes or double degree programmes. For example, Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences offers a double Master’s Degree in Food Technology in collaboration with the Miguel Hernandez University in Elche (Spain) (Table 13.4). Of the existing eight medical universities in Poland: Warsaw Medical University, Medical University of Łódź, Poznań University of Medical Sciences, Medical University of Silesia, Medical University of Lublin, Medical University of Bialystok, Pomeranian Medical University, and Table 13.2  Number of EMI programmes offered by universities of economics (2021) SGH Warsaw Cracow Poznań School of University of University of Economics Economics Economics and Business Faculty of Economics Faculty of Business Administration Faculty of Finance Faculty of Management Faculty of Informatics Faculty of Accounting Programmes per HEI (total)

Wrocław University of Programmes University of Economics in per Faculty (Total) Economics Katowice and Business

2 1

2 0

1 1

1 1

1 1

7 4

2 2

0 2

1 1

1 1

1 1

5 7

0 1 8

1 0 5

0 1 5

1 0 5

0 1 5

2 3

Source: Romanowski (2021).

181

Piotr Romanowski Table 13.3  Number of EMI programmes offered by technology universities (2021) BA programmes MA programmes Doctoral Total (programmes programmes per university) Warsaw University of Technology AGH University of Science and Technology in Cracow Silesian University of Technology Poznań University of Technology Cracow University of Technology Gdańsk University of Technology Łódź University of Technology West Pomeranian University of Technology Opole University of Technology Rzeszów University of Technology Wrocław University of Science and Technology Lublin University of Technology Białystok University of Technology Kielce University of Technology Częstochowa University of Technology University of Technology and Humanities in Radom Koszalin University of Technology Total (programmes per study cycle)

16 9

16 15

6 2

38 26

8 5 7 5 4 4

12 10 7 7 6 6

2 2 2 1 1 1

22 17 16 13 11 11

5 6

4 4

1 0

10 10

4

2

1

7

2 2

3 2

0 0

5 4

2 2

2 2

0 0

4 4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

81

98

19

Source: Romanowski (2021). Table 13.4  EMI programmes offered by universities of life sciences (2021)

Agriculture Food production/ science/ technology Veterinary medicine Forestry Horticulture Animal science

Warsaw University of University Agriculture of Life in Cracow Sciences

Poznań University of Life Sciences

Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes

University of Science and Technology in Bydgoszcz

University of Life Sciences in Lublin

Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Source: Romanowski (2021).

182

English-medium instruction in higher education in Poland Table 13.5 Programmes offered by medical universities (2021)

Medical University of Warsaw Medical University of Łódź Poznań University of Medical Sciences Medical University of Silesia Medical University of Lublin Medical University of Białystok Medical University of Białystok Pomeranian Medical University Wrocław Medical University

Medical studies in English

Dentistry studies in English

Pharmacy studies in English

Nursing

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Midwifery

Physiotherapy

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Source: Romanowski (2021).

Wrocław Medical University, all offer programmes in Medical Studies in English. In addition, seven of them offer Dentistry Studies in English while three of them Nursing, two of them Pharmacy Studies, one Midwifery programme, and one Physiotherapy programme. On top of that, five universities offer programmes in Medicine: Jagiellonian University, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, the University of Varmia and Masuria, the University of Opole, and the University of Rzeszów. It is worth noting that Jagiellonian University remains the leader as there exist degree programmes in Dentistry and Pharmacy as well (Table 13.5).

The operationalisation of EMI in Poland While discussing EMI in HE in Poland, it is imperative to consider if and to what extent the teaching of discipline-specific language and academic communicative skills occurs. As Basturkmen (2010) indicates, it is precisely this focus on discipline-specific language that needs to be regarded 183

Piotr Romanowski

as the central premise of English for Specific Purposes (ESP), which endeavours to teach the language the students require to communicate efficiently in their work or studies. Thus, as postulated by Dudley-Evans and St. John (1998), EMI programmes should equip the learners with the linguistic skills they need to communicate the expertise developed in the programme. However, discipline-specific terminology is not sufficient and the curricula of English-taught degree programmes should include English for Academic Purposes (EAP), whose courses ideally introduce students to a wide array of academic communication and study skills, such as note-taking, presenting, discussing, reading, and writing academic papers, which are of prime importance in most disciplines and tertiary education contexts (Hyland, 2006). However, in many contexts situated in Polish HE institutions, this leaves a lot to be desired as cooperation between language specialists and the respective subject departments to design course curricula is scant. As a result, explicit language teaching in EMI programmes is frequently deemed unnecessary, and ESP/EAP teaching has much lower status than content courses. Based on the above considerations, a framework consisting of various instructional types implemented in EMI in Polish HEI needs to be discussed. Its aim is to signal potential opportunities and implications for language learning in the said programmes. English-medium teaching in higher education in Poland can be classified into five distinct categories, namely pre-sessional ESP/EAP courses, embedded ESP/EAP courses, adjunct ESP/EAP courses, EMI, and ICLHE. The main distinguishing feature is the question as to whether or not language learning aims are actively pursued in the English-taught courses. As Unterberger (2012) points out, EMI programme designers frequently face the fact that students’ prior knowledge and their language proficiency level differ considerably. To counterbalance the disparity in the students’ language proficiency, curriculum designers implement pre-sessional ESP/EAP courses, which are tailored for a specific programme to match its linguistic demands. However, this particular category is hardly ever employed in Poland as it requires cooperation between a language specialist and an expert in the professional content. In contrast to pre-sessional courses, the second type of EMI, labelled as embedded ESP/EAP, consists of classes which are part of a regular curriculum. A typical example of embedded EAP teaching would cover courses on academic writing, which are meant to guide students during thesis writing (Schmidt-Unterberger, 2018). This type of programme has become popular in Polish HEI only recently with a massive increase of immigrant and foreign students pursuing Master’s and PhD programmes. As much as embedded ESP/EAP courses target discipline-specific language and genre knowledge essential for the programme as a whole, an adjunct ESP/EAP course is tied specifically to a particular content course, runs parallel to it and as a result, it provides even more specific language teaching (Brinton, Snow, & Wesche, 1989). Furthermore, its aim is to aid students with the acquisition of discipline-specific language. In the Polish context, implementing an adjunct programme alongside an existing curriculum seems an ambitious and challenging task since teachers need to ensure that the curricula of the two interlocking courses complement each other. Therefore, such courses are limited. However controversial they may seem, the remaining two types, EMI and ICLHE, have been popular in Poland for a while. Clearly, they lack explicit language learning objectives, therefore, in case of the former, one may conclude that the great majority of English-medium teaching in higher education can be labelled as EMI, while in the case of the latter, it purely remains just a theoretical conceptualisation (Wilkinson, 2011). When English-taught degree programmes are introduced at Polish universities, content experts use English as the medium of instruction, without explicitly teaching discipline-specific language. Due to the continuous exposure of students to English in

184

English-medium instruction in higher education in Poland

EMI settings, they are expected to incidentally improve it (Järvinen, 2008). Since there is little evidence to prove that this is actually happening, Schmidt-Unterberger (2018) rightly posits that this lack of explicit language learning objectives could be easily counterbalanced by aligning EMI courses to the adjunct ESP classes or adding pre-sessional ESP/EAP instruction to the curricula. As far as ICLHE is concerned, a course needs to pursue two objectives: students’ mastery of content and the development of language skills. Indeed, it is fundamental that language specialists in both curriculum design and programme delivery be involved (Gustafsson & Jacobs, 2013). This type of provision is obviously less prevalent in Poland since content experts are expected to work closely with language teachers when planning and teaching each of their courses. That being said, we may conclude that ICLHE still requires time-consuming joint lesson planning, team teaching, and collaborative assessment. Hence, language teaching would then be intertwined with the content and would ideally take place in the same lesson, which in the Polish HE context, is sometimes impossible due to severe financial constraints.

The challenges to EMI in Poland: Policies versus realities The Bologna Process, initiated in 1999, was designed to harmonise higher education across Europe, to provide mutual recognition of qualifications, to enhance mobility among students and graduates as well as to enable European HEIs to attract international students more easily (Coleman, 2006). In the case of Poland, as in many other EU states, these objectives were only met half-way, and it has been argued that the Bologna Process has undermined the European goal of multilingualism and advanced the globalised market in higher education through Englishising the curriculum. However, at a time of rapid change, and given the links between English-medium teaching, academic mobility, globalisation, and the internationalisation, and marketisation of higher education, Englishising the curriculum is a matter of policy interest, competitiveness and even survival at both national and regional levels, and for individual universities in Poland. For HEIs in Poland and across the EU, measures to improve competence in English such as degree programmes delivered in English are as much economic as educational, because these programmes are open to both foreign and local students, and fee-paying students raise additional resources (Costa & Coleman, 2012). Polish universities call for a strengthening in the mobility of teachers and students, more collaboration with foreign universities, as well as the initiation of teaching or study programmes in a foreign language sometimes delivered jointly by a cluster of HEIs from all over Europe. As indicated by Tsuneyoshi (2005) and Bradford (2016), there exist a number of challenges determining the depth and range of issues that may affect institutions adopting EMI. All the four types of challenges that EMI implementers may face, that is, linguistic, cultural, structural, and institutional refer to the Polish context of HEIs and English degree programmes. Low-level English abilities of both students and faculty members, culture-specific academic expectations, and structural dilemmas relating to Polish HEIs all posed significant hardships. These challenges are crucial to consider when evaluating the academic quality of teaching content in English (Choudaha & de Wit, 2014). Linguistic challenges are the difficulties experienced when instructors and/or students are working in a non-native language. They may include such things as student inability to take notes and professors’ inability to use accessible language in the classroom (Tange, 2010). These challenges can result in reduced programme quality and loss of confidence in faculty members’ instructional abilities. They are the most apparent type of challenges and are the focus of much discussion in Poland and across Europe, where educators are concerned with the dual goals of content and

185

Piotr Romanowski

language acquisition in the EMI classroom. According to Bradford (2016), cultural challenges are those related to diverse EMI student and teacher populations having different academic and social cultural norms. These challenges include difficulties arising from differences in contextual background knowledge, learning traditions, and intercultural competencies (Eaves, 2009; Kuwamura, 2009). They can result in a loss of cultural texture in lessons, student resistance to tasks, and an absence of the inclusive practices required in the internationalised classroom. In addition, the English language, even if only used as a tool for communication, is not value-free and frequently veils American academic discourse (Block & Cameron, 2002). Acceptance of, or resistance to, this discourse can serve to promote or impede the successful adoption of EMI (Wong & Wu, 2011). Structural challenges are those related to the administration and management of EMI. The recruitment of teaching staff, assessment policies for admission and graduation, and issues relating to the acceptance of EMI programmes fall under this umbrella category (Hellekjær, 2010). This type of challenges can result in reduced programme coherence because of an insufficient number of EMI courses, support staff unable to work with diverse populations, EMI students without the academic competencies required to study in English, and programme graduates lacking both content and language proficiency. The fourth type of challenge that was identified is termed institutional. It is related to how EMI participants self-identify as parts of a larger organisation, how the programme is perceived from the outside, how it co-exists with the rest of the university, and how it maintains its own standards. In general, programme implementers are trying to figure out how to brand their programmes to make them stand out. They worry that their programme does not differentiate itself from programmes that could be studied elsewhere in the world. Implementers are thinking about why students should come to Poland to study in English rather than enrol in a programme in a native English-speaking country. In Poland, some faculty members are examining their own identities and place within their faculties as they are conscious of the emergence of two academic cultures and potential tensions that could develop. Some aged lecturers commented that due to the fact that they have different backgrounds and training from many other, often younger, faculty members as well as international professors, who often impose Western educational practices, they are mindful of being perceived as outsiders. Domestic students also struggle as there is not much interaction with their international colleagues.

The effectiveness of EMI in Poland Given the rapid increase in the introduction and development of EMI programmes, not only in Poland, but also around the world, it is not surprising to note that the key actors in the process of teaching and learning through this medium have rarely been consulted by policy makers at a national level or by university managers at the institutional level (Dearden & Macaro, 2016). It would be ideal to know more about teacher and student beliefs as well as how universities and/or faculties involved them in decisions regarding what needs to be introduced through EMI. From a survey conducted at the beginning of this year (Romanowski, 2022b), it turned out that in some cases EMI was enforced by the faculty or department. In Polish universities of technology, respondents associated the English language with the language of science and technology. Therefore, they considered it important to learn science through EMI, while others cited the existence of English language resources and insufficient resources in their L1 as a reason to implement EMI. Despite these negative voices regarding EMI implementation, more positive motivations can also be found. First, the financial benefits of internationalisation of HE, by attracting more foreign students to Poland, feature prominently. Consequently, many university authorities believed 186

English-medium instruction in higher education in Poland

that the number of EMI programmes should be increased in order to attract non-Polish students. Furthermore, at most universities, because of high value and prestige accorded to the English language, it is also believed that EMI is capable of ushering in benefits both at the institutional and national level, such as social mobility and career prospects. Lecturers frequently mentioned two crucial aspects: intercultural understanding and learning from different cultures in the context of EMI. Contrary to these findings, many surveyed lecturers were deeply concerned about their students’ inability to study or their English proficiency as being insufficient to enable adequate learning of content when taught through English. Some lecturers not only saw student proficiency as inadequate but even as a possible barrier to being able to access an EMI programme, and, hence, they often labelled them as ill-equipped linguistically to benefit from it. However, this finding concerned mainly foreign students from Ukraine, Turkey, Egypt, Colombia, and China whose level of English proficiency, in general, and vocabulary knowledge, in particular, left a lot to be desired. Other lecturers reported that students were weak in the skills of listening and academic writing. Having considered beliefs about students’ English proficiency, let us now turn to the issue of university teachers’ beliefs about having the necessary language proficiency to teach through English. An interesting divergence has been noted in this respect, because a minority of teachers considered they had language problems, whereas a sizeable proportion of surveyed students were less enthusiastic about their lecturers’ level of English proficiency. In fact, concerns about EMI are not confined to beliefs about insufficient English proficiency, since almost all the past studies (Hellekjær, 2010; Macaro et al., 2018) alluded to the extra work involved in teaching through English and the laborious nature of EMI pertaining to redesigning or even reconceptualising lectures and materials used in L1. Another concern expressed by lecturers referred to the lack of preparation to teach or professional development opportunities (Briggs, Dearden, & Macaro, 2018). In Poland, there are no requirements whatsoever regarding teacher preparation programmes in EMI for HE. Although faculty members are encouraged to improve their level of English proficiency, there is no evidence that EMI teachers undertake development in methodology. Most of the lecturers reported that they had suddenly been invited to switch to EMI courses without sufficient time to prepare, simply because they were young and expected to have a good command of English.

Conclusion Where will EMI be in Poland in 10 years’ time? It is difficult to predict what might occur when several factors need to be considered. One thing is clear: the English-medium paradigm will further expand in HE in Poland (Król & Romanowski, 2020). Based on the research conducted all over the world, hopefully more adequate planning might be invested as well as reforms concerning teacher preparations might be introduced. In addition, the current strategies set by state universities operating with EMI in Poland perceive internationalisation as the main objective. The use of English as the instructional language is a means for achieving this objective. The instructional types in English-medium degree programmes discussed in this chapter require very carefully designed curricula. Therefore, it would seem urgent to think of proper avenues of collaboration between discipline experts and language specialists. With the guidance of language experts, content experts would be able to identify discipline-specific issues representing obstacles for the students and the instructors themselves. Therefore, EMI training for content experts should not only consider equipping lecturers with language skills to efficiently teach in English degree programmes, but should also raise their awareness for disciplinary literacy (Schmidt-Unterberger, 2018). At the moment, such collaboration still seems to be scanty, despite the existence of very few ESP and EAP courses in the curricula at Polish universities. Collaborative curriculum planning and EMI 187

Piotr Romanowski

teacher training should become the initial requirement for those hired to teach in the English-medium paradigm. The lecturers who have limited experience and proficiency in teaching in English should be directed to courses for language, communication, and pedagogical support. As stated earlier, more examples of explicit ESP and EAP instruction across Polish HEIs would constitute a more realistic and natural model for the implementation of EMI programmes. Such courses would complement the main EMI programme, but they would need to be carefully designed and implemented together by programme designers and teaching staff bearing in mind the pedagogical and linguistic implications of the English-medium paradigm.

References Baetens-Beardsmore, H. (1993). European models of bilingual education. Multilingual Matters. Basturkmen, H. (2010). Developing courses in English for specific purposes. Palgrave Macmillan. Block, D., & Cameron, D. (Eds.). (2002). Globalization and language teaching. Routledge. Bolton, K., & Kuteeva, M. (2012). English as an academic language at a Swedish university: Parallel language use and the ‘threat’ of English. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33, 429–447. Bradford, A. (2016). Toward a typology of implementation challenges facing English-medium instruction in higher education: Evidence from Japan. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20, 339–356. Briggs, J., Dearden, J., & Macaro, E. (2018). English medium instruction: Comparing teacher beliefs in secondary and tertiary education. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8, 673–696. Brinton, D., Snow, M., & Wesche, M. (1989). Content-based second language instruction. Newbury House. Choudaha, R., & de Wit, H. (2014). Challenges and opportunities for global student mobility in the future: A comparative and critical analysis. In B. Streitwieser (Ed.), Internationalisation of higher education and global mobility (pp. 19–33). Symposium Books. Coleman, J. A. (2006). English-medium teaching in European higher education. Language Teaching, 39, 1–14. Costa, F., & Coleman, J. A. (2012). A survey of English-medium instruction in Italian higher education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16, 3–19. Czura, K., & Papaja, K. (2013). Curricular models of CLIL education in Poland. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16, 321–333. Dąbrowska, A. (2014). Multilingual education in Poland. EFNIL, 121–126. Dearden, J., & Macaro, E. (2016). Higher education teachers’ attitudes towards English: A three country comparison. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 3–34. Dudley-Evans, T., & St. John, M. (1998). Developments in ESP: A multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge University Press. Dzięgielewska, Z. (2008). Nauczanie dwujęzyczne w Polsce i Europie. CODN. Eaves, M. (2009). Learning styles technology and supporting overseas learners. Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, 3, 61–73. Górowska-Fells, M. (2012). Kluczowe dane o nauczaniu języków obcych w Europie. Języki Obce w Szkole, 4, 51–56. GUS [Statistics Office Poland]. (2022). Higher education in the 2021/2022 academic year (preliminary data). Retrieved from https://stat.gov.pl/en/topics/education/education/higher-education-in-the-202122-academicyear-preliminary-data,10,8.html Gustafsson, M., & Jacobs, C. (2013). Editorial: Student learning and ICLHE – Frameworks and contexts. Journal of Academic Writing, 3(1), i–xii. Hellekjær, G. O. (2010). Lecture comprehension in English-medium higher education. Hermes: Journal of Language and Communication Studies, 45, 11–34. Hyland, K. (2006). English for academic purposes: An advanced resource book. Routledge. Järvinen, H. (2008). Learning contextualized language: Implications for tertiary foreign-language-medium education. In E. Rauto & L. Saarikoski (Eds.), Foreign-language-medium instruction in tertiary education: A tool for enhancing language learning (pp. 77–85). University of Applied Sciences Publications. Kersten, K. (1989). Polska - państwo narodowe: Dylematy i rzeczywistość. In M. Kula (Ed.), Narody: Jak powstawały i jak wybijały się na niepodległość. PWN.

188

English-medium instruction in higher education in Poland Komorowska, H. (2013). Multilingualism: Its open and hidden agendas. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 3, 463–482. Król, A. M., & Romanowski, P. (2020). Internationalizing secondary education in Poland through English as a medium of instruction. Baltic Journal of English Language, Literature and Culture, 10, 100–115. 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, 189–202. Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J., & Dearden, J. (2018). A systematic review of English medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching, 51, 36–76. Majewicz, A., & Wicherkiewicz, T. (1998). Minority rights abuse in communist Poland and inherited issues. Acta Slavicalaponica, 16, 54–73. Moskal, M. (2004). Language minorities in Poland at the moment of accession to the EU. Noves SL, Journal of Sociolinguistics, Spring-Summer, 1–11. Pisarek, W. (2011). The relationship between official and national languages in Poland. In G. Stickel (Ed.), National, regional and minority languages in Europe (pp. 117–122). Peter Lang Verlag. Romanowski, P. (2016). Some reflections on the idiosyncrasy of bilingual education in secondary schools in Poland. In S. Grucza, M. Olpińska-Szkiełko, & P. Romanowski (Eds.), Bilingual landscape of the contemporary world (pp. 173–188). Peter Lang Verlag. Romanowski, P. (2018). CLIL models in Polish lower-secondary schools. Kwartalnik Neofilologiczny, 4, 592–605. Romanowski, P. (2019). A comparative study of CLIL trajectories in the Polish system of education. English Language Overseas: Perspectives and Enquiries, 16(2), 63–76. Romanowski, P. (2020). The Polish linguistic map: An overview of minority languages in the education system. In P. Romanowski & M. Guardado (Eds.), The many faces of multilingualism: Language status, learning and use across contexts (pp. 11–24). Mouton de Gruyter. Romanowski, P. (2021). Survey of Polish universities. Unpublished report. Romanowski, P. (2022a). Language awareness, strategy training and the facilitative role of L2 English: Polish L3 teachers’ perceptions of multilingualism. International Journal of Multilingualism. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/14790718.2022.2082442. Romanowski, P. (2022b). From EFL to CLIL and EMI in Poland: Language education in transition. Heteroglossia: Studia kulturoznawczo-filologiczne, 12, 235–249. Schmidt-Unterberger, B. (2018). The English-medium paradigm: A conceptualisation of English-medium teaching in higher education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21, 527–539. Tange, H. (2010). Caught in the Tower of Babel: University lecturers’ experiences with internationalisation. Language and Intercultural Communication, 10, 137–149. 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. Unterberger, B. (2012). English-medium programmes at Austrian business faculties: A status quo survey on national trends and a case study on programme design and delivery. AILA Review, 25, 80–100. Wilkinson, R. (2011). If all business education were in English, would it matter? ITL – International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 161, 111–123. Wolff, D., & Otwinowska-Kasztelanic, A. (2010). CLIL – Przedmiotowe podejście w edukacji europejskiej. Języki Obce w Szkole, 6, 7–13. Wong, M. S., & Wu, S. F. (2011). Internationalization of higher education in East Asia: Issues, implications, and inquiries. In J. D. Palmer, A. Roberts, Y. H. Cho, & G. S. Ching (Eds.), The internationalization of East Asian higher education: Globalization’s impact (pp. 197–213). Palgrave Macmillan. Wróblewska-Pawlak, K., & Strachanowska, I. (2000). Preferencje językowe młodzieży polskiej w okresie transformacji 1990–1999. Studia Europejskiei, 1, 99–114. Zielonka, B. (2007). CLIL in Poland. In A. Maljers, D. Marsh, & D. Wolff (Eds.), Windows on CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in the European spotlight (pp. 147–153). European Platform for Dutch Education.

189

14 ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN SCANDINAVIA Špela Mežek and Beyza Björkman

Introduction Across the world, higher education (HE) institutions are increasingly adopting English as their medium of instruction, and, in most of these countries, English is not the majority language. In Europe, the amount of English-medium instruction increased substantially from 2007 (2,389 programmes) to 2014 (8,089 programmes; Wächter & Maiworm, 2014, p. 16). This trend was also true in the Scandinavian region, where English has had a strong presence in higher education. In this chapter, we focus on the Scandinavian geographical area, and the history and the different implementations of English-medium instruction (EMI) in this region of the world. Scandinavia is typically discussed with reference to Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, which is notable in research reviews of EMI in Northern Europe (Wächter & Maiworm, 2014). Finland, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands are sometimes included as well, based on cultural, historical, and linguistic ties, while the term Norden is often used to refer to this entire region (Airey, Lauridsen, Räsänen, Salö, & Schwach, 2017). For our purposes, Scandinavia includes Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland, and, in this chapter, we provide an overview of EMI in these four countries. While it is true that these countries share certain similarities, there are also some differences in policies and practices. In 2014, the four Scandinavian countries we have identified ranked highly in terms of the provision of EMI programmes. In that year, Denmark, Finland, and Sweden were in the top four, while Norway ranked ninth (Wächter & Maiworm, 2014, p. 47). With Scandinavians often ranked high in proficiency measures (EF, 20211), and English occupying a strong position in these countries, the higher education sector is likely to maintain and increase the number of EMI programmes and courses, despite concerns over ‘linguistic injustice, educational disadvantage, [and] social inequality’ (Hultgren & Wilkinson, 2022, p. 47). In the following sections of this chapter, we provide background information on the local languages and history of higher education, as well as a description and analysis of EMI in the region, including a discussion of attitudes to EMI and related language policies.

Multilingualism and the history of higher education in Scandinavia While Scandinavia is often thought of as a rather homogenous area in terms of educational practices, differences do exist because of variations in the linguistic ecology of the four Scandinavian nations. With reference to the traditional languages of these societies, there are four main DOI: 10.4324/9781003011644-16 190

English-medium instruction in higher education in Scandinavia

national languages in each of these countries: Danish in Denmark, Finnish in Finland, Norwegian in Norway, and Swedish in Sweden.2 Each of these languages has official recognition as a national language of the country, although Swedish also has an official status in Finland, and Finnish is recognised as a national minority language in Sweden. It is interesting to note that Swedish first gained the status of official language in Sweden as late as 2009 with the passing of the Language Act, which, to some extent, was designed to protect the Swedish language against the rise of English (Bolton & Meierkord, 2013). Norwegian differs from the other Scandinavian languages in that it comes in two forms, bokmål (‘book language’) and nynorsk (‘New Norwegian’). While they both have equal status, bokmål is used by 85–90% of the Norwegian population, and nynorsk by a small minority (Haugen & Borin, 2018, pp. 127–128). A similar concern tradition exists in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden with reference to the ‘threat’ of English, as discussed later in this chapter. Despite these perceived threats, Scandinavian languages hold a strong position in the Scandinavian region. Over the past three decades, the multilingual ecology of Scandinavian societies has become more complex due to the substantial immigration from various parts of the world. Denmark, Norway, and Sweden have accepted a larger proportion of immigrants, including refugees, compared to Finland, which has maintained a far more selective policy on this issue. Today, only 7% of Finland’s population is of immigrant origin, compared to 12% in Denmark, 16% in Norway, and 20% in Sweden (Eurostat, 2022a). In addition to Finnish in Sweden, there are also other officially-recognised minority languages, including German in Denmark, and Sámi languages in Finland, Norway, and Sweden. There are also other languages, such as Arabic, Polish, Romanian, and Somali that are widely spoken in Scandinavia and have no official status (Eberhard, Simons, & Fennig, 2022). Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish are North Germanic languages, and they are considered to be mutually intelligible. In fact, it has been suggested that, strictly speaking, they are separate languages only based on politics rather than linguistics, given their mutual intelligibility. However, we must state that not all groups are equally good at understanding the other Scandinavian languages, especially when it comes to spoken communication (Delsing & Lundin, 2005). Norwegians are better at understanding the other two languages than Danes and Swedes, owing likely to the phonetic similarities Norwegian has with Swedish and lexical similarities with Danish. Danes also understand Swedes better than Swedes understand Danes. Immigrants without a Scandinavian first language fare worse than those who have Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, or even Finnish (Delsing & Lundin, 2005). Finland stands out here given that its primary national language is an agglutinative Finno-Ugric language and the mother tongue of 93% of the population (Taavitsainen & Pahta, 2003), leaving a very small percentage of speakers of other languages. Apart from the linguistic factors mentioned earlier, extra-linguistic factors, such as age, attitudes, literacy, and contact, also account for such differences in intelligibility (Delsing & Lundin, 2005; Schüppert & Gooskens, 2011). While one might suggest that strict immigration policies and the distance of the local language from English and other North Germanic languages may result in Finland becoming a less preferred destination for EMI students, the high number of EMI programmes introduced in the country and the number of international students tell a different story. However, when we focus on the incoming EMI students in Finland, we observe that non-European students make up a larger proportion of students enrolled in EMI programmes: 42% compared to the other Scandinavian countries (Wächter & Maiworm, 2014, p. 85). We can suggest with some degree of justification here that European students are more attracted to Denmark, Norway, and Sweden where English is used widely and the local language shows great similarities to English.3

191

Špela Mežek and Beyza Björkman

There is evidence that Scandinavians have become less proficient in understanding each other’s languages, and contact is probably a major factor (Delsing & Lundin, 2005, pp. 142–145). Scandinavians’ focus has shifted to some extent beyond Scandinavia and towards the rest of the world. They choose to vacation in the other parts of Europe rather than within Scandinavia, and there is more English-language programming on the television than in Scandinavian languages. Scandinavians also start learning English from a young age. It is thus perhaps not surprising that young generations are more proficient in English than in other neighbouring languages (Delsing & Lundin, 2005, p. 145). English thus has a strong presence in Scandinavia, and is often preferred over a Scandinavian language. English is often the working language of local academic conferences meant for Scandinavians and the corporate language of many pan-Nordic corporations (Louhiala-Salminen, Charles, & Kankaanranta, 2005). For many Scandinavians, English is deployed as the lingua franca of choice even in gatherings with other Scandinavians (Dal, 2016). In general, as we stated here earlier (in ‘Introduction’ section), Scandinavians have a very high level of English proficiency, achieving some of the highest scores internationally in central tests. The second point we see relevant to our purposes here are differences regarding higher education practices in the region. Higher education has a long history in Scandinavia, starting with Uppsala University (est. 1477) being the first higher education establishment in Scandinavia. It took some hundred years before others were founded, but by the nineteenth century, all four countries had a university within their territory (see Table 14.1). In today’s Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, higher education is free for domestic students, international students from the EU/ EEA and Switzerland, and those with a residence permit not based on studies. While in the past, tuition fees were waived for other international students, this changed recently with tuition fees introduced in Denmark in 2006, Finland in 2010, Norway in 2023, and Sweden in 2011, with the exception of students willing to pursue studies in Finnish or Swedish in Finland. Because higher

Table 14.1 Scandinavian higher education in figures Country

First university

No. of HE institutionsa

Students (2019)b

International students (2019) (%)c

Denmark

University of Copenhagen (est. 1479) University of Helsinki (est.  1640, as Royal Academy of Turku) University of Oslo (est.  1811, as Royal Frederick University) Uppsala University (est. 1477)

38

308,567

10

5,840,045

35

295,451

8

5,533,793

50

290,014

4

5,391,369

50

432,233

7

10,379,295

Finland Norway Sweden c d a

b

These numbers are estimates, due to merges, name changes, new additions, etc. Eurostat (2022b). OECD (2021, p.  222). Eurostat (2022c).

192

Population of the country (2021)d

English-medium instruction in higher education in Scandinavia

education is tuition-free in Scandinavia, a large proportion of the population have completed tertiary education: over half of 30–34-year-olds in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, and 45% in Finland (Norden, 2022). This is also one of the reasons, we argue here, that there is less to argue for when it comes to educational disadvantage and social inequality as discussed elsewhere, such as in the Netherlands (Hultgren & Wilkinson, 2022). Free tuition for many international students has also made Scandinavia a popular destination for international students, making up between 4 and 10% of the total population of students (Table 14.1). Over the years, the student body in Denmark and Finland has been diminishing slowly, but growing in Norway and Sweden (Eurostat, 2022b). Unsurprisingly, the international student numbers were affected by the introduction of tuition fees for non-EU students. The special scholarships introduced have helped combat this situation, and there is still a good portion of incoming students in the region. While COVID-19 pandemic has also been a factor in the student population size, in Sweden, for example, many more applied to university studies (see Table 14.1 for pre-COVID-19 figures of students).

The history of languages used in Scandinavian higher education Reflecting on the use of languages in the earliest universities and tracing their development to modern times can help us understand the role English has played in Scandinavian HE. English started as a language of internationalisation in the early twentieth century and has evolved into one of the languages of instruction today. In this section, we aim to give a thorough overview of the history of languages used in Scandinavia, drawing from available historical educational practices. Foreign languages have always had a presence in higher education in Scandinavia (Table 14.2). Before the establishment of Scandinavian universities, Scandinavians studied at European universities (for example, in Paris, Prague, Rostock). However, after the establishment of the first universities in Scandinavia, the focus shifted to the University of Uppsala (est. 1477) and the University of Copenhagen (est. 1479). Academic mobility was practised as such: For Finns, until the establishment of their own university, Uppsala became the destination for studying, and for Norwegians, Copenhagen was the preffered destination. In the early Scandinavian universities, the language of instruction was Latin, which was also used for international research communication. A shift from Latin to the local language occurred in the eighteenth century in Sweden and Denmark (Gunnarsson, 2001; Kiselman, 2019; Mortensen & Haberland, 2012), and in the mid-nineteenth century in Finland, when Swedish first started being used and later Finnish as well (Saarinen, 2012). Similarly, in the Royal Frederick University in Norway (today University of Oslo), Norwegian began to be used in lectures in the mid-nineteenth

Table 14.2  Languages of instruction and internationalisation at universities in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Based on Mortensen and Haberland (2012) and Saarinen (2012) Period

Language of instruction

Language of internationalisation

15th–17th century 18th–19th century 1900–1980 1980–today

Latin Latin => national language National language National language (English)

Latin Latin => German (French) German (French) => English English

193

Špela Mežek and Beyza Björkman

century (Collett, 2011, p. 82). The mid-nineteenth century also saw the first dissertations written in the local language in all four countries. There was a gradual transition in the language of international communication as well: From Latin to other modern languages, like German and to some extent French. For example, at the end of the nineteenth century, articles by Swedish mathematicians in Acta Mathematica were written in German and French, and not Latin (Kiselman, 2019, p. 13). By the early twentieth century, the local languages were, apart from studies of languages and cultures, firmly established as languages of instruction at the university level. However, this does not imply that the local languages were the only languages used for teaching and learning. While information is very scarce about the textbooks used in courses at the start of the century, due to mutual intelligibility between the Scandinavian languages, it is likely that some assigned reading was in other Scandinavian languages. Across Scandinavia, after World War II, English, not German, became the preferred international language of scholarship. By the mid-1960s, in Norway, for example, a third of the assigned reading in history and pedagogy, and almost half in theology, was in Scandinavian languages (Swedish and/or Danish). In some subjects, a large proportion of assigned reading was already in English (pedagogy 42%, sociology 71%) and in others (such as, psychology), all reading was in English (Hatlevik & Norgård, 2001, pp. 75–77). Only sociology, at that time, had a small proportion (7%) of assigned reading in German. So, while lectures, seminars, course assignments, and the like were conducted in local languages, students were also learning from texts in other Scandinavian languages, as well as English. This is noteworthy, as it seems that this was a case of parallel-language use, defined as ‘the concurrent use of several languages within one or more areas [where n]one of the languages abolishes or replaces the other; they are used in parallel’ (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2007, p. 93). This pragmatic solution remains unoperationalised, to a large extent, in the region today and has been described as ‘an unrealistic target’ (Phillipson, 2006, p. 25). What is also interesting is that by the end of the 1970s, coinciding with the expansion of higher education in Norway, the proportion of assigned reading in Norwegian increased at the expense of Scandinavian languages and in some cases even English: In that year, pedagogy had only 22% of the assigned reading in English, and sociology 6%. Even in subjects where the proportion of reading in English increased (from approximately 5% to 20% in history), it was mostly at the expense of Scandinavian languages and not Norwegian (Hatlevik & Norgård, 2001, pp. 75–77). Other Scandinavian languages were therefore losing their place in mid-twentieth-century institutions of higher education in the region. When it comes to the languages used in dissertations and international research communication, it appears that the situation was even more dynamic. The most common languages for dissertations at the start of the twentieth century were the local languages, German and French, although the choice of language was largely affected by the discipline. For example, in Sweden, Swedish was much more commonly used in political economics (Sandelin & Ranki, 1997) than in mathematics (Kiselman, 2019), where more theses were written in French and German than in Swedish. In the middle of the century, as the cultural and political power of Germany weakened, a shift could be observed in the language of dissertations. Ylönen (2012) reports that in Finland, in the period 1901–1930, 46% of the dissertations were written in German, 25% Finnish, 20% Swedish, 4% French, and 2% English. However, in the following three decades, dissertations started being published in English at the expense of Swedish and German: Only 33% of dissertations were in German, 26% Finnish, 10% Swedish, 2% French, but 29% in English. The same shift can be observed in the other Scandinavian countries. In some disciplines, German as the language of dissertations

194

English-medium instruction in higher education in Scandinavia

disappeared. In Sweden, the last political economics dissertation written in German was in 1935 (Sandelin & Ranki, 1997), and at Uppsala University, the last mathematics dissertation in German was written in 1953 (Kiselman, 2019). A similar shift happened in international publications: around the mid-twentieth century there was a shift from German towards English, not only in the natural sciences, but in the humanities as well (Mortensen & Haberland, 2012). In the second half of the twentieth century, English, therefore, became the language of internationalisation. By the 1980s, English had already established itself as the language of internationalisation and of doctoral dissertations in many fields, and, to some extent, was also a part of the curriculum in the form of assigned reading. The next few decades saw the expansion of English. The first EMI programmes in Scandinavia were established in the 1980s (Ammon & McConnell, 2002). Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration has had post-graduate EMI programmes since 1986 (Ammon & McConnell, 2002, p. 101) and Roskilde University in Denmark started an International Cultural Studies programme in 1989, where, although there were several working languages, English was used the most often (Mortensen & Haberland, 2012). However, the establishment of EMI programmes in the 1980s was still limited. Of those English-taught programmes surveyed in 2002 by Maiworm and Wächter, only 8% of the programmes in Denmark and 5% of the programmes in Finland were established before 1990 (p. 62). It is difficult to estimate and compare the quantity of EMI teaching in these early years of EMI, due to different measurements used in the surveys. Some counted courses taught in English and some programmes, while others were interested in how much English was used at different levels in more general terms. What we can say, however, is that by the 1990s, EMI was much more common in Scandinavia. Haarmann and Holman (2001) reported that a booklet advertising Englishmedium courses and various instructional events at the University of Helsinki listed about 200 of them for the academic year 1991/1992. Berg, Hult, and King (2001) found that 43% of the elective courses in 1999/2000 at the Stockholm School of Economics were taught in English. In the 1993/1994 academic year at Uppsala University, 20–25% of undergraduate teaching and seminars were conducted in English, and most subjects had at least some assigned reading in English. Most of the science and engineering reading and about half of the reading in the social sciences were in English (Gunnarsson, 2001). In some undergraduate courses, some students also wrote texts in English: In science, engineering, and language departments, 47–57% of term papers were in English, while in the humanities, only 14% (Gunnarsson, 2001). English was, therefore, more commonly used in the natural sciences than the humanities even at that time. Differences could also be observed in the types of education. In Norway, almost all assigned reading was in Norwegian in vocational training courses, but in university courses, half of the assigned reading was in English (Hatlevik & Norgård, 2001, p. 58). The reasons given for EMI courses at that time ranged from those related to internationalisation (attracting students from abroad, establishing international cooperation) to improving the quality of education (Ammon & McConnell, 2002). From 2000s onwards, there has been a rapid expansion of EMI in Scandinavian higher education. Wächter and Maiworm conducted a series of surveys that enable us to track the development of EMI education in Scandinavia (Maiworm & Wächter, 2002; Wächter & Maiworm, 2008, 2014). As Table 14.3 illustrates, between 2002 and 2014, all four countries experienced a dramatic increase in terms of the number and proportion of programmes offered in English. While Finland had the most programmes in 2002, the largest increase between 2002 and 2014 was in Denmark and Sweden, where the number of programmes increased tenfold and twentyfold, and the proportion of programmes by 31% and 20%. Denmark also experienced the largest increase in the proportion of enrolled students in EMI programmes. By 2014, nearly half of HE institutions in

195

Špela Mežek and Beyza Björkman Table 14.3  EMI programmes in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden (from 2002 to 2014) No. of EMI programmes % Institutions offering EMI programmes Denmark Finland Norway Sweden

2002 42 85 35 42

2007 96 235 53 123

2014 494 395 187 822

2002 13.2 66.7 21.4 26.3

2007 16.0 66.0 31.9 30.8

2014 48.0 83.3 41.1 81.0

% EMI programmes 2002 7.0 5.0 3.9 3.5

2007 7.4 13.9 2.5 4.1

2014 38.0 23.2 8.1 24.2

% students enrolled in EMI 2002 0.5 2.1 0.3 0.2

2007 3.0 2.7 0.6 0.8

2014 12.4 2.9 2.4 4.4

Note: Data from Maiworm and Wächter (2002) and Wächter and Maiworm (2008, 2014).

Denmark and Norway offered programmes in English, while in Finland and Sweden over 80% of them did. Considering that the 2002 survey included all programmes with at least 25% content in English, and that the latter two studies focussed only on programmes completely in English, this increase is even more staggering.

EMI in Scandinavia today In this section, we will examine the current state of EMI in Scandinavia. We will first explore the typical features of EMI in Scandinavia and then delve into the current EMI offerings, including differences between courses and programmes, various levels of studies, and different disciplines.

The many shapes of EMI in Scandinavia In general terms, EMI in Scandinavia today shares the typical features of EMI: English is not the L1 of the majority of students; English serves as the language of instruction, rather than being the subject of instruction; and increased language proficiency is not a planned outcome of the course (Pecorari & Malmström, 2018, p. 499). In other words, the programmes and courses delivered in English in Scandinavia can be characterised as ‘EMI’ and not ‘Content and Language Integrated Learning’ (CLIL). The reality of EMI, however, is often more complex than typically described, and EMI in Scandinavia appears to come in several different forms, as explained in the subsequent paragraphs. First, it is not always clear whether English is the only language of instruction in some implementations of EMI. In this context, we must distinguish between full and partial EMI (Pecorari & Malmström, 2018). In some instances, not all courses and programmes are conducted entirely in English, and students have the option to combine courses taught in English with courses delivered in other languages. In others, only some elements of instruction are in English, for example, assigned reading or laboratory exercises. Additionally, there are also what we could refer to as ‘optional EMI’ courses, where the use of English is an option. In many courses in the technical and natural sciences, but also in the social sciences, English is offered as an optional language, even if the official course language is the local language. For example, phrases like ‘English if needed’, ‘English on request’, and the like can be found in many course descriptions at Scandinavian universities. So, while lectures are typically delivered in the local language, if students request it, English can be provided as an alternative. In some course descriptions, it is also very clearly stated that the written assignments (for example, exams) can be submitted in several languages, typically the local language and English, but sometimes also other Scandinavian languages. This means that even 196

English-medium instruction in higher education in Scandinavia

some courses that have the local language as the language of instruction could be classified as partial EMI. In addition, even in courses where English is the language of instruction, it is not always the only language used, with teachers and participants adapting to each other’s linguistic needs (Kuteeva, Hynninen, & Haslam, 2015; Ljosland, 2011; Mortensen, 2014; Söderlundh, 2012). While English is not the subject of instruction, language development is sometimes an implicit goal of the course (Pecorari, Shaw, Irvine, & Malmström, 2011). This goal is often expressed as improving ‘intercultural understanding and competences’ of students (Wächter & Maiworm, 2014, pp. 56–60). Some students themselves aim to enhance their English-language skills by studying in English in Scandinavia (for example, Italian exchange students in Borghetti & Beaven’s 2017 study), while others consider improved proficiency ‘a possible added bonus which the students presumed would come automatically’ (Ljosland, 2011, p. 998). Many students also receive training in disciplinary English in English for Specific Purposes (ESP) or English for Academic Purposes (EAP) courses, although this is much more common in programmes in Finland than in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden (Wächter & Maiworm, 2014, pp. 107–111). It is crucial to realise that the ‘aim’ of achieving higher proficiency in English through EMI seems to be driven by students and not stated anywhere as an explicit aim of EMI programmes and courses in Scandinavia. In fact, the reasons for implementing EMI programmes and courses in Scandinavia align with those in other parts of Europe (Ljosland, 2011; Wächter & Maiworm, 2014, pp. 51–60). They are primarily driven by internationalisation efforts: Universities aim to attract foreign students, enrich the learning of domestic students, and prepare them for the international market. For some domestic students, studying particular courses/programmes in English is the only choice, as some courses with an international focus are only offered in English. For others, EMI enables them to ‘become more international in their home country by studying in English’ (Pitkänen, Siddall, & Lehtonen, 2012, p. 430). There are often very mixed attitudes towards EMI, related to the aim of the programme (financial gain or internationalisation?), the potential negative effect on national languages (domain loss), and the lack of support in place for students and staff who are expected to ‘smoothly’ transition into teaching and learning in English (Airey et al., 2017; Bolton & Kuteeva, 2012; Kling, 2015; Ljosland, 2011).

Overview of EMI provision in Scandinavia The latest data from Scandinavia illustrate that 20% of all programmes are offered in English, and 5% of the entire student population is enrolled in an EMI programme (Wächter & Maiworm, 2014, p. 38). However, there are some differences between the countries. The share of EMI programmes on offer and proportion of students enrolled is the largest in Denmark and the lowest in Norway (see Table 14.3 above). It is probable, however, that the amount of EMI is actually much larger than some of these surveys suggest, considering that many surveys focus only on programmes and not courses (of which there are many more), and that most surveys exclude the partial implementations of EMI that we mentioned in the previous section. For example, Malmström and Pecorari (2022) report in their comprehensive survey that while only 4% of Swedish undergraduate programmes are in English, 18% of undergraduate courses are in English, and at least 65% of all courses have some reading in English (Malmström & Pecorari, 2022, pp. 22–23, 31). This suggests that focussing on programmes only does not provide a comprehensive picture. Students enrolled in EMI in Scandinavia are not only international students but also domestic ones (Wächter & Maiworm, 2014, p. 85). In 2014, between 32% (in Finland) and 49% (in Denmark) of students in EMI programmes were domestic students. European students made up the second largest group (between 21% in Norway and 42% in Denmark). Since there is more EMI at 197

Špela Mežek and Beyza Björkman

the MA level (see below), it also naturally means that more domestic students study in English at the MA level. In Denmark in 2018, more than half (57%) of MA students studying in English were domestic students (DST, 2018). There are differences between levels, however. Many more EMI programmes and courses are offered at the MA than at the undergraduate level. In 2014 Scandinavia overall, 18% of EMI programmes surveyed were at the BA level and 82% at the MA level (Wächter & Maiworm, 2014, p. 65). In Denmark in 2018, 43% of MA and 8% of undergraduate students were in EMI programmes (DST, 2018) and in Sweden in 2020, at the undergraduate level, 4% of programmes and 18% of courses were given in English, while at the MA level 64% of programmes and 53% of courses were taught in English (Malmström & Pecorari, 2022). At the PhD level, EMI is even more prevalent. Malmström and Pecorari (2022) report that, in 2019, 93% of doctoral theses in Sweden were written in English. It is also important to mention for our purposes here the differences between disciplines. EMI courses are more frequent in engineering, natural sciences, and social sciences than in education, humanities, and healthcare (Wächter & Maiworm, 2014, p. 69). Subjects with a national character (such as history) and those connected to the community (such as nursing) are less likely to be in English than other courses. This pattern is very much present across the Scandinavian countries. In Denmark, 90% of MA students in the technical sciences and 73% of MA students in the natural sciences study in English, while 44% of MA students in the social sciences, and only 8% of MA students in the health sciences do so (DST, 2018). In Sweden, there are many more English MA courses in engineering and technology (80%) and the natural sciences (74%), than in the social sciences (44%), humanities (30%), medicine (20%), and health care (14%; Malmström & Pecorari, 2022, pp. 25–28). The figures follow a similar pattern in the language of PhD theses, where almost all are written in English in the natural sciences and engineering and technology, about 75% in the social sciences, and 70% in the humanities (Malmström & Pecorari, 2022, pp. 34–38). Interestingly, although medicine at the undergraduate and MA level is quite commonly in the local language (as graduates will most likely practice in the local community), at the research level, almost all doctoral theses are written in English. This goes to demonstrate that on top of disciplinary differences, the level of studies plays a role in the acceptance of English as the default medium of education. Finally, a large proportion of universities in Scandinavia offer EMI, although there are some differences between countries. A greater number of Finnish and Swedish universities offer EMI programmes compared to Danish and Norwegian universities (see Table 14.3). It is difficult to know to what extent the numbers hold true also for courses (and not only programmes). Some surveys have also suggested that there might be differences in what type of universities offer EMI courses and programmes: Wächter and Maiworm’s (2014) study has revealed that, in Europe, EMI programmes are more likely to be found in research-oriented universities that award PhDs in a wide subject range and that have a large population of students including a large proportion of international students (pp. 50–51). Whether this is true in Scandinavia is, however, less clear. Malmström and Pecorari’s (2022, p. 30) survey suggests that ‘there is reason to question the contention’ and that ‘Sweden may not follow the general European trend’ suggested by Wächter and Maiworm (2014). This is potentially true for other Scandinavian countries as well.

Attitudes to EMI and EMI policies in Scandinavia In this section, we will briefly cover the reactions to EMI in Scandinavia. Before we can do so, a few words need to be said about reactions to the widespread use of English in Scandinavia in general. The frequent code-switching to English to use popular phrases when speaking a Scandinavian 198

English-medium instruction in higher education in Scandinavia

language is not infrequent in any kind of conversation in the region. Norrby gives an example of how English has made inroads into more formal and official kinds of communication in Sweden, referring to the Swedish Crown Princess Victoria, who, at a press conference aired on Swedish national TV, expressed her feelings on having just become a mother with the words: ‘Mina känslor är all over the place…’, the direct translation being ‘My feelings are all over the place’ (Norrby, 2014, p. 17).4 Although this kind of switching was observed more often in young people’s speech before (as discussed by Sharp, 2001), such usage now seems more widespread. In workplaces, such as in banks, phrases and terms in English are used frequently for local operations among speakers of the same Scandinavian language (for example, second-guess, win-win, nice solution, annual review, high-risk committee, personal development discussions), even though the words and terms exist in the Scandinavian languages. We might argue that these speakers simply keep the terms in English and do not see the function of translating them into that particular Scandinavian language. This does not suffice to explain, however, why English catchphrases and idioms are used so often. English simply ‘plays a significant role in contemporary Scandinavia’ (Norrby, 2014, p. 17). It is precisely this kind of resorting to English and its frequent use that have upset the protectionists through the years following globalisation. They claim that the Scandinavian languages are devoured by the stronger English (‘English as lingua frankensteinia’ as discussed in Phillipson, 2008), which is now used anytime, anywhere, and in any context in the region. Their argument is that the local languages are consequently reduced to only non-high-stakes domains and will eventually cease to be used for business, higher education, international banking, all being critical, high-stakes domains. This topic has been covered in not such a negligible number of papers in major outlets, with domain loss being the main concern and the general theme being that such a widespread use of English is detrimental to the local language and that this is leading to the loss of important domains in the local language (Gunnarsson, 2001; Haarmann & Holman, 2001; Ljosland, 2007; Melander & Thelander, 2006; Phillipson, 2008).5 These frustrations, however, often had to do with domains that historically have never had a Scandinavian language as its medium, such as the scientific domain of computer science and Information Technology (IT). So in some cases the frustration had to do with the inability to extend the local language to this domain, rather than having lost it, as one cannot lose something one has never had. As Hultgren (2013, p. 178) concluded, ‘the concept of domain loss […] is not, at least when it comes to lexical borrowing, an apt metaphor to describe the current linguistic situation’. Across Scandinavia, such concerns have sometimes promoted strong reactions, such as the passing of the Swedish Language Act (2009), which ‘can be interpreted as a symbolic act to safeguard the position of Swedish as the common language at a time where there is a perceived threat from outside’ (Norrby, 2014, p. 25). Another example was the prompting of university language policies in Sweden aimed at the protection, maintenance, and the promotion of the Swedish language (Björkman, 2014). Reactions in Denmark have followed a similar pattern, with critical voices raised about Englishisation, internationalisation, and linguistic pluralism (Mortensen & Haberland, 2009; Fabricius, Mortensen, & Haberland, 2017). While less information seems to be available on Norway, it appears that reactions there have been similar (Ljosland, 2011). In Finland, though, Finnish constitutional bilingualism meant that academic discussions first focussed on the relative positions of Finnish and Swedish, and English in Finnish university language policies was seen as the ‘self-evident’ language of internationalisation (Saarinen, 2020; Saarinen & Rontu, 2018). Today, even here public discourse appears to have shifted to casting English as a threat to the sociolinguistic balance of society (Saarinen, 2020). 199

Špela Mežek and Beyza Björkman

Nevertheless, despite the many debates on the so-called threat of English, Scandinavian languages still maintain positions of official and de facto prestige in their societies. Swedish, for example, is the official language of Sweden and the preferred language of Swedes as well as the preferred language of immigrants, who use it for a wide range of purposes in their everyday practices (Bolton & Meierkord, 2013). In most instances, mastery of the national language of the society is seen as more important than a high level of proficiency in English. For example, research from multinational companies in Norway shows that, despite the working language of the company being English, immigrants experience a glass ceiling because of their lack of proficiency in Norwegian (Ly, 2017). One would hypothesise that similar problems for immigrants exist in all Scandinavian countries. In the context of higher education, the obvious need is to accommodate to the language that is spoken by the majority for communicative purposes, in order to be as inclusive as possible. The ‘E’ in EMI here is understood to be English as an academic lingua franca, that is, a language used for educational and scientific purposes in higher education, with its value being its inclusiveness.

Conclusion In this chapter, we have provided an overview of the development, expansion, and provision of EMI in the Scandinavian region, including Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. In this discussion, we have also provided a review of the history of higher education in the region, as well as a review of the academic languages used throughout the history in these four countries. While we have mentioned similarities regarding EMI across the region, we have also identified important differences with reference to the national languages and histories of higher education in each of these countries, as well as differences in the sociolinguistic realities of the four societies. Given the current importance of English-medium education in Scandinavia, it seems clear that the importance of English as a language of instruction in higher education is unlikely to diminish in the foreseeable future. As our discussion of the complexities of EMI in Scandinavia suggests, the challenge for university education in Scandinavia is perhaps best conceived not simply as a binary choice between ‘EMI’ and ‘no EMI’, but rather in terms of the need for balanced solutions in relation to the implementation of EMI in order to achieve the best results for all.

Notes







1 Rankings of Scandinavian countries in the EF English Proficiency Index (EF, 2021): Denmark (3), Norway (5), Sweden (8), and Finland (9). 2 Due to the different uses of local, national and official language in these countries, we use the term local language to refer to the main Scandinavian languages of instruction. 3 Home country of students enrolled in EMI programmes in 2013/14 (Wächter & Maiworm, 2014, p. 85): Denmark: 49% domestic students, 42% EU, 0% other Europe, 9% other foreign students Finland: 32% domestic students, 14% EU, 12% other Europe, 42% other foreign students Norway: 45% domestic students, 12% EU, 9% other Europe, 34% other foreign students Sweden: 41% domestic students, 32% EU; 4% other Europe, 23% other foreign students 4 Norrby (2014, p. 17) cites the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet (23 February, 2012). 5 Interesting to note is that around the start of the rapid expansion of EMI, language councils/committees from all four Scandinavian countries published reports where they warned of domain loss: Sprog til tiden (‘Language for the times’) in Denmark in 2008, Suomen kielen tulevaisuus (‘The future of the Finnish language’) in Finland in 2009, Norsk i hundre! (‘Norwegian at one hundred!’) in Norway in 2005, and Mål i mun (‘Speech’) in Sweden in 2002.

200

English-medium instruction in higher education in Scandinavia

References Airey, J., Lauridsen, K. M., Räsänen, A., Salö, L., & Schwach, V. (2017). The expansion of English-medium instruction in the Nordic countries: Can top-down university language policies encourage bottom-up disciplinary literacy goals? Higher Education, 73, 561–576. Ammon, U., & McConnell, G. (2002). English as an academic language in Europe: A survey of its use in teaching. Peter Lang. Berg, E. C., Hult, F. M., & King, K. A. (2001). Shaping the climate for language shift? English in Sweden’s elite domains. World Englishes, 20, 305–319. Björkman, B. (2014). Language ideology or language practice? An analysis of language policy documents at Swedish universities. Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 33, 335–363. Bolton, K., & Kuteeva, M. (2012). English as an academic language at a Swedish university: Parallel language use and the ‘threat’ of English. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33, 429–447. Bolton, K., & Meierkord, C. (2013). English in contemporary Sweden: Perceptions, policies, and narrated practices. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 17, 93–117. Borghetti, C., & Beaven, A. (2017). Lingua francas and learning mobility: Reflections on students’ attitudes and beliefs towards language learning and use. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 21, 221–241. Collett, J. P. (2011). The Christiania University’s 50 years celebration in 1861: National pride and Scandinavian solidarity. In P. Dhondt (Ed.), National, Nordic or European? Nineteenth-century university jubilees and Nordic cooperation (pp. 73–98). Brill. Dal, M. (2016). Neighbor languages in Scandinavia in a multilingual world. In L. Peer & G. Reid (Eds.), Multilingualism, literacy and dyslexia: Breaking down barriers for educators (2nd ed., pp. 242–251). Routledge. Delsing, L.-O., & Lundin, K. (2005). Håller språket ihop Norden? En forskningsrapport om ungdomars förståelse av danska, svenska och norska [Does the language keep the Nordic countries together? A research report on how well young people understand Danish, Swedish and Norwegian]. Nordiska ministerrådet. DST. (2018, March 16). 43 pct. læser kandidatstudier på engelsk [43 per cent study master’s studies in English]. News from Statistics Denmark. Retrieved from www.dst.dk/nyt/30250 Eberhard, D. M., Simons, G. F., & Fennig, C. D. (Eds.). (2022). Ethnologue: Languages of the world (25th ed). SIL International. Retrieved from http://www.ethnologue.com.ezp.sub.su.se EF. (2021). EF English Proficiency Index: A ranking of 112 countries and regions by English skills. Education First. Retrieved from https://www.ef.com/assetscdn/WIBIwq6RdJvcD9bc8RMd/cefcom-epi-site/ reports/2021/ef-epi-2021-english.pdf Eurostat. (2022a). Foreign-born population [TPS00178]. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ databrowser/view/TPS00178/default/table Eurostat. (2022b). Students enrolled in tertiary education by education level, programme orientation, sex and age [EDUC_UOE_ENRT02]. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/ eurostat/databrowser/ bookmark/28c9a335-beac-452c-8e7f-c84e2d97f98a Eurostat. (2022c). Population on 1 January by age and sex [DEMO_PJAN]. Retrieved from https://ec.europa. eu/eurostat/databrowser/bookmark/87ea1bef-fff4-4d06-861f-5b991917f029 Fabricius, A. H., Mortensen, J., & Haberland, H. (2017). The lure of internationalization: Paradoxical discourses of transnational student mobility, linguistic diversity and cross-cultural exchange. Higher Education, 73, 577–595. Gunnarsson, B.-L. (2001). Swedish, English, French or German: The language situation at Swedish universities. In U. Ammon (Ed.), The dominance of English as a language of science: Effects on other languages and language communities (pp. 287–316). De Gruyter Mouton. Haarman, H., & Holman, E. (2001). The impact of English as a language of science in Finland and its role for the transition to network society. In U. Ammon (Ed.), The dominance of English as a language of science: Effects on other languages and language communities (pp. 229–260). De Gruyter Mouton. Hatlevik, I. K. R., & Norgård, J. D. (2001). Myter og fakta om språk: Pensumlitteratur på grunnivå i høyere utdanning [Myths and facts about language: Curriculum literature at the undergraduate level in higher education]. NIFU. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11250/273973 Haugen, E., & Borin, L. (2018). Danish, Norwegian and Swedish. In B. Comrie (Ed.), The world’s major languages (3rd ed., pp. 127–150). Routledge.

201

Špela Mežek and Beyza Björkman Hultgren, A. K. (2013). Lexical borrowing from English into Danish in the Sciences: An empirical investigation of ‘domain loss’. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 23, 166–182. Hultgren, A. K., & Wilkinson, R. (2022). New understandings of the rise of English as a medium of instruction in higher education: The role of key performance indicators and institutional profiling. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 277, 47–59. Kiselman, C. O. (2019). Language choice in scientific writing: The case of mathematics at Uppsala University and a Nordic journal. Normat: Nordisk matematisk tidskrift, 61(2–4), 111–132. Kling, J. (2015). ‘You try with a little humor and you just get on with it’: Danish lecturers’ reflections on English-medium instruction. In S. Dimova, A. K. Hultgren, & C. Jensen (Eds.), English in Europe, Vol. 3: English-medium instruction in European higher education (pp. 201–222). Walter de Gruyter. Kuteeva, M., Hynninen, N., & Haslam, N. (2015). ‘It’s so natural to mix languages’: Attitudes towards English-medium instruction in Sweden. In A. Linn, N. Bermel, & G. Ferguson (Eds.), English in Europe, Vol. 1: Attitudes towards English in Europe (pp. 193–212). Walter de Gruyter. Ljosland, R. (2007). English in Norwegian academia: A step towards diglossia? World Englishes, 26, 395–410. Ljosland, R. (2011). English as an academic lingua franca: Language policies and multilingual practices in a Norwegian university. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 991–1004. Louhiala-Salminen, L., Charles, M., & Kankaanranta, A. (2005). English as a lingua franca in Nordic corporate mergers: Two case companies. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 405–421. Ly, A. (2017). Making sense of communication and cultural differences in the workplace: The case of sinoScandinavian collaborations. In F. Dervin & R. Machart (Eds.), Intercultural communication with China: Beyond (reverse) essentialism and culturalism? (pp. 111–131). Springer. Maiworm, F., & Wächter, B. (Eds.). (2002). English-language-taught degree programmes in European higher education: Trends and success factors. Lemmens. Malmström, H., & Pecorari, D. (2022). Language choice and internationalisation: The roles of Swedish and English in research and higher education. Language Council of Sweden, Institute for Language and Folklore. Retrieved from http://urn.kb.se/ resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:sprakochfolkminnen:diva-2467 Melander, B., & Thelander, M. (2006). Så tar man livet av ett språk [This is how you kill a language]. Språkvård: Tidskrift utgiven av svenska språknämnden, 2, 39–42. Mortensen, J. (2014). Language policy from below: Language choice in student project groups in a multilingual university setting. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35, 425–442. Mortensen, J., & Haberland, H. (2009). Sprogvalg på danske universiteter i historisk perspektiv [Language choice at Danish universities in a historical perspective]. Sprogforum: Tidsskrift for Sprog- Og kulturpædagogik, 15(46), 8–13. Mortensen, J., & Haberland, H. (2012). English: The new Latin of academia? Danish universities as a case. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 216, 175–197. Norden. (2022, June 14). Level of education. Nordic Co-operation. Retrieved from https://www.norden.org/ en/statistics/level-education Nordic Council of Ministers. (2007). Deklaration om nordisk språkpolitik: 2006 [Declaration on a Nordic Language Policy: 2006]. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers. Retrieved from http://norden.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:700895/FULLTEXT01.pdf Norrby, C. (2014). English in Scandinavia: Monster or mate? Sweden as a case study. In J. Hajek & Y. Slaughter (Eds.), Challenging the monolingual mindset (pp. 17–32). Multilingual Matters. OECD. (2021). Education at a glance 2021: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://doi. org/10.1787/b35a14e5-en Pecorari, D., & Malmström, H. (2018). At the crossroads of TESOL and English Medium Instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 52, 497–515. Pecorari, D., Shaw, P., Irvine, A., & Malmström, H. (2011). English for academic purposes at Swedish universities: Teachers’ objectives and practices. Ibérica, 22, 55–78. Phillipson, R. (2006). English, a cuckoo in the European higher education nest of languages. European Journal of English Studies, 10, 13–32. Phillipson, R. (2008). Lingua franca or lingua frankensteinia? English in European integration and globalisation. World Englishes, 27, 250–267. Pitkänen, K. K., Siddall, R., & Lehtonen, T. (2012). The linguistic landscape of international students in English-medium master’s programmes at the University of Helsinki: Student perceptions on the use of English and plurilingualism. CercleS, 2, 427–440.

202

English-medium instruction in higher education in Scandinavia Saarinen, T. (2012). Internationalization and the invisible language? Historical phases and current policies in Finnish higher education. In S. Ahola & D. M. Hoffman (Eds.), Higher education research in Finland: Emerging structures and contemporary issues (pp. 235–248). Finnish Institute for Educational Research. Saarinen, T. (2020). Higher education, language and new nationalism in Finland: Recycled histories. Palgrave Pivot. Saarinen, T., & Rontu, H. (2018). University language policies: How does Finnish constitutional bilingualism meet the needs for internationalisation in English? European Journal of Language Policy, 10, 97–119. Sandelin, B., & Ranki, S. (1997). Internationalization or Americanization of Swedish economics? The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 4, 284–298. Schüppert, A., & Gooskens, C. (2011). The role of extra-linguistic factors in receptive bilingualism: Evidence from Danish and Swedish pre-schoolers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 16, 332–347. Sharp, H. (2001). English in spoken Swedish: A corpus study of two discourse domains (PhD thesis). Stockholm University, Sweden. Retrieved from http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn= urn:nbn:se:su:diva-10669 Söderlundh, H. (2012). Global policies and local norms: Sociolinguistic awareness and language choice at an international university. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 216, 87–109. Taavitsainen, I., & Pahta, P. (2003). English in Finland: Globalisation, language awareness and questions of identity. English Today, 19(4), 3–15. Wächter, B., & Maiworm, F. (2008). English-taught programmes in European higher education: The picture in 2007. Lemmens. Wächter, B., & Maiworm, F. (Eds.). (2014). English-taught programmes in European higher education: The state of play in 2014. Lemmens. Ylönen, S. (2012). Internationalisierung der Hochschulen und die Rolle des Deutschen und anderer Fremdsprachen aus finnischer Perspektive [Internationalization of universities and the role of German and other foreign languages from a Finnish perspective]. In W. Bonner, A. Liimatainen, O. Salminen, & J. Schopp (Eds.), Deutsch im Gespräch (pp. 81–97). Saxa Verlag.

203

15 ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN SPAIN Josep M. Cots and Guzman Mancho-Barés

Introduction Coinciding with the advent of the Bologna process in the European Higher Education Area at the turn of the millennium, a growing scholarly interest in the effects of changing the medium of instruction from first language (L1) to English has been on the rise in Spain. Research on this multifaceted educational phenomenon, with a focus on classroom discourse, received an initial impulse thanks to studies such as those by Aguilar Pérez and Arnó Macià (2002), Dafouz, Núñez and Sancho (2007), Núñez Perucha and Dafouz Milne (2007), Dafouz-Milne (2008), and Dafouz Milne and Llinares Garcia (2008). The scope of the research expanded to understand whether and to what extent English-medium instruction (EMI) could subsume or complement English for specific purposes (ESP) and/or English for academic purposes (EAP) subjects, which had traditionally been the means by which Spanish universities provided students with the necessary skills in English to fulfil their needs in disciplinary language and communication (Räisänen & Fortanet-Gómez, 2008, from a pan-European perspective; Ruiz-Garrido & Palmer-Silveira, 2008). EMI teacher training initiatives in Spain have revealed the importance of training instructors and making them aware of the need to attain a threshold level of competence in English to impart EMI (Fortanet-Gómez, 2010). These studies have undoubtedly helped to align research on EMI in Spain with, and sometimes the forefront of, the wider international research agenda. It is from this body of knowledge generated at the start of the twenty-first century that we pursue to examine the main topics of the research on Spanish EMI since 2010 to identify the language-derived obstacles and the possible ways to overcome them. This chapter is divided into three main sections, which correspond to the three components of the language policy of a speech community proposed by Spolsky (2004): (i) Language management, intervention, or planning, (ii) language beliefs or ideology, and (iii) language practices. We believe that the model is useful because it allows us to approach EMI in Spain from an ecological perspective by combining three perspectives, social, psychological, and pedagogical, as well as different levels of analysis, macro (country or region), meso (institution), and micro (classroom). The usefulness of the model can also be seen in the fact that it has been extensively adopted in research on EMI in Spain, the evidence for which can be found in the large number of titles that include the words, ‘policies’, ‘beliefs’, and/or ‘practices’. DOI: 10.4324/9781003011644-17 204

English-medium instruction in higher education in Spain

Under the label of EMI, we refer essentially to two main approaches in which English has been introduced as a language of instruction in Spanish higher education: (i) a very common approach, in which English simply replaces the L1 as a medium of instruction, usually referred to as EMI, in which language learning is not an aim (at least, explicitly), and there is no focus on language, and (ii) a less frequent approach, which involves integrating the simultaneous teaching of content and language and a curriculum and syllabus designed jointly by content and language specialists. This approach has been referred to with the term Integrated Content and Language in Higher Education (ICLHE). It appears that ICLHE has wide support in Spain, as well as in Europe, among educational linguists and ESP/EAP specialists, who worry about how university administrators have started replacing ESP/EAP subjects with EMI subjects, hence leaving the provision of language support for EMI students, whose proficiency level in English is pervasively low, as explained later, to content instructors, many of whom do not see language support as their responsibility.

Institutional management EMI, together with the process of internationalisation, can be considered in many cases as the main triggering factor for the design and implementation of an institutional language policy in Spanish higher education. In fact, before the introduction of EMI in the first decade of the twentyfirst century, universities in the monolingual regions of Spain saw no need to regulate the academic use of just one language. On the other hand, in the bilingual regions such as Catalonia, universities considered it an aspect of instructors’ academic freedom, with which bilingual students would have no problem to cope. The introduction of EMI is usually presented as part of the university’s language policy, and as an inevitable response to the pressures exerted on the university to increase its degree of internationalisation to maintain its funding. This internationalisation can be centripetal, in the sense of attracting international students, and centrifugal, understood as training future professionals to work in a global context (Julián-de-Vega & Ávila-López, 2018). In both cases, foreign languages, and especially English, play a key role. The introduction of an additional academic language and the diversification of the students’ linguistic repertoire are presented as the main reasons for the need to ‘regulate’ the use of languages institutionally. The need is particularly felt in bilingual universities with a minority language, such as Basque, Catalan, or Galician, whose mission includes both the protection of the minority language and the internationalisation of the institution (RamosGarcía & Pavón Vázquez, 2018). It is thus no wonder that the first universities in Spain with an explicit LP document were those in bilingual regions. Between minority and foreign languages, Spanish enjoys a generally comfortable presence as the majority national language and a popular international language. Therefore, many language policies place emphasis on both minority and foreign languages, especially English. The level of institutional support of EMI has largely depended upon the individual initiative of a university, in the best cases, specific departments or even specific degrees. This has resulted in a high level of diversity of EMI pedagogic interventions among higher education institutions, which the Spanish Rectors’ Conference (CRUE) attempted to address in the white paper Documento Marco de Política Lingüística para la Internacionalización de las Universidades (Bazo et al., 2017). This document can be viwed as the necessary response of the CRUE to a previous white paper published two years earlier by the Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport (2015) titled Estrategia para la Internacionalización de las Universidades Españolas 2015–2020. In this document, two of the four proposed strategic lines of action rely heavily on a university’s language policy to promote multilingualism in order to make up for ‘the lack of knowledge in foreign 205

Josep M. Cots and Guzman Mancho-Barés

languages’ (p. 23; authors’ translation): (i) Adopting an ‘internationalisation at home’ approach by increasing the diversity of languages and cultures in university campuses, and (ii) increasing the international appeal of Spanish universities by introducing ‘more undergraduate and graduate programmes in English and other languages’ (p. 9). The white paper also acknowledges the need for English language training on the part of the different agents in the academic community. After outlining the benefits of a clear institutional language policy, the CRUE white paper (Bazo et al., 2017) recognises two main challenges for the adoption of EMI that Spanish universities need to confront: The low English language competence students, and staff and students and the practical inexistence of a unified system of accreditation. To achieve these goals, the document proposes three main lines of action for universities to design their language policies: Accreditation, training, and incentives. From the point of view of accreditation, the CRUE recommends the adoption of measures to clarify the required levels for teaching staff and students, as well as the mechanism through which these levels must be assessed and certified. The primary attempt to articulate this recommendation has come from the Spanish association of modern language centres in higher education (ACLES, 2020), which holds a fairly widely validated accreditation system mainly for English language at CEFR B1 and B2 levels (CertACLES). The situation, as reflected in the figures provided by a report published by ACLES (Pérez-Guillot, Pulido, Sanmartín, Estella, & Fernández, 2020), is presented in Table 15.1. In a previous study on the foreign language accreditation system and based on a survey of 50 Spanish universities, Halbach and Lázaro (2015) found that 34% required students to show proof of a CEFR B1 level in a foreign language, and 28% required a B2 level. As for EMI teaching staff, 4% of the institutions required a minimum B1 level, 34% B2, and 28% C1; the rest did not require a minimum level. Most universities accepted a variety of certifications including several international private testing agencies (for example, Cambridge, IELTS, TOEFL) as well as those of the Escuelas Oficiales de Idiomas (EOI; ‘Official School of Languages’; authors’ translation), a network of state-funded language schools in Spain, and the ACLES certification. The study concludes with a rather gloomy view of the language-related accreditation system in Spanish higher education, which is characterised by the absence of (i) a unified and reliable quality assurance mechanism in connection with language levels, and (ii) clear language policies both at institutional and at national levels. In a similar study, Macaro, Jiménez-Muñoz, and Lasagabaster (2019) probed language requirements to participate in EMI programmes in the context of a study in EMI certification in Spain. The instructors interviewed in the study claim that the requirements to teach in EMI in state-funded universities ranged from CEFR B2 to C1. At this point, it is important to note that some voices have been raised about the adequacy of a B2 level in EMI teaching (Dimova, 2017).

Table 15.1  Required level of English for students and instructors ACLES (58 universities surveyed) Required level at graduation Required level to teach

• • • • • •

38% require B1 22% require B2 53.5% level included in SET 16% C1 compulsory 31% optional training and certification 12% compulsory training and accreditation

Source: ACLES (2020).

206

English-medium instruction in higher education in Spain

The second line of action proposed in the CRUE white paper (Bazo et al., 2017) is language training. The recommendation in this case is to provide language training for students, academic staff, and administrative staff. In the case of the students, this training has three aims: understand and express academic contents, take part in mobility programmes, and perform adequately in professional situations in multilingual and multicultural contexts. As for teacher training, the recommendation is to place as much emphasis on the linguistic needs of the academic staff as on their didactic needs. From this point of view, the situation reflected in Pérez-Guillot et al.’s (2020) report for ACLES in connection with training at universities is as follows: 80% offer training for students (48% offer partial or full funding); 95% offer funded training for teachers; 65% include language and methodology training; 24% have a quality assurance system for EMI training; and 40% have a reference framework with strategies for EMI quality teaching. Other studies have delved into the kind of content offered in teacher training in EMI. O’Dowd (2018), for instance, reports on a pan-European survey on EMI training and accreditation (n = 79), with a high representation of opinions from Spanish stakeholders (n = 22). The analysis of the content of the training shows that a high number of the courses focus on general communicative skills (77%), whereas less than 30% aim at developing instructors’ academic language. Between 49% and 54% of the courses address methodological issues and offer teaching practice sessions. In another overarching study, Jiménez-Muñoz (2021) discusses the results of a worldwide survey on teacher training in EMI. In the case of Spain, data were gathered from 14 universities (personal communication). The hours allocated to EMI professional development amounted to 57 hours on average, of which barely 6% was dedicated to pedagogical content. Finally, Mancho-Barés and Arnó-Macià (2017) profiled the EMI training offered by the seven public universities in Catalonia and concluded that they focussed basically on ESP-enhanced language modules and, to a clearly lesser extent, on pedagogical content aimed at integrating a focus on language in content instruction. Findings from the three previous studies suggest that the existing training programmes in EMI in Spanish universities pursue the improvement of lecturers’ communicative competence in the classroom, leaving aside pedagogical intricacies of the transition from L1-medium to Englishmedium teaching. The situation reflects that in Spanish universities there is still a very dominant ‘belief […] that language proficiency in itself is sufficient to teach subjects through another language’ (Dafouz, 2018, p. 541), and that EMI training involves not only a change in the language of instruction, but mainly a pedagogical change, for which EMI lecturers seem to be receiving little training (Cots, 2013). Finally, the third line of action proposed in the CRUE white paper (Bazo et al., 2017) is the implementation of an incentive scheme addressed to both students and academic staff. The incentives proposed for the students take the form of (i) funded training and accreditation, (ii) prioritising EMI students, (iii) offering practicums in foreign language professional environments, (iv) credit recognition of language courses in university language institutes, and (v) promoting linguistic exchange activities between local and international students. As for the teaching staff, the proposed measures are (i) funded language training/support and certification by the university, (ii) inclusion of foreign language competence as a merit for hiring and promotion, lower teaching load, and (iii) prioritisation of EMI instructors in mobility and fellowship programmes. The evidence from Pérez-Guillot et al. (2020) in connection with these recommendation is the following: 48% offer funded courses addressed to the academic community; 41% acknowledge a B2 (or higher) level as a hiring merit; and 26% assign a lower teaching load to EMI teachers. To conclude, the Spanish higher education system has a short accumulated experience in the design and implementation of language policies, with universities in bilingual regions as the forerunners of this process. Spanish universities, like the majority of non-English-speaking European 207

Josep M. Cots and Guzman Mancho-Barés

universities, in response to the pressure for internationalisation, have been somehow forced to adopt EMI. However, the main problem of universities is that they lack the necessary human resources for a successful EMI policy: instructors and students with an adequate proficiency in English, and instructors with the proper training and adequate incentives. The low proficiency levels of competence reflect the general low level in foreign language competence of the population, in general, and, more specifically, of secondary school graduates, as shown in the 2021 EF English Proficiency Index,1 which ranks Spain in the 33rd position with only one Western European country occupying a lower position (Italy: position 35). Therefore, the introduction of EMI requires Spanish universities to make an important organisational and economic investment to establish a system of accreditation, training, and incentivisation for which they are yet not ready. As a case in point, we could mention the frustrated efforts of the regional government in Catalonia, which in 2014 passed legislation (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2014) to ensure that all students starting at university in the academic year 2014–2015 would be required to provide evidence of a B2 level in a foreign language upon graduation. Unfortunately, reality can be quite stubborn, and during the academic year 2021–2022, universities in Catalonia finally had to accept that the requirement was unrealistic and decided to waive it.

Beliefs in Spanish EMI The notion of beliefs has an important role within Dafouz and Smit’s (2016) conceptual framework for approaching EMI in higher education from a holistic and theoretically-based perspective. The intrinsic relationship between beliefs and practices is emphasised by the authors by considering them as the two types of discursive practices that constitute the ‘social practice’ of EMI: ‘discursive practices in the classroom’ and ‘views and beliefs teachers have regarding the learning process and how their teaching can best support students’ (Dafouz & Smit, 2016, p. 407). An important issue related to language beliefs or ideologies that cannot be ignored when dealing with the situation of EMI in Spain has been pointed out in research by Cots (2013) and Lasagabaster (2021b), among others. It pertains to the multilingual sociolinguistic profile of Spain, which is acknowledged in the Constitution, and the granting of the capacity of regional governments to legislate on language policies aimed at protecting their regional languages. The multilingual situation of Spain, in which 42% of the population live in officially bilingual autonomous communities, is described very thoroughly by Vila, Lasagabaster, and Ramallo (2017). They refer to four different official languages apart from Spanish (Basque, Catalan, Galician, and Occitan), five bilingual communities (Galicia, Navarre, the Balearic Islands, the Basque Country, and the Valencian Community) and one trilingual community (Catalonia, with Catalan and Spanish as well as Occitan in the Aran Valley). It is this linguistic diversity, mostly located in the Spanish periphery, and the relatively low multilingual sensitivity of the Spanish monolingual geographical and political ‘centre’ that possibly led Lasagabaster (2021b, p. 90) to conclude his study reflecting on one of the main obstacles for EMI in connection with many stakeholders’ beliefs: ‘If minority language speakers consider that their linguistic rights are being protected, this linguistic security will pave the way to positive attitudes towards the learning of other languages and EMI will not be regarded as a Trojan horse’.

Instructors’ beliefs In this section, we explore two types of instructors’ beliefs: Those related to their professional identity, including the reasons for investing in EMI and the possible emerging tensions arising from the use of languages other than English, and those pertaining to the environment in which 208

English-medium instruction in higher education in Spain

instructors develop their activities, including the students and the institution. From the point of view of their professional identity, a very general belief that emerges from several studies on Spanish EMI teacher’s beliefs (Aguilar, 2017; Lasagabaster, 2017; Macaro et al., 2019) is the dissociation that instructors make between teaching content and teaching language. They often perceive their role as circumscribed to their disciplinary identity, preventing them from specialising in a field such as linguistics and language teaching, which they consider outside their expertise because they view themselves as ‘an imperfect English user’ (Block, 2020, p. 11). This is justified primarily considering their self-perceived less-than-ideal proficiency in English and limited understanding of the functioning of language. However, the instructors presented this same reason as their main motivation for engaging with EMI teaching, as they see it as an opportunity to improve their language skills and perhaps their chances for academic promotion (Aguilar, 2017; Arnó-Macià & Mancho-Barés, 2015). The general reluctance of EMI instructors to incorporate language issues into their teaching is compounded by a limited awareness of the methodological and curricular changes that EMI entails. On this issue, it is relevant to consider that in the study conducted by Contero, Zayas, and Arco Tirado (2018) with 138 instructors from six public universities in Andalusia, 85% stated that they were satisfied or very satisfied with their teaching. In this same study, lecturers appeared to be aware of the challenges arsing from the low language proficiency level of the students. However, as in the case of the instructors in the study by Mancho-Barés and Aguilar-Pérez (2016) in Catalonia, they admit that it is not their responsibility to address them. The general satisfaction of EMI instructors with their teaching is also found in a study by Alfaro-Tanco, Roothooft, and Breeze (2020, p. 539) with 20 EMI instructors teaching an Operations Management (OM) subject in 13 Spanish universities. As the authors point out, ‘teaching in English was a natural choice for OM, given that the bibliography, terminology and resources are dominated by sources in English’. As with the two previous studies, 30% of the instructors surveyed felt that despite having overcome the initial concern they had about their language proficiency, it was challenging for them to provide feedback on language use. Furthermore, 80% tried to follow an English-only policy in their classes and they considered the use of Spanish as the least favoured scaffolding technique to facilitate students’ content understanding. A similar point of view in connection with the appropriacy of L1 use was found in Breeze and Roothooft’s study (2021, p. 208) of 60 EMI lecturers from five universities in northern Spain and representing both Science (37) and Humanities (23) disciplines. The results of the study depict that, independently of the academic field, ‘a large proportion of university EMI teachers in Spain adhere to the belief that L1 use is inappropriate in their context’, and therefore, they do not consider it as a possible scaffolding technique. In this line, del Campo (2020), in her auto-­ethnographic study, presents herself as an only-English EMI instructor in her classes as well as in informal or after-class meetings, discouraging any use of L1. In another study, Curry and Pérez-Paredes (2021) interviewed a content instructor who showed resistance towards translation, translanguaging, and language-focussed episodes on the grounds that there was a dire need to continually provide students with opportunities to use (disciplinary) English meaningfully, and that translation strategies led to meaningful losses. The belief of some instructors about the inappropriacy of the L1 in EMI is rather paradoxical given that, as we have mentioned earlier, they generally perceive that their English proficiency is limited, which creates in them the impression of unnaturalness in the development of their task. The second perspective through which we analyse instructors’ beliefs centres on their views regarding how the environment contributes to the development of their teaching. Here, we include mainly their beliefs about the students and the institution. Different studies have pointed out that 209

Josep M. Cots and Guzman Mancho-Barés

EMI instructors’ show a strong motivation to benefit the university by contributing to the process of internationalisation (Banks, 2018; Contero et al., 2018; Lasagabaster, 2017). It is probably connected to this belief that they perceive that the institution does very little to acknowledge their effort and support them with measures such as reduced teaching loads or the recognition of this effort as a merit for promotion. In this context, Arnó-Macià and Mancho-Barés’ (2015) analysis of a focus-group session with EMI instructors at a university in Catalonia reveals that, despite the university’s claim that it is an important aspect of the institutional language policy, EMI/CLIL receives little support in terms of specific institutional measures or ‘incentives’. Instructors’ views of the students exhibit an interesting contrast between Contero et al. (2018, p. 134) and Lasagabaster (2017, p. 14) in connection with their perception of the students’ motivation. Thus, in the first study, ‘a high percentage of respondents did not feel that their students were sufficiently motivated and engaged in the learning process’. Conversely, the instructors in the second study considered that ‘EMI students are usually more motivated’. The possible explanation for this apparent contradiction can be found in Lasagabaster’s clarification that the vast majority of EMI instructors who participated in the study were teaching optional subjects and the groups were smaller. In addition to these contradictory opinions, there is a wealth of publications focussing on students’ English language proficiency level, the instructors’ need to adapt their pedagogy, the students preparedness to enrol in EMI, and the effects on the students’ own learning process. For example, del Campo’s (2020, p. 170) reflection about her nine-year experience as an EMI instructor shows that, despite the requirement for students in her EMI course to provide evidence of a CEFR B2 level or higher, the ‘greatest challenge’ for her was the mixed English proficiency of the students, which compelled her to ‘change the pedagogy to prevent those students from falling behind’. A very similar point of view emerged in a focus group with four physics EMI instructors that participated in Dafouz’s (2021, p. 149) study; despite the students’ certified CEFR B2 level, the four instructors agreed that ‘students’ mixed ability made teaching more complex’. The difficulties experienced by instructors in teaching students with a ‘(very) low command of English’ (Doiz, Lasagabaster, & Sierra, 2013, p. 89) is consistent with the opinion of administration staff, teaching staff, and the same students in the University of the Basque Country, who asserted that local students were not prepared to be taught in a foreign language (Doiz, Lasagabaster, & Sierra, 2014). Data from other Spanish universities further confirm the pervasive student low proficiency level in English and the unfortunate effects on their learning process. Cots (2013) reports that, from a sample of 244 students from Education, Engineering, Law, and Economy at the University of Lleida, only 8% reached the CEFR B2 level in a placement test. Ortiz, Morell, and FabregatCabrera (2018) for the University of Alicante, and Navarro-Guzmán, Romero-Alfaro, MenachoJiménez, and Aragón-Mendizábal (2021) for the University of Cádiz also report that the average of those students having a B1 level or lower outnumber those having a B1 level or higher. The range of proficiency levels is reported to reach the A2 level in Jiménez-Muñoz’s (2016) study in the degree in Economics at the University of Oviedo. As a result of this low proficiency levels, students are presented as struggling to follow lectures and participate in teamwork in the data of Méndez Santos (2020) at the University of Alicante, of Moratinos-Johnston, Juan-Garau and Salazar-Noguera (2018) at the University of the Balearic Islands, and of Salaberri-Ramiro and Sánchez-Pérez (2018) at the University of Almeria. Students also experience anxiety and are unwilling to lose face, as found in a study conducted at the Autonomous University of Barcelona (Andjekov, 2022). Jiménez Muñoz (2016, p. 116) concludes that ‘the complexity of the ESP/EAP micro-skills required for EMI modules is beyond the linguistic ability of most students’ attending EMI courses at the University of Oviedo.

210

English-medium instruction in higher education in Spain

However, a new line of inquiry on the proficiency level of English of EMI students seems to emerge. Rubio-Cuenca and Perea-Barberá (2021) examined the proficiency level of English of students taking a full EMI programme vis-à-vis those taking elective EMI subjects. Their findings indicate a clear difference in proficiency, with those students taking EMI programmes reported having a higher level of English than those taking EMI subjects. Similarly, based on EMI instructors’ interviews, Nieto Moreno de Diezmas and Fernández Barrera (2021) claim that students participating in bilingual programmes had mostly problems derived from content knowledge, and not language proficiency. To conclude, lecturers from two universities located in distant regions of the Spanish geography believe that the disparity of students’ language levels in EMI is ‘levelling out as a result of student participation in bilingual programs in secondary schools’ (Doiz, Lasagabaster, & Pavón, 2019, p. 159), and, as a consequence, students do not approach EMI as a burden, as English is already integrated into students’ private lives (Doiz & Lasagabaster, 2018; Lasagabaster, 2021b). It is likely that this line of inquiry will receive further attention in the near future given the growing number of students enrolled in bilingual programmes in primary and secondary education, who pursue their tertiary education through English.

Students’ beliefs From the perspective of the students’ motivation to enrol in EMI subjects or programmes, the main reason that emerges from various studies is the improvement of their English skills, which they perceive as an affordance for more and better professional opportunities. This can be seen in Mendez Santos’ study (2020), wherein another of the outstanding reasons for students to enrol in EMI is to obtain a foreign language accreditation upon graduation. In another study on student motivation administered at the University of the Basque Country, students also concurred in considering EMI as a gateway to increasing their professional opportunities (González Ardeo, 2016). As observed in the studies by Aguilar and Rodríguez (2012), in Catalonia, and Salaberri-­ Ramiro and Sánchez-Pérez (2018), in Andalusia, a vast majority of the students consider EMI as a positive experience, affording them the opportunity to improve their English, especially from the point of view of specialised “vocabulary, and” speaking and listening skills. The same opinion was expressed by the students in Lasagabaster’s (2017) data from the University of the Basque Country; the students’ view was that EMI subjects helped them improve, particularly, their oral skills and, furthermore, it had no negative effect on content learning. However, in the same paper, Lasagabaster refers to the findings in other studies in which he participated (Doíz et al., 2013, 2014), that indicated that ‘students were more reluctant than administration personnel and teachers to accept compulsory EMI’, especially those with Basque as their L1, ‘who were much more concerned about the alleged negative impact of English on Basque’ (Lasagabaster, 2021b, p. 84). Based on data collected from students themselves, their main linguistic challenges are related with EMI demands in specialised writing and participating in formal discussions in class (FortanetGómez, 2013; Ortiz et al., 2018). Note-taking during lectures was also deemed challenging, resulting from students’ low proficiency level, high lecturing speed of delivery, or a lack of knowledge of terminology, among other reasons (Breeze, 2014; Moratinos-Johnson et al., 2018). Additionally, Doiz et al. (2019) asked students from Spain and Italy about their language difficulties in EMI. Centreing on the Spanish cohort, reading specialised texts was ranked as the main language difficulty in EMI, followed by oral production skills, although such a view may be discipline-based. Students enrolled at another university also deemed specialised reading to be difficult, unlike those students enrolled in full EMI programmes (Rubio-Cuenca & Perea-Barberá, 2021). To conclude, linguisticbased difficulties are also worth considering, in this case reported by instructors. Lasagabaster 211

Josep M. Cots and Guzman Mancho-Barés

and Doiz (2018) examined linguistic errors produced by EMI students in home-written assignments. Grammar errors stand out as the most frequent errors produced by students, being followed (at some distance) by vocabulary misuse. In a similar vein, instructors rank vocabulary and grammar as EMI students’ main language challenges in the study by Mancho-Barés and Aguilar-Pérez (2020), perhaps, in line with the low-to-intermediate proficiency level of the students. Despite their motivation to implement EMI for the benefits it offers in terms of internationalisation of universities, instructors hold some complacent opinions on EMI. This is because, as it stands, teaching through English is interpreted as just a change in the language of instruction rather than a pedagogical shift. However, concerns may raise as to the degree to which instructors’ English proficiency level is suitable for EMI. What we have seen so far (see Table 15.1) is that just 16% of universities require a CEFR C1 proficiency level of English. Against the background of students being highly motivated to enrol in EMI, but being reported (or self-reporting) as having low levels of English, it comes as no surprise that instructors refuse to assume the responsibility of providing linguistic support to increasingly pervasive mixed-level classes, above all because their lack of language-aware teaching skills. From a more optimistic perspective, Moratinos-Johnston et al. (2018) found a correlation between self-perceived proficiency English level and linguistic confidence, wherein students’ linguistic confidence and self-perceived proficiency in English rose after having taken more than two EMI subjects. At another level, Aguilar and Muñoz (2014) and Ament and Pérez Vidal (2015) found that low-proficient level students and those taking half of their degree in English showed more significant language gains than those students having an intermediate level or completing an entire degree in English. These findings are of high importance due to their pedagogical implications, especially for students, as there is room for improvement to enhance the English proficiency level, especially for those with lower English proficiency, and taking more than one EMI subject.

EMI teaching practices In this section, we review research reporting on different teaching practices and assessment methods connected with the implementation of EMI in Spanish universities. We also discuss the role of instructors in providing language support for the development of the students’ disciplinary literacy. EMI teaching practices have been researched with a wide variety of methods, falling mostly into the qualitative research paradigm. Qualitative studies have gathered data by means of classroom observation methods (Cots, 2013; Cots & Clemente, 2011; Moore, 2014; Moore & Dooly, 2010), interviews (Arnó-Macià & Aguilar-Pérez, 2021; Curry & Pérez-Paredes, 2021), auto-ethnographies (Bellés-Fortuño, 2021), and the analysis of learning materials and student written assignments (Ball & Lindsay, 2013; Dafouz, Camacho, & Urquía, 2014; Mancho-Barés & Aguilar-Pérez, 2020). Mixed-methods research is also evident in the studies by Jiménez Muñoz (2016) and Aguilar-Pérez and Arnó-Macià (2020). Arguably, what these studies have in common is that they document a pedagogical process facilitated by the introduction of EMI in Spanish universities. This process involves a shift from a teacher-centred transmissive pedagogical model to active learning methodologies, including new models of assessment and of teacher interdisciplinary collaboration. Therefore, one could say that EMI has acted as a booster for teaching innovation in a university system still dogged by a tradition of teacher-centred pedagogy, lack of student engagement and passive classroom learning (Contero, 2017; Macaro et al., 2019). It is for this reason that it is possible to say that EMI teaching practices and the research that is based on them share the common denominator of being a catalyst of change and reappraisal of higher education, not only in Spain but also worldwide. 212

English-medium instruction in higher education in Spain

Studies examining EMI practices in Spain focus on various methodological underpinnings, such as task-based learning, interactive lecturing, or mobilising participants’ plurilingual resources. This is exemplified by one of the two content instructors in Curry and Pérez-Paredes’ study (2021), an EMI-experienced education instructor who emphasises the socialisation of learning and knowledge co-construction as the core of the learning experience, and who self-reports that ‘[her] teaching is based on task-based learning, and they [students] are all the time working together’. In contrast, the studies by Aguilar-Pérez and Arnó-Macià (2020) and Arnó-Macià and Aguilar-Pérez (2021) showcase an instructor with a certified CEFR C1 English level teaching parallel courses at a Master’s level in L1 and in English without any methodological change in his teaching style. In fact, his teaching strategies remianed consistent in both languages and were considered effective (according to students’ opinions). This effectiveness was attributed to his highly organised lessons, clear explanations and examples, and his personal attitude described as ‘affable, empathetic and willing to help them [students] understand [the explanations]’ (AguilarPérez & Arnó-Macià, 2020, p. 163). In other words, EMI students’ satisfaction was based on the instructor’s successful teaching style. The role played by students’ plurilingual resources used in task-based learning has been analysed by Moore and Dooly (2010) and Moore (2014). The former study describes a task-based learning activity implemented with pre-service primary teachers in EMI Science Education students. After a lecture, students joined in groups to generate questions on apple reproduction to be posed to an imagined audience of primary-school pupils. In other words, students were expected to produce science-teacher discourse in English. Moore and Dooly (2010) illustrate how students drew on their plurilingual resources, Catalan, Spanish, and English, to negotiate meaning and construct knowledge in connection with fruit-tree reproduction. Moore (2014), in turn, also examines critical instances of student teamwork in an Educational Psychology course and reflects on the benefits of using students’ plurilingual resources in preparation for a monolingual final output. Students, while debating in English, engaged in paraphrasing, and looked for synonyms in English. However, they also resorted to Catalan and Spanish (albeit in an apologetic tone due to the presence of non-Catalan international students in the team) to negotiate meaning about specific disciplinary concepts. Moore and Dooly (2010) and Moore (2014) provide evidence of the usefulness of using plurilingual resources to tackle an unsolved linguistic or conceptual problem, and to scaffold an efficient accomplishment of tasks in English. Using just English during teamwork would surely have hindered students’ success in the task and, most importantly, would have prevented students from co-constructing knowledge and from learning the language of the communities of science educators and of psychologists. Implementing a plurilingual methodology in EMI classes comes with a caveat, though, when international students (especially, non-L1 users) are enrolled in the subject. For instance, Salaberri-Ramiro and Sánchez-Pérez (2018, p. 68) report the following opinion of an international student who took an EMI subject: ‘a course theoretically taught in English but the lecturer and the students decided to speak Spanish on occasions. I was lost although Spanish students were satisfied. I was just looking at their faces without understanding’. Resulting from the Bologna reform of university degrees, assessment systems have also been also reappraised in EMI teaching practices to the extent that a continuous assessment system has generally replaced a one-off exam system. By way of example, Ball and Lindsay (2013) outline the assessment system of three courses, one of which (Economics) consists of only one-off assessment in a multiple test format, whereas the other two courses (Marketing and Chemistry) have the final grade split up among exams, presentations, and case studies. Andjekov (2022) 213

Josep M. Cots and Guzman Mancho-Barés

also showcases assessment practices of a pedagogy instructor who prefers open-question exams to multiple-choice exams because of the higher-order skills they require such as critical thinking. Block and Mancho-Barés (2021) also document the use of rubrics as an assessment tool of oral presentations in STEM subjects; these rubrics contained language-derived criteria, based on which feedback was given after the oral presentations. Nonetheless, the transition of assessment methods to a continuous assessment system encounters stumbling blocks as reported by Jiménez Muñoz (2016). Based on interviews and a qualitative questionnaire, a high proportion of EMI students believe that conceptual knowledge has more weight than practical tasks in the final exams, which reflects a pedagogic style in which the assessment of declarative knowledge, derived from theory-oriented class sessions, is still prevalent instead of competency-driven or procedural assessment. Beside the reappraisal of teaching and assessment practices, it is worth looking at the growing number of EMI-focussed research reporting on and problematising new pedagogic models embracing team/tandem teaching (Cots, 2013; Cots & Clemente, 2011; Hernández-Nanclares & Jiménez-Munoz, 2015; Lasagabaster, 2018, 2021a). In this case, the implementation of EMI can also be seen as a booster of innovative team-teaching experiences in the Spanish university system. As a way of example, Bellés-Fortuño (2021) describes an institutionally-endorsed credit-bearing tandem-teaching experience between a content expert (CE) and an ESP expert in two subjects within Computer Engineering. While the CE’s main teaching task is interactive lecturing, the ESP specialist oversees the lecturers’ materials to meet the students’ proficiency level, provides guidelines and resources for students to prepare oral presentations, and, above all, is responsible for grading students’ oral presentations in both subjects for the linguistic dimensions. By and large, the study reports a tandem-teaching experience with clear support for students to learn content knowledge in Computer Engineering, and most importantly, the language of the discipline in an integrated way. These team-teaching experiences are notable in the context of Spanish university tradition characterised by lack of interdisciplinarity (Fortanet-Gómez, 2011; Lasagabaster, 2018). One relevant element shared by these types of pedagogic initiatives is the presence, either on-the-spot or behind-the-scenes, of language specialists acquainted with the complexity of EMI. These specialists not only guide EMI lecturers in the methodological disciplinary language-driven shift but also assists students’ development of their academic and disciplinary literacy. A question that arises is the degree and nature to which content instructors do also provide such support in solo teaching, despite having claimed that it is not part of their remit. Studies have documented the provision of unprincipled and implicit language support to learn disciplinary content knowledge (Dafouz, 2021; Mancho-Barés & Aguilar Perez, 2020). Language support, we believe, can take different shapes as evidenced in classroom discourse, from languagerelated episodes to translation episodes, among others. Language-related episodes (LRE) in EMI lectures were the focus of analysis in Doiz and Lasagabaster’s (2021) study. The authors found that most of the LREs in lectures of three subjects were pre-emptive, teacher-initiated, vocabularyfocussed, and English-mediated. They also came across instances of code-switching and translation. The results are somewhat different from those found by Arnó-Macià and Mancho-Barés (2015), who found mainly teacher reactive LREs based on communication breakdowns initiated by students and originated on students’ low proficiency level of English. Moncada-Comas and Block (2019), in another study based on EMI classroom observation, noticed both solicited and unsolicited translation from English into students’ L1s of terminology as well as everyday vocabulary. According to instructors in the study, L1 translation pursues conceptualising and comprehending factual knowledge as well as maintaining students’ attention. It seems, therefore, that the use of 214

English-medium instruction in higher education in Spain

the students’ L1 in the teaching process is regarded as an effective language scaffolding strategy in plurilingual educational settings, as in the case of EMI in Spain (Mazak & Carroll, 2016). To sum up, it is evident that, despite the initial impulse from the Bologna process to adopt the notion of competence as the backbone of degree programmes, EMI is actually driving a broader shift away from the traditional knowledge-based, teacher-fronted, non-participatory teaching and assessment practices in Spanish universities. EMI has introduced new forms of instruction, such as task-based learning and teamwork, and new assessment methods that also factor in practical tasks. By and large, the cases reported in this stand reflect competence-based models of learning and assessment. Despite the urge to implement student-centred learning-by-doing methodologies and to assess learning objectives in consonance in the L1-medium Bologna-derived degrees (Fonseca & Aguaded, 2007), the L1-medium Bologna-derived degrees have not succeeded to change the dominant teaching tradition in Spain. So, it seems that EMI, by being implemented with active learning methodologies, takes the challenge of helping students attain a high level of autonomy in disciplinary knowledge and skills. Moreover, by giving language support to students (albeit ­unsystematically), instructors can enhance students’ development of disciplinary literacy and provide them with the discursive tools to become part of a professional community of practice (Malmström & Pecorari, 2021; Wingate, 2015).

Conclusion In this chapter, we have reviewed the main aspects of the research on EMI in Spanish universities during the period between 2012 and 2022. The review has been approached by considering the three components of a language policy proposed by Spolsky (2004): Intervention, beliefs, and practices. The chapter builds on the untapped venues of previous studies aiming and providing, to a greater or a lesser extent, an overview of EMI in Spain such as Lasagabaster (2017, 2021b), Macaro et al. (2019), and Alfaro-Tanco et al. (2020). It further problematises different issues derived from the implementation of EMI in Spanish higher education, such as the multilingual profile of the Spanish state, the English proficiency level of students (and the population, in general), the traditional teaching approach in Spanish higher education, or the professional issues confronted by instructors. In an academic context of budgetary restrictions and the urgent need to provide language support to students, universities should welcome sustainable EMI initiatives, such as interdisciplinary teamteaching (Lasagabaster, 2018), and adjunct instruction complementing EMI courses with ESP/EAP modules (Roquet, Vraciu, & Nicolás-Conesa, 2022; Schmidt-Unterberger, 2018). One possible way of integrating EMI and ESP/EAP is through the use of genre-aware pedagogy. This approach leverages the concept of genre to enable practitioners (EMI instructors, ESP/EAP specialist, and students alike) to view disciplinary language as a meaning-making tool to teach and learn disciplinary knowledge. A genre approach not only facilitates the teaching and learning of the disciplinary knowledge but also helps individuals understand how the discipline effectively communicates such knowledge. As it is likely that EMI in higher education will be mushrooming in the next few years, it would be important for research on Spanish EMI to make a special effort to describe carefully the specific contextual variables of the EMI experience being studied and gauge their impact. In this way, we will not only be able to better understand the diversity of agents and environments within the same educational system, but we will also open a venue for the replicating EMI experiences and analysing them on a comparative basis. Among the different contextual variables that need to be addressed in more precise terms in future studies, we see the following: Whether EMI refers to a whole programme taught through English or just one (or more) isolated subjects; the linguistic profile of students especially in terms of their CLIL/EMI experiences in secondary education; the 215

Josep M. Cots and Guzman Mancho-Barés

existence of obligatory/optional language support modules for students and the alignment of these with the EMI subjects; and the implementation of screening measures for students to enrol in EMI programmes or subjects. The important curricular role of ESP and EAP subjects in Spanish higher education in the last 30 years, including hundreds of highly experienced language-teaching specialists, is an aspect that cannot be ignored. More often than not, the implementation EMI has been wielded as an excuse for dropping EAP/ESP subjects from the curriculum, on the grounds that the development of students’ proficiency in English is guaranteed with EMI subjects. Unfortunately, many Spanish universities have not taken into consideration the accumulated expertise in ESP/EAP for the design and implementation of EMI. However, if we accept that education is a collaborative entreprise rather than an individual one, and that EMI underscores the importance of students’ communicative competence in constructing knowledge, it becomes obvious that the collaboration of language-teaching specialists can only contribute to facilitating the students’ process of knowledge construction and to facing the important social issue of students’ accessibility to higher education in a foreign language.

Acknowledgements This study was possible thanks to the funding from the Ministry of Science and Innovation of Spain (projects PID2019-104333GB-I00 and PID2019-107451GB-I00) and from the Agency for Management of University and Research Grants of Catalonia (project 2017-SGR-1522).

Note 1 https://www.ef.com/wwen/epi/.

References ACLES. (2020). Retrieved from https://www.acles.es/en/ Aguilar, M. (2017). Engineering lecturers’ views on CLIL and EMI. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20, 722–735. Aguilar, M., & Muñoz, C. (2014). The effect of proficiency on CLIL benefits in engineering students in Spain. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24, 1–18. Aguilar, M., & Rodríguez, R. (2012). Lecturer and student perceptions on CLIL at a Spanish university. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15, 183–197. Aguilar Pérez, M., & Arnó Macià, E. (2002). Metadiscourse in lecture comprehension: Does it really help foreign language learners? Atlantis, XXIV(2), 3–21. Aguilar-Pérez, M., & Arnó-Macià, E. (2020). “He’s a good lecturer in any language”: Shifting from L1 to English and implications for EMI training. In M. M. Sánchez-Pérez (Ed.), Teacher training for English-medium instruction in higher education (pp. 153–178). IGI Global. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-2318-6.ch008. Alfaro-Tanco, J. A., Roothooft, H., & Breeze, R. (2020). Transitioning to English medium instruction in operations management courses taught on Spanish business degrees: Perceptions and diagnosis. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 13(3), 529–545. Ament, J. R., & Pérez Vidal, C. (2015). Linguistic outcomes of English medium instruction programmes in higher education: A study on economics undergraduates at a Catalan university. Higher Learning Research Communications, 5(1), 47–68. Andjekov, S. (2022). English medium instruction (EMI) in a Spanish university: Does integration ever happen? CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 5(1), 23–40. Arnó-Macià, E., & Aguilar-Pérez, M. (2021). Language issues in EMI: When lecturers and students can choose the language of instruction. In D. Block & S. Khan (Eds.), The secret life of English-medium instruction in higher education (pp. 96–119). Routledge.

216

English-medium instruction in higher education in Spain Arnó-Macià, E., & Mancho-Barés, G. (2015). The role of content and language in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at university: Challenges and implications for ESP. English for Specific Purposes, 37, 63–73. Ball, P., & Lindsay, D. (2013). Language demands and support for English-medium instruction in tertiary education: Learning from a specific context. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster, & J. M Sierra (Eds.), Englishmedium instruction at universities: Global challenges (pp. 44–61). Multilingual Matters. Banks, M. (2018). Exploring EMI lecturers’ attitudes and needs. In A. Curado (Ed.), LSP in multi-disciplinary contexts of teaching and research. Papers from the 16th International AELFE Conference, 3, 19–26. Bazo, P., Centellas, A., Dafouz, E., Fernández, A., González, D., & Pavón Vázquez, V. (2017). Documento Marco de Política Lingüística para la Internacionalización del Sistema Universitario Español. CRUE. Bellés-Fortuño, B. (2021). CLIL assessment: Accommodating the curricular design in HE. In M. L. CarrióPastor & B. Bellés-Fortuño (Eds.), Teaching language and content in multicultural and multilingual classrooms (pp. 293–314). Palgrave Macmillan. Block, D. (2020). Emergent STEM lecturer identities: The shaping effects of EMI in action in an internationalised and Englishised HE context. Language Teaching, 54, 388–406. Block. D., & Mancho-Barés, G. (2021). NOT English teachers, except they are: The curious case of oral presentation evaluation rubrics in an EMI-in-HE context. In D. Block & S. Khan (Eds.), The secret life of English-medium instruction in higher education (pp. 96–119). Routledge. Breeze, R. (2014). Identifying student needs in English-medium university courses. In R. Breeze, C. Llamas Saíz, C. Martínez Pasamar, & C. Tabernero Sala (Eds.), Integration of theory and practice in CLIL (pp. 143–159). Rodopi. Breeze, R., & Roothooft, H. (2021) Using the L1 in university-level EMI: Attitudes among lecturers in Spain. Language Awareness, 30, 195–215. Contero, C. (2017). Técnicas didácticas y metodológicas para el perfeccionamiento de la gestión del aprendizaje del profesor AICLE en la enseñanza superior (PhD thesis). University of Cadiz, Spain. Contero, C., Zayas, F., & Arco Tirado, J. L. (2018). Addressing CLIL lecturers’ needs: Reflections on specific methodological training. Porta Linguarum Monográfico, III, 121–135. Cots, J. M. (2013). Introducing English-medium instruction at the University of Lleida, Spain: Intervention, beliefs and practices. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster, & J. M. Sierra (Eds.), English-medium instruction at universities: Global challenges (pp. 106–128). Multilingual Matters. Cots, J. M., & Clemente, M. (2011). Tandem teaching in CLIL for tertiary education. In C. Escobar & L. Nussbaum (Eds.), Aprendre en una altra llengua/Learning through another language/Aprender en otra Lengua (pp. 165–184). UAB. Curry, N., & Pérez-Paredes, P. (2021). Understanding lecturers’ practices and processes: A qualitative investigation of English-medium education in a Spanish multilingual university. In M. L. Carrió-Pastor & B. Bellés-Fortuño (Eds.), Teaching language and content in multicultural and multilingual classrooms (pp. 123–156). Palgrave Macmillan. Dafouz, E. (2018). English-medium instruction and teacher education programmes in higher education: Ideological forces and imagined identities at work. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21, 540–552. Dafouz, E. (2021). ‘So, after a week, I became a teacher of English’: Physics lecturers’ beliefs on the integration of content and language in English-medium higher education. In K. R. Talbot, M.-T. Gruber, & R. Nishida (Eds.), The psychological experience of integrating content and language (pp. 133–152). Multilingual Matters. Dafouz, E., Camacho, M., & Urquía, E. (2014). ‘Surely they can’t do as well’: A comparison of business students’ academic performance in English-medium and Spanish-as-first-language-medium programmes. Language and Education, 28, 223–236. Dafouz, E., Núñez, B., & Sancho, C. (2007). Analysing stance in a CLIL university context: Non-native speaker use of personal pronouns and modal verbs. International Journal of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education, 10, 647–662. Dafouz, E., & Smit, U. (2016). Towards a dynamic conceptual framework for English-medium education in multilingual university settings. Applied Linguistics, 37, 397–415. Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 95–113.

217

Josep M. Cots and Guzman Mancho-Barés Dafouz Milne, E., & Llinares García, A. (2008). The role of repetition in CLIL teacher discourse: A comparative study at secondary and tertiary levels. International CLIL Research Journal, 1, 50–59. del Campo, C. (2020). English medium instruction through the lens of a content teacher: Challenges, adjustments, and opportunities. In S. Dimova & J. Kling (Eds.), Integrating content and language in multilingual universities (pp. 167–177). Springer. Dimova, S. (2017). Life after oral English certification: The consequences of the Test of Oral English Proficiency for Academic Staff for EMI lecturers. English for Specific Purposes, 46, 45–58. Doiz, A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2018). Teachers’ and students’ second language motivational self system in English-medium instruction: A qualitative approach. TESOL Quarterly, 52, 657–679. Doiz, A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2021). Analysing EMI teachers’ and students’ talk about language and language use. In D. Lasagabaster & A. Doiz (Eds.), Language use in English-medium instruction at university (pp. 34–55). Routledge. Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Pavón, V. (2019). The interaction between language and content in Englishmedium instruction courses: Lecturers’ beliefs and practices. Ibérica, 38, 151–175. Doíz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2013). English as L3 at a bilingual university in the Basque Country, Spain. In A. Doíz, D. Lasagabaster, & J. M. Sierra (Eds.), English-medium instruction at universities: Global challenges (pp. 84–105). Multilingual Matters. Doíz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2014) Language friction and multilingual policies at higher education: The stakeholders’ view. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35, 345–360. Fonseca, M. C., & Aguaded, J. I. (Eds.). (2007). Enseñar en la Universidad: Experiencias y Propuestas de Docencia Universitaria. Netbiblio. Fortanet-Gómez, I. (2010). Training CLIL teachers at university level. In D. Lasagabaster & Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training (pp. 257–276). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Fortanet-Gómez, I. (2011). Critical components of integrating content and language in Spanish higher education. Across the Disciplines: A Journal of Language, Learning and Academic Writing, 8, 1–16. Fortanet-Gómez, I. (2013). CLIL in higher education: Towards a multilingual language policy. Multilingual Matters. Generalitat de Catalunya. (2014). Llei 2/2014, de 27 de gener, de mesures fiscals, administratives, financeres i del sector públic; article 211. Retrieved from https://portaljuridic.gencat.cat/ca/ document-del-pjur/?documentId=653535 González Ardeo, J. M. (2016). Engineering students’ instrumental motivation and positive attitude towards learning English in a trilingual tertiary setting. Ibérica, 32, 179–200. Halbach, A., & Lázaro, A. (2015). La acreditación del nivel de lengua inglesa en las universidades españolas: Actualización 2015. British Council. Hernández-Nanclares, N., & Jiménez-Muñoz, A. (2015). English as a medium of instruction: Evidence for language and content targets in bilingual education in economics. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20, 883–896. Jimenez Muñoz, A. (2016). Content and language: The impact of pedagogical designs on academic performance within tertiary English as a medium of instruction. Porta Linguarum. Monograph, 1, 111–125. Jiménez-Muñoz, A. (2021). ‘It wasn’t my fault’: Lectures’ notes to former selves after five years of EMI service. In K. Read Talbot, M.-T. Gruber, & R. Nishida (Eds.), The psychological experience of integrating content and language (pp. 174–194). Multilingual Matters. Julián-De-Vega, C., & Ávila-López, J. (2018). Políticas lingüísticas europeas y españolas: El camino hacia el cambio en la educación terciaria. Porta Linguarum, Special issue, III, 17–30. Lasagabaster, D. (2017). The impact of the spread of English-medium instruction on Spanish universities. Language Teaching, 52, 231–248. Lasagabaster, D. (2018). Fostering team teaching: Mapping out a research agenda for English-medium instruction at university level. Language Teaching, 51, 400–416. Lasagabaster, D. (2021a). Team teaching: A way to boost the quality of EMI programmes? In F. RubioAlcalá & D. Coyle (Eds.), Developing and evaluating quality bilingual practices in higher education (pp. 163–180). Multilingual Matters. Lasagabaster, D. (2021b). EMI in Spain: Striving to maintain a multilingual balance. In R. Wilkinson & R. Gabriëls (Eds.), The Englishization of higher education in Europe (pp. 77–95). Amsterdam University Press.

218

English-medium instruction in higher education in Spain Lasagabaster, D., & Doiz, A. (2018). Language errors in an English-medium instruction university setting: How do language versus content teachers tackle them? Porta Linguarum, 30, 131–148. Macaro, E., Jiménez-Muñoz, A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2019). The importance of certification of English medium instruction teachers in higher education in Spain. Porta Linguarum, 32, 103–118. Malmström, H., & Pecorari, D. (2021). Disciplinary literacies and nexus for content and language teacher practice. In D. Lasagabaster & A. Doiz (Eds.), Language use in English-medium instruction at university (pp. 213–221). Routledge. Mancho-Barés, G., & Aguilar-Pérez, M. (2016). Problematizing on language learning issues in EMI: Opinions of Science and Technology EMI lecturers. In R. Breeze (Ed.), CLIL+Science: New directions in content and language integrated learning in science and technology (pp. 110–113). Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Navarra. Mancho-Barés, G., & Aguilar-Pérez, M. (2020). EMI lecturers’ practices in correcting English: Resources for language teaching? Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 8, 257–284. Mancho-Barés, G., & Arnó-Macià, E. (2017). EMI lecturer training programmes and academic literacies: A critical insight from ESP. ESP Today, 5, 266–290. Mazak, C. M., & Carroll, K. S. (Eds.). (2016). Translanguaging in higher education: Beyond monolingual ideologies. Multilingual Matters. Méndez Santos, M. C. (2020). Aproximación a la amotivación y la desmotivación en el aprendizaje de contenidos a través del inglés como medio de instrucción (EMI) en la Enseñanza Superior en una universidad española. Hesperia. Anuario de filología hispánica, XXIII(1), 95–123. Moncada-Comas, B., & Block, D. (2019). CLIL-ised EMI in practice: Issues arising. The Language Learning Journal, 49, 686–698. Moore, E. (2014). Constructing content and language knowledge in plurilingual student teamwork: Situated and longitudinal perspectives. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 17, 586–609. Moore, E., & Dooly, M. (2010). “How do the apples reproduce (themselves)?” How teacher trainees negotiate language, content, and membership in a CLIL education classroom at a multilingual university. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 9, 58–79. Moratinos-Johnston, S., Juan-Garau, M., & Salazar-Noguera, J. (2018). The effects of English-medium instruction in higher education on students’ perceived level and self-confidence in ELF. In C. Pérez-Vidal, S. López-Serrano, J. Ament, & D. J. Thomas-Wilhelm (Eds.), Learning context effects: Study abroad, formal instruction and international immersion classrooms (pp. 75–99). Language Science Press. Navarro-Guzmán, J. I., Romero-Alfaro, E., Menacho-Jiménez, I., & Aragón-Mendizábal, E. (2021). Teaching psychology at university using the content and language integrated learning (CLIL) approach. Porta Linguarum, 35, 77–91. Nieto Moreno de Diezmas, E., & Fernández Barrena, A. (2021). Main challenges of EMI at the UCLM: Teachers’ perceptions on language proficiency, training and incentives. Alicante Journal of English Studies, 34, 39–61. Núñez Perucha, B., & Dafouz Milne, E. (2007). Lecturing through the foreign language in CLIL university context: Linguistic and pragmatic implications. Views, Vienna English Working Papers, 16(3), 36–42. O’Dowd, R. (2018). The training and accreditation of teachers for English medium instruction: an overview of practice in European universities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21, 553–563. Ortiz, G., Morell, T., & Fabregat-Cabrera, M. E. (2018). Satisfacción, dificultades y estrategias de aprendizaje en la docencia en lengua inglesa. In R. Roig-Vila (Ed.), El compromiso académico y social a través de la investigación e innovación educativas en la Enseñanza Superior (pp. 356–367). Octaedro. Pérez-Guillot, C., Pulido, A., Sanmartín, J., Estella, M., & Fernández, A. (2020). La Internacionalización de las Universidades Españolas: Impacto en la Enseñanza y la Acreditación de Lenguas Extranjeras. Retrieved from https://acles.es/uploads/archivos/ varios/acles_int_univ_esp_0.pdf Räisänen, C., &, Fortanet-Gómez, I. (2008). The state of ESP teaching and learning in Western European higher education after Bologna. In I. Fortanet-Gómez & C. A. Räisänen (Eds.), ESP in European higher education (pp. 11–51). John Benjamins. Ramos-García, A. M., & Pavón Vázquez, V. (2018). The linguistic internationalization of higher education: A study on the presence of language policies and bilingual studies in Spanish universities. Porta Linguarum, Monográfico, III, 31–46.

219

Josep M. Cots and Guzman Mancho-Barés Roquet, H., Vraciu, A., Nicolás-Conesa, F., & Pérez-Vidal, C. (2022). Adjunct instruction in higher education: Examining the effects on English foreign language proficiency. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25, 1377–1398. Rubio-Cuenca, F., & Perea-Barberá, M. D. (2021). Monitoring EMI teachers to assess their progress in university bilingual programs. Alicante Journal of English Studies, 34, 131–157. Ruiz-Garrido, M. F., & Palmer-Silveira, J. C. (2008). Content learning in business communication: A teaching experience within the new European framework. In I. Fortanet-Gómez & C. A. Räisänen (Eds.), ESP in European higher education (pp. 147–164). John Benjamins. Salaberri Ramiro, M. S., & Sánchez Pérez, M. M. (2018). Motivations of higher education students to enrol in bilingual courses. Porta Linguarum Monográfico, III, 61–74. Schmidt-Unterberger, B. (2018). The English-medium paradigm: A conceptualisation of English-medium teaching in higher education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21, 527–539. Spanish Ministry of Education. (2015). Estrategia para la Internacionalización de las Universidades Españolas 2015–2020. Retrieved from https://sede.educacion.gob.es/ publiventa/descarga. action?f_codigo_agc=18182 Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge University Press. Vila, F. X., Lasagabaster, D., & Ramallo, F. (2017). Bilingual education in the autonomous regions of Spain. In O. García, A. M. Y. Lin, & S. May (Eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education (pp. 505–517). Springer. Wingate, U. (2015). Academic literacy and student diversity. Multilingual Matters.

220

16 ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN SWITZERLAND Iris Schaller-Schwaner and Andy Kirkpatrick

Introduction This chapter offers a comprehensive examination of the linguistic landscape in ‘multilingual’ Switzerland. We elucidate the roles played by the nation’s four official languages: French, German, Italian, and Romansh. Furthermore, we delve into the concept of the ‘language boundary’ and underscore its significance. It is important to emphasise that a firm grasp of the Swiss cantonal system is essential for an overall understanding of the Swiss context. Switzerland comprises 26 cantons and these have responsibility for education, including at the university level. The cantonal system adds an extra level of hierarchy, one which operates between the national and institutional levels and makes Switzerland unique in this regard. We then move on to explore debates and controversy surrounding the place of English in the Swiss education system. Notably, in some German-speaking cantons, English takes precedence as the first foreign language, ahead of any of the national languages. Following this general background, we outline the structure of the Swiss university system, and discuss the role of English and English-medium instruction (EMI) at the cantonal universities and the universities of applied sciences. After briefly reviewing research into EMI at Swiss universities, we then highlight the linguistic situation at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland’s only officially bilingual university. We highlight the university’s language policy and then present research that illustrates how English became accepted as a lingua franca (ELF) in certain disciplines. This adaption of ELF, and thus EMI, was a bottom-up initiative, driven primarily by student needs and local communities of practice who were trying to ‘help themselves’ (Murray & Dingwall, 1997). We conclude by examining how English and other languages might co-exist in Swiss universities.

Background Despite recent and ongoing changes in continental Europe, Switzerland’s fourfold multilingualism remains distinctive. This characteristic is as emblematic as its square flag, depicting a white-cross on a red background and its renowned status of prosperous neutrality. To outsiders, Swiss multilingualism can also appear as a natural endowment, amounting to the assumption that the Swiss are ‘native speakers’ of their four national languages, German, French, Italian, and Romansh.

221

DOI: 10.4324/9781003011644-18

Iris Schaller-Schwaner and Andy Kirkpatrick

It is as though their quadrilingualism comes as naturally and easily as skiing to those who grow up in snow-covered mountains. In fact, both skiing and acquiring proficiency in multiple languages require learning and practice, and often require educational and personal investment, and can be a challenge. While skiing is a job requirement for very few Swiss these days, the case of languages is completely different. In fact, the linguistic requirements and affordances have been changing together with social and societal factors. As we shall illustrate in the subsequent sections, the domestic bilingual and multilingual capabilities have been significantly influenced by the roles attributed to English as an additional language in certain educational settings.1 Why then have we placed scare quotes around the reference to ‘multilingual’ Switzerland in the first sentence of the chapter? This is because, while there are four official languages, all but three of the 26 cantons operate monolingually. This implies that unless you live in one of the three bilingual or trilingual cantons (Bern which is German and French, Fribourg which is French and German, and Grissons, whose population is two-thirds German-speaking but which also has Italian as one official language and where the very few speakers of Romansh live) all administration, bureaucracy, and public life are conducted in the language of the canton. Only four of the 26 Cantons are French-speaking (Geneva, Jura, Neuchatel, and Vaud), 19 are German-speaking and the canton of Ticino is Italian-speaking. However, it is important to note that the ‘German’ in German-speaking here refers to the Swiss variety of German, Schweizerdeutsch, which is largely unintelligible to speakers of Standardised German from outside the country. It gets even more complicated as Schweizerdeutsch comprises different varieties. For example, the people of Bern speak a different variety of Schweizerdeutsch from the people of Zurich. While the neighbouring cantons of Fribourg and Bern are officially bilingual, in fact, people mainly communicate in French in Fribourg and varieties of German in Bern, with the territorial exception of small areas of the respective minority language. The Francophones of Fribourg really only like to speak in French, and German is a minority language and not regularly heard in public spaces, restaurants, and shops in the canton’s capital city. The Bernese are, generally speaking, happier to speak in English than French. The preference for English over French is most explicitly seen in the canton of Zurich. Zurich caused a ‘furore’ when, at the turn of the century, it announced that English would replace French as the first ‘foreign’ language taught in primary school (Pfenninger & Watts, 2019, p. 317). In their review of the place of English in Switzerland, Pfenninger and Watts foreground two documents. The first, published in 1989, was titled The Status and Future of Quadrilingual Switzerland. This sounded the alarm over the ‘low degree to which Swiss citizens speaking different L1s are capable of interacting verbally with compatriots speaking other official languages’ (2019, p. 316). English is seen as threatening the co-existence of the four national languages. The second document they cite is the General Language Concept, published in 1998. This recommended the teaching of English in all 26 cantons, but the authors add that the document ‘astutely leaves open the choice of which language other than the mother tongue should be introduced first in each canton’ (2019, p. 316). ‘Astutely’ indeed; as we reported above how Zurich’s decision to prioritise English over French in primary school caused a ‘furore’. The complex relationship between the Federal and the cantonal governments is also reflected at the university level. Switzerland has 10 cantonal universities, namely, in alphabetical order: Basel; Bern; Fribourg; Geneva; Lausanne; Lucerne; Lugano; Neuchatel; St Gallen; and Zurich. Of these, Fribourg is the sole officially bilingual (French/German) university in Switzerland. In addition, there are two Federal Institutes of Technology, one in Lausanne and one in Zurich. There are, however, also several universities of applied science. These go under the collective heading of the Swiss Universities of Applied Sciences (SUAS), and there are 12 of these. 222

English-medium instruction in higher education in Switzerland

In their review of the take-up of EMI programmes in Europe, Wächter and Maiworm (2014) report that over half of Swiss higher education institutions (HEIs) offer EMI or English-taught programmes (ETPs) numbering more than 200 courses. The 200 ETP courses in 2014 represented 14% of the total number of courses and involved 5,700 students. Wächter and Maiworm also report that Switzerland ranks in the top 10 of European countries offering ETPs (2014, p. 39) at both Bachelor and Master’s levels, although 65% of all Swiss ETPs were Master’s programmes of fewer than two year’s duration (Gautschi & Studer, 2017; Wächter & Maiworm, 2014, p. 70). The overall increase in ETPs in Switzerland is evident as a recent review of the relevant website reveals that there are currently more than 1,000 programmes across Switzerland’s higher education institutions in which English is the or one of the languages of teaching.2 The information provided on the ‘swissuniversities’ website, if one uses English as a filter for study programmes, does not differentiate between those in which English is the only medium or one of several. The promotional argument seems to prevail over real requirements as the section on ‘tuition language’ actually talks about language courses one can take while studying in Switzerland, thus glossing over the potential difficulties of plurilingual studies. Later in the chapter, we illustrate in Table 16.1, as an example, the Science Bachelor and Master’s programmes at the University of Fribourg/ Freiburg (hereafter UniFR) and their teaching language(s). As we shall demonstrate in the text that follows, most of the research into the implementation of EMI programmes in higher education has been undertaken at universities in the SUAS group. This is partly explained by the Federal Government providing funds of 4 million francs (US$4.5 million) between 2013 and 2016 for the SUAS group to ensure that they develop an international network of partners in education, business, and industry. The objectives of this initiative also included attracting international students, improving the employment prospects of Swiss students, and encouraging staff mobility.3 This is not to say that there have been no studies of the implementation of EMI at the cantonal universities, but they remain relatively few. We, therefore, first review the EMI-related research undertaken at the SUAS before reviewing research that has been conducted at cantonal universities. We then provide a more detailed discussion of the linguistic situation at the University of Fribourg and report on longitudinal studies into the uptake of ELF and EMI in specific contexts at the university.

EMI at the SUAS The 4 million francs of funding provided to help SUAS implement internationalisation resulted in research into two main areas, the first being the setting up of ETPs and the second being the inclusion of a global perspective into all programmes of study (Studer, 2018). The emphasis was on designing ‘quality parameters’ for ETPs as English was assumed to be a de facto part of any internationalisation strategy for learners, teachers, and institutions and where the ‘primary element of internationalisation was the change of the medium of instruction to English’ (Studer, 2018, p. 3). Studer also notes that the ETP is a widespread means of internationalising higher education curricula in Switzerland and the main driver has been to encourage a foreign student population, partly because a demographic change in Switzerland means there has been a drop in the number of local students (Ali-Lawson & Burki, 2018). Studer points out, however, that there is also a move towards ‘internationalisation at home’, which aims for the integration of a global dimension in the design and content of all curricula and the development of international and intercultural competences in all students (2018, p. 28). He (2018, pp. 37–40) also provides a list of the ‘quality parameters’, which were developed to ensure the successful implementation of EMI programmes. These include a range of descriptors for ‘language competence’, ‘strategic competence’, 223

Iris Schaller-Schwaner and Andy Kirkpatrick

‘monologic competence’, ‘dialogic competence’, ‘methodological competence’, and ‘language didactic competence’. Studer demonstrates that the introduction of EMI programmes requires much thought, careful planning, and the provision of professional development for staff, both academic and administrative, who will be involved in the provision of these courses, as will be illustrated in the following sections. This contrasts with earlier SUAS teacher expectations of having their lecture notes and slides translated into English in preparation for the switch to EMI (Studer, PelliEhrensperger, & Kelly, 2009, p. 15). Ali-Lawson and Burki (2018) describe the setting up of a Business Administration International Programme at the Bachelor level at the Bern University of Applied Sciences. They note that this resulted from competition and demographic changes rather than being driven by institutional pressure for ‘organisational development’ (2018, p. 129). The new course was not developed from scratch; instead, it was built on the existing courses that had been taught in German. In order to cater to international students, German-based examples had to be replaced by international examples and textbooks, and materials needed to be changed. It was decided that the staff should be international and not made up exclusively of ‘native speakers’ of English. Many of the staff members who are accustomed to teaching the course in German, however, were unhappy, as many felt their position as experts and their academic authority was challenged by having to teach in English, often at short notice. They also felt that developing internationalisation was not part of their teaching duties. The influx of international students also affected the administrative staff as communication now needed to be in English as well as German. To help staff transition to the EMI course, a Language Service Centre was set up to help staff enhance their English proficiency and aid with translation. To help students, a number of initiatives were introduced. These included a threeweek preparation course that international students take before the start of their degree course. A seminar, ‘Studying in a multicultural environment’, is offered one month into the course, covering topics such as meeting deadlines, avoiding plagiarism, and working in multicultural groups (Ali-Dawson & Burki, 2018, p. 136). Finally, they offer ‘The certificate for global competences’ for which students develop a personal portfolio. Despite all this work, the authors report that challenges remain, the major one being the fostering of the internationalisation process in a more general sense across the university and ensuring that all curricula are internationalised. It is also worth pointing out that the national languages, French, Italian, and Romansh, are not mentioned at all. The course is conducted bilingually in both English and German. A further example of this linguistic restriction in the name of internationalisation is presented later in the section on EMI at the cantonal universities. The final study of EMI programmes at SUAS that we review here was conducted by Gautschi and Studer (2017) into the development and implementation of an International Profile Programme (IPP) at the Zurich University of Applied Sciences. The IPP is offered only in the Engineering Faculty. Requirements include gaining a minimum number of credits through taking English-taught courses, a period of work or study abroad, the completion of a module on international communication and management, and a recognised certificate in English at C1 level (Gautschi & Studer, 2017, p. 56). The researchers were interested in investigating the factors that motivated students to enrol in the IPP. They surveyed second year engineering students. However, only 49 out of a total number of 360 engineering students took the survey, and, of these, only 40 had enrolled in the IPP. The findings showed that language self-confidence correlated strongly with positive attitudes towards English and EMI. Perhaps not surprisingly, people who feel confident in their English are more likely to enrol in ETPs than those who are less secure in their English.

224

English-medium instruction in higher education in Switzerland

EMI at cantonal universities The first study to be reviewed here was conducted at ‘a medium-sized, historically German-­ language university in multilingual Switzerland’ (Meyer, Gekeler, Manger, & Urank, 2012, p. 405). The findings mirror, to a certain extent, those reported earlier concerning the restricted use of languages. Meyer et al. investigated the relationship between the individual plurilingualism of the students and the monolingualism or bilingualism of the institution. Their study was based on students’ perspectives and the students reported a divide between their own rich linguistic repertoires and the university’s focus on German and English. As a group, the students knew 42 languages but these, apart from German and English, played little or no part in their academic life. Indeed, the students reported that they tended to avoid the use of different languages, feeling that knowledge expressed in languages such as Italian or French was perceived as irrelevant. As one student reported, ‘One language in the lecture hall tends to preclude all others’ (2012, p. 405). The students reported developing competence in German and English and decreasing competence in other languages. They also asserted concerns at their relatively low proficiency in English, fearing that this impacted on the ‘knowledge they produced and communicated’ (Meyer et al., 2012, p. 412). In addition, there was a divide not just between the plurilingualism of the students and the bilingualism of the university, but also between the place of languages in the university and in the world of work. For example, while the students rated languages such as Spanish and Italian as not being really relevant in the university context, they rated them highly in the context of the work place. This study provides a further illustration of how internationalisation and the introduction of EMI courses can lead to the neglect of other languages and to the lessening of their status as languages of knowledge and education. In summary, the study illustrated linguistic and epistemic reduction and the compartmentalisation of knowledge, along with modifications in students’ language competencies. We now turn to discussing the situation at Switzerland’s sole bilingual university in some detail.

EMI at Switzerland’s only bilingual university The UniFR is Switzerland’s sole officially bilingual university (French and German). Even the University of Bern, which is also in a bilingual canton, operates only in German. In recent years, increasing numbers of students entering UniFR have been from francophone backgrounds. French is clearly the majority and dominant language in the canton and in the town, its subjectively felt domination, enhanced by the fact that its speakers behave like an assertive minority, which is what they are on a national level, compared to the majority of Swiss-German speakers. However, many students still come from different mother-tongue or multilingual contexts, with, for example, different varieties of German or Italian as their local languages and languages of school education. Some might even have Romansh or a migrant language such as Portuguese, Spanish, or Albanian as their home languages. The students also come from schools all over Switzerland and beyond in which English may have been their third foreign language after two of the national partner languages. Everyone with a Swiss Matura qualification, the school-leaving university entrance exam, has access to any Swiss university regardless of the national language they grew up with or the national language(s) the university in question is operating in. Some school leavers may have had English as their most important Matura subject option, but there are others who have not had any English in upper secondary education. Some come from affluent backgrounds and may spend a year abroad in an Anglophone environment and thus develop English-language skills. In contrast, others may arrive with little English.

225

Iris Schaller-Schwaner and Andy Kirkpatrick

Students who will need English for their studies at UniFR (as elaborated later) therefore have diverging multilingual backgrounds, competence levels, motivations, and study skills as learners and users of English as an additional language. Additionally, some of these students will attend courses with English as a medium of instruction, particularly at Master’s level, while they may be using one or two other languages for their other subject(s). Of these local official languages, German and French, one may be their mother tongue, but some students will be studying through one or two different languages as media of instruction, none of which is their first language. Students from the Ticino, for example, typically have their school education in Italian, learn French and German as foreign languages before they learn English as a foreign language. As students at UniFR, they may be doing one of their subjects through French and or German while studying the other through English. In many subjects and settings, they are allowed to choose the language in which they want to take exams and write papers. They may choose to write their thesis in English, not only in EMI settings, but also in other settings. In these EMI contexts, it is essential to understand that languages are not neatly described entities along with an awareness that attitudes to language and multilingualism, as well as willingness to communicate in a non-L1, differ and vary. As noted earlier, German is not just German in Switzerland, but is used in two more or less diglossic varieties (often unloved Helvetic Standard German vis-a-vis prestigious Alemannic varieties of Swiss-German spoken and increasingly written in many but the most formal settings). French is not just French, but a language in which the written standard (of Parisian French) is valued more highly than the local spoken forms and in which linguistic insecurity or assertiveness may interfere with using one’s language repertoire. And English is not just English as though it were a national or first language. At the university, it is a plurilingual mode of operating, it is English as a lingua franca (ELF) being used in academic settings. As we shall show later, it can operate in intimate gatherings such as laboratory meetings or lunch-time seminars. English can also function as a teaching language in large lectures for a mixed EMI audience, in which some might be international students with L1 or L1-like competence and some will be Swiss students operative in two or three or four languages, but with little previous experience of using English as a medium of study. As Schaller-Schwaner (2018) illustrates, ELF is not just English only, but always tied up with second-order language contact; and in this sense at UniFR, it can be seen as a multilingual ‘edulect’ operating in a bilingual French-German university. This edulect is used not just in official EMI or trilingual programmes but also in other settings, even in the teaching of the local languages to beginners. These understandings of language are not reflected in the university’s recent publication of a draft language policy, to which we now turn.

The language policy document Ever since 2005, English has been internally acknowledged and/or required as an additional academic language for local purposes (outside the English Department, where it is the only language of instruction). EMI is most visible in the Master’s programmes of the Science Faculty: More than two-thirds of which are now officially listed with English as the sole medium of instruction (see Table 16.1). However, despite a flurry of activity surrounding the then Chancellor’s 2005 Dies Academicus (‘Convocation’) speech exculpating the conquest of English by likening the new lingua academica in the sciences to Latin in theology (which was accompanied by the university choir singing Bernstein’s I wanna be in America and the then Head of English, on his return from the event, hanging up a notice in the English Department saying ‘House of Linguistic Imperialism’), no official language policy was prepared. Of all the EMI language measures then envisaged for staff and students, only a dedicated English for Master’s students EAP course materialised. 226

English-medium instruction in higher education in Switzerland

An English-language access test for international students was abandoned after two years at the behest of the Science Faculty as unhelpful for their multilingual setting. Most Master’s programmes exempt prospective students from providing proof of language proficiency levels. It took until 2021 for UniFR to launch a draft language policy document for consultation. The strong equation of language and culture that permeates this document corresponds to the social imprint of the past century, which operated with a largely monolithic concept of language. It insufficiently differentiates between different language concepts and assigns a European (university) culture to each language. The stated goal of sharpening language awareness is thus not achieved in this document. In the language policy of a bilingual and multilingual university, there needs to be a recognition of different concepts of language. Rigid top-down regulation of language use is not favourable to the emergence and shaping of multilingual spaces in the service of professional and educational goals. The object and aim of a language policy should be the collection and provision of information (for example, of the linguistic repertoires of all members of the university community), the evidence-based description and development of local (multi-)linguistic practices, the elaboration of recommendable models, and the reconciliation of diversity and dynamics in balance with predictability, transparency, and feasibility in everyday study. A distinction needs also to be made between study programmes that function primarily or in principle in the mother tongue and those in which the common language(s) are used primarily as additional language tools (see, for example, Table 16.1 where the languages of programmes are listed). Individual languages appear in the document as homogeneous, delimited working tools. However, language skills and competences within multilingual profiles as well as multilingual practices do not equate to double or multiple monolingualism. The use of additional languages is a dynamic process in the individual and in social interaction. The same constant performance in all languages cannot be expected. Rather there will be a constantly changing multilingual performance and an institutional language policy needs to make this explicit. The linking of a specific language to a specific culture also fails to recognise the role of ELF. ELF can express any culture, as it serves translingual and intercultural communication. In the case of ELF, we need to observe and take into account the national, the pan-European, and global role of English as a medium of instruction (EMI). In most cases, these are not monolingual study programmes but multilingual ones. They are, therefore, better reflected in the alternative acronym and term EME(MUS) – English-medium education in multilingual university settings (Dafouz & Smit, 2016, 2020). According to the authors, the following dimensions need to be considered: the roles and relationships of all the languages involved in relation to English; the needs and specifications of the different subjects; the surrounding language regulations and language policies; the designers, the practices, and processes; and internationalisation and glocalisation. The authors use the term ROADMAPPING to describe these dimensions, an acronym derived from Roles, Academic Disciplines, Language Management, Agents, Practices and Processes, and Internationalisation and Glocalisation. The relationship between German and French at UniFR appears not only to be set together against English but also competitive and problematic. The use of ELF is advantageous not only internationally but also locally, providing a new alternative to the local languages, perhaps in a reinterpreted ‘bridge function’. However, this is not only unrecognised but also actually misinterpreted in seeing German and French as competitors of English. Publications and publishing in English, the ability to read English-language publications, one’s own oral use of English in an official capacity, English as the only language or as one of several languages of teaching and learning, all these uses of English are to be differentiated and acknowledged. We now turn to describe contexts at the university in which the use of ELF and as a language of teaching and learning developed naturally and ‘bottom up’. 227

Iris Schaller-Schwaner and Andy Kirkpatrick

ELF and EMI at the university At the time of writing, the case of EMI at UniFR may look much like EMI in university promotional discourses elsewhere in Switzerland or Europe, as if English was simply English. The decision whether to use English is evidently a matter of decreeing it or permitting it in a policy document. Table 16.1 shows the Science Bachelor and Master’s programmes and their teaching language(s). Note that the courses listed as being solely taught in English are the Master’s programmes in Informatics, Physics, Chemistry, Geography, Earth Sciences, Biology, Bioinformatics, Biochemistry, Biomedicine, and Experimental Biomedical Research and that they follow

Table 16.1  UniFR 2020 Science Faculty Bachelor’s and Master’s programmes and their teaching languagesa Subject Domain

Bachelor (Majors)

Bachelor (Minors)

Master’s

30 or 60 ECTS; Ge+Fr 30 or 60 ECTS; Ge+Fr 30 or 60 ECTS; Ge+Fr 30 or 60 ECTS; Ge+Fr 30 or 60 ECTS; Ge+Fr 30 or 60 ECTS; Ge+Fr 30 or 60 ECTS; Ge+Fr

90 ECTS; Ge+Fr+En 90 or 120 ECTS; En 90 ECTS; En 90 or 120 ECTS; En 120 ECTS; En 120 ECTS; En 90 or 120 ECTS; En

–

90 ECTS; En

30 or 60 ECTS; Ge+Fr 30 or 60 ECTS; Ge+Fr

90 or 120 ECTS; En 120 ECTS; En (+Ge+Fr)

– 2 x 30 ECTS; Ge+Frc

180 ECTS; Ge+Fr 90 ECTS; En (Bern)

–

90 ECTS; En

30 or 60 ECTS; Ge+Frb

90 ECTS; Ge+Fr+En

Exact sciences and natural sciences Mathematics Informatics Physics Chemistry Geography Earth Sciences Biology

120 ECTS; Ge+Fr 120 ECTS; Ge+Fr 150 ECTS; Ge+Fr 150 ECTS; Ge+Fr 120 ECTS; Ge+Fr 150 ECTS; Ge+Fr 120 ECTS; Ge+Fr

Bioinformatics and computational biology

–

Biochemistry 120 ECTS; Ge+Fr Environmental – Sciences Medicine, medical sciences and sports sciences (Human) Medicine 180 ECTS; Ge+Frb Biomedical 120 ECTS; Ge+Fr Sciences Experimental biomedical research

–

Sport and Exercise 120 or 180 ECTS; Ge+Frb Science Teacher education Teaching degree programmes Secondary I Teaching degree programmes Secondary II

180 ECTS; Ge+Fr

–

120 ECTS; Fr/Ge

180 ECTS; Ge+Fr

–

90–120 ECTS; Ge+Fr/En + 60 ECTS; Ge/Fr

Ge+Fr= bilingual German AND French, Ge/Fr= German OR French, En=English. a   This table shows the translation into English of an overview published in German on p. 3 of the 2020 Information Brochure by the Science Faculty of the University of Fribourg last accessed on 7 July 2022 at https://www.unifr. ch/unicom/fr/assets/public/uploads/promotion/brochures/brochure_scimed_2020_de_web.pdf. The equivalent brochure and same table are also published in French on the website of the faculty at https://www.unifr.ch/unicom/fr/ assets/public/uploads/promotion/brochures/brochure_scimed_2020_fr_web.pdf. b    Admission is subject to fitness screening test. c    Can only be chosen by students majoring in Biomedical Sciences.

228

English-medium instruction in higher education in Switzerland

integrative bilingual Bachelor programmes taught in both French and German. Table 16.1 has been translated from German, and italics are used for names of courses provided in English in the original table. In 2005, at the time of the first co-author’s research, despite the Chancellor’s Convocation speech mentioned earlier, the EMI bandwagon had not taken off.4 Rather, concerns over language policy, in particular, the maintenance of local bilingualism, including the twin monolingualism of parallel studies in French or German to the exclusion of the other language, were being voiced, not least within the institution itself, at which the first ever international conference on bilingual and multilingual universities had taken place (Mehrsprachige Universitäten und Hochschulen Praxis und Standards, 19 and 20 September 2003 in Freiburg/Fribourg). All this went on despite the ideas running counter to the bilingual university’s official image, which tended to be invoked as its default unique selling proposition. Regulation of varying language use was addressed at the level of curricula in the disciplines. As noted earlier, an important factor is that access to Swiss university education is accorded to holders of Swiss school-leaving university entrance qualifications regardless of the language in which they were obtained. This implies that some degree of language immersive sink-or-swim for all students studying outside their own linguistic territory was a variable in linguistic practices before English became involved. This was also true for teaching staff. The Science Faculty, in particular, which had never had the resources for parallel monolingual programmes of study, was actively extending its language practices to include English as ‘bi(tri) lingualism’ and ‘integrated multilingualism’. It was argued that national as well as international competition for students and the short 1.5 years of a Master’s programme rendered it unrealistic to entertain the idea that international students would learn a local language for their Master’s degree. The early use of ELF as it emerged in local disciplinary settings was studied in biochemistry and psychology lunch-time events. The two settings differed in their form of institutional bilingualism and, consequently, in the functions of English. In biochemistry, English had been part of the disciplinary backdrop with research and textbooks exclusively published in English for some time. Then, to take the opportunity to attract doctoral students from India, English became the language used for oral interaction. These students’ involvement in lab teams, mentoring or teaching enhanced the disciplinary socialisation in English of all students. However, the weekly Beer and Lunch events, which featured invited presenters and required regular student talks, proved to be the speech event in which there was no escaping for local students from the need to speak English, none of whom was an L1 user of English and very few of whom were initially comfortable in it. While bottles were being opened, the volume of interpersonal languages slowly decreased and the talk and discussion invariably took place in English. In contrast, the psychology lunch-time seminar was quite new and English was specifically mentioned as being the presentation language, with very occasionally a presentation also delivered in French or German. The seminar was an optional peer-event held once a month, alongside departmental teaching programmes in French or German and research colloquia conducted in either German or French, mainly attended by French or German speakers, respectively. This was due to the Arts Faculty’s and Psychology Department’s ‘parallel’ bilingualism where courses were taught in French or German, but independently of each other. This parallel bilingualism was common in the Arts Faculty and mirrored the popular understanding of institutional bilingualism as a protection of monolingual speech communities (Brohy, 2005). In the Psychology Department, English was a shared disciplinary language for international research purposes. It also became activated and appropriated for negotiating a way to developing a trilingual Master’s programme in the department, with English now providing a new common denominator.

229

Iris Schaller-Schwaner and Andy Kirkpatrick

From the point of view of Bell’s (2001) concept of audience design, the choice of English in these two contexts can be differentiated as more a case of audience design in biochemistry and more of referee design in psychology: Addressees are the ones one is actually speaking to, and this is, thus, a ‘responsive’ language choice. Referees are the ones one is thinking of (for example, the international disciplinary community, the linguistically mixed students one will want to teach) and this is then an ‘initiative’ language choice that changes the situation. At UniFR, the use of ELF can be a ‘responsive’ choice that caters to one’s own and interlocutor’s or audience’s perceived needs. ELF can also be an ‘initiative’ choice motivated by the needs, desires, and purposes beyond the immediate negotiation of transactional meaning, a choice which changes and re-/co-constitutes the local context. The intervening factors by which arrangements are made for an additional language in one’s communicative repertoire and the way new language practices are developed collectively determine the outcome for the people involved (Gal, 1979), particularly, in communities of practice in which ELF is not the only shared resource necessarily, but a joint enterprise (Wenger, 1998). Managing the switch to instantiating English by linking it to the respective speech event is the first such factor. Leaving the degree and criteria of involvement to be regulated by the community of practice whose speech event and oral tradition it is, is another factor. Maintaining and sustaining this (self-)socialisation over time in a process of multilingualisation is the third factor, which changes one’s embodiment of English and one’s somatic habitus as a speaker. And a fourth factor might be the habitat, not only in the sense of the local traditions and conditions of the bilingual university, but also in the sense of co-created dynamic contexts in which language concepts themselves can change and English is realised in code-sharing lingua franca mode without detriment to diversity (Schaller-Schwaner, 2012, 2015). Such a use of ELF or English in lingua franca mode in academic settings and for academic purposes can be analysed as a very specific ‘edulect’ for disciplinary purposes at this bilingual Swiss university (Schaller-Schwaner, 2018). This use of English in the lunch-time events was not the result of an EMI policy from above, but a strategy and practice developed by the communities of practice who wanted and needed it. This was also the case within the Faculty of Mathematical and Natural Sciences and in the Informatics Department. The Informatics Department, which had been one of the very first such departments founded in Europe, had agreed on English as an additional medium for a Master’s lecture course and a practical class in a programme jointly run by the Science and the Economics Faculty. This course was taught by a professor, and a native German speaker, who had taught in the UK before joining the university. He, along with his team of international assistants, pioneered EMI in a trilingual Master’s programme with local students from varying linguistic backgrounds while advertising and promoting the programme internationally. It was this course and the accompanying practical exercise course that the first author was invited to observe (Schaller-Schwaner, 2009, p. 252). The lecture course taught by the professor took variable language skills into account to the extent that there were chapters to read in an English-medium textbook to familiarise students with the content to be presented. Each week’s slides (prepared in English) were made available to course participants two days before the lecture actually took place so that they might have time to look up unfamiliar vocabulary and prepare their questions. In addition to providing extra time to process the content presented in English, the professor also interacted with students during the class and added handwritten notes of his explanations, annotating his slides on the touch screen of his computer, thus expanding on difficult concepts, slowing down his explanations and, in this way, securing more understanding than would have been the case in purely oral explanations. He also made the annotated versions of his weekly slides available on the university’s blended learning platform. His weekly lectures had very clear structure, beginning with a preview and a recapitulation of the previous week’s point where he had left off. His pace was appropriate and he 230

English-medium instruction in higher education in Switzerland

also had the classroom management phrases and sign-posting expressions to guide the students’ attention. In the breaks, he was occasionally approached with questions or included in exchanges in the local languages with his students and used his first language, German, himself. Learning was thus not only supported by the technology, but by the language repertoires of the professor and one of his assistants, who taught the practical class right after the lecture. The latter used English as a classroom language as well, but listened to questions in the local languages on a more regular basis when interacting with students who were solving problems set in the exercises. As an L1 speaker of Luxembourgish, he had no problems with Swiss German, Standardised German or French. This did not mean that participants of the course had no language problems at all, particularly if their English was weak because they had to concentrate on strengthening their French- and/or Germanlanguage skills and were never able to fall back on their L1, Italian. In a group discussion with the participants, however, everyone approved of the opportunities that an English-medium Master’s course afforded them and expressed the opinion that English was ‘normal’. Extended observation demonstrated that bottom-up multilingual education comprising ELF is viable over time and can combine with institutional bilingualism and the use of other national languages beyond the ‘monolingual habitus plus English’ reported elsewhere. In other words, this study shows how the use of ELF or EMI can successfully develop bottom-up in an academic institution, even though its use runs counter to the bilingual policy publicised by the university by default as Fribourg’s unique selling point. An EMI programme that uses ELF as an ‘edulect’ does not rule out the use of other languages. While monolingual universities appear to be incentivising their university teachers to offer more provisions for content to be taught and interacted with through the medium of English to international students and for local students seeking an ‘internationalisation-at-home’ experience,5 the situation at UniFR is different. The interstices in the bi- und multilingual university’s fabric, the lived language practices of communities of practice in the disciplines working out how best to use their shared resources, the unruly self-help strategies of research divisions or departments and the legal sovereignty of faculties under the 1997 cantonal University Law to determine additional teaching languages have contributed to viable forms of EMI, as part of ‘bi(tri)lingualism’, a coinage first seen in the Science Faculty’s own 2005 medium-of-instruction policy. In this policy, it was explained as an integrated multilingualism of immersion, Ceci signifie que l’étudiant-e baigne dans un contexte bilingue au niveau du bachelor et dans un contexte trilingue au niveau du master, bien que l’anglais tende à y dominer.6 This means that the student is immersed in a bilingual context at the Bachelor’s level and in a trilingual context at the Master’s level, although English tends to dominate there. Despite conscious efforts by the university to reign in and regulate the use of English, the Science Faculty eventually won acceptance for its use. This may have contributed to a framework for sui generis ELF practices emerging bottom-up in which, so far, EMI has been embedded pragmatically and sustainably as a local endeavour on its own or in explicit combination with one or two of the other academic languages of the university.

Conclusion In this chapter, we have briefly reviewed the status of Switzerland’s four national languages and summarised research into EMI, which has been undertaken at SUAS and cantonal universities. The findings of this research illustrate how languages are still seen as discrete entities within themselves and representing a specific culture. We saw how this led to linguistic restriction. In one study, for example, the two languages of the bilingual programme, German and English, were prioritised over other languages to the extent that students came to feel that German and English were 231

Iris Schaller-Schwaner and Andy Kirkpatrick

the languages of knowledge. The students also reported that their plurilingual repertoires were not valued. In our discussion of the linguistic situation at UniFR, we demonstrated how the university’s draft language policy also treats languages as distinct and separate entities, and argued that such a treatment fundamentally misunderstands how languages operate in multilingual settings. The research we reviewed that was conducted at UniFR revealed that staff and students, if given the freedom to do so, naturally adopt multilingual practices in response to perceived needs. Their adoption of the use of ELF in these academic settings illustrates how ELF can work in complement and alongside other languages rather than in competition with them. The local development rather than forced implementation of EMI programmes means that the use of other languages does not have to be restricted, as evidenced in the research we reported on above. We hope that this study of naturally occurring multilingual practices at one Swiss university can shed light on how languages are used in such settings and that this use can, in turn, guide future policy and policy documents such as a university’s language policy. EMI does not mean English only. ELF does not mean ELF only. In academic contexts, ELF is best viewed as a multilingual edulect. At UniFR, if the freedom to choose is provided to staff and students, ELF can happily operate in this way alongside and complement the university’s two official languages, French and German.

Notes 1 While older Swiss census-form options did not permit more than one mother tongue, 2014 saw the first representative survey of self-reported language practices in Switzerland and linguistic self-perceptions. According to these results and those of the second survey in 2019, English is the most widely used additional language in Switzerland and self-perceived multilingualism in national, heritage, and other languages has increased even in the space of these five years to now more than two-thirds of the population. See https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/catalogues-databases/publications.assetdetail.15384143.html. 2 https://studyprogrammes.ch/en?query=english&institute=&institute_kind=°ree_level=&areas_of_ study=&study_languages=&study_languages_exclusivity=false&order_by=&order_by_direction=&page= 1&cantons=&language_regions= (accessed June 15 2021). 3 https://www.zhaw.ch/storage/linguistik/forschung/sprachkompetenz-wissensvermittlung/emi-switzerlandposter.pdf (accessed June 15 2021). 4 Workshops, certificates, large-scale projects, newly founded institutes, and publications dedicated to EMI are springing up around the world and even in Switzerland, e.g. at the University of Zürich Continuing Education facility, which is offering a first-time two-day pilot workshop on Teaching in English in November 2021. 5 At the University of Bern, for example, an initiative of the executive board & central administration division for development has been launching such calls, as a result of which three additional interdisciplinary ‘EnglL’ courses have been offered per semester since 2017. See https://www.unibe.ch/university/organization/ executive_board_and_central_administration/vice_rectorate_development/vice_rectorate_development/ ressourcen/additional_courses_in_english___engll/index_eng.html. 6 P. 1 of Politique des langues d’enseignement en Faculté des sciences, Approuvé à l’unanimité le 9 mai 2005 par le Conseil de Faculté.

References Ali-Lawson, D., & Burki, J. (2018). Organisational challenges and opportunities when implementing an international profile. Bulletin VALS-ASLA, 107, 127–141. Bell, A. (2001). Back in style: Reworking audience design. In P. Eckert, & J. Rickford (Eds.), Style and sociolinguistic variation (pp. 139–169). Cambridge University Press. Brohy, C. (2005). Overt bilingualism, covert multilingualism? Official languages and “other languages” in a bilingual French-German university. Paper presented at a conference on ‘Bi- and Multilingual

232

English-medium instruction in higher education in Switzerland Universities: Challenges and Future Prospects’, University of Helsinki, 1–3 September. Retrieved from http:// www.palmenia.helsinki.fi/congress/bilingual2005/ abstracts/brohy.pdf Dafouz, E., & Smit, U. (2016). Towards a dynamic conceptual framework for English-medium education in multilingual university settings. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 37, 397–415. Dafouz, E., & Smit, U. (2020). ROAD-MAPPING: English medium education in the internationalised university. Palgrave Pivot. Gal, S. (1979). Language shift: Social determinants of linguistic change in bilingual Austria. SF Academic Press. Gautschi, C., & Studer, P. (2017). The impact of internationalisation on tertiary level educational social spheres. Bulletin VALS-ASLA, special issue, T.1, 51–62. Meyer, S., Gekeler, P., Manger, S., & Urank, D. (2012). Plurlingualism, multilingualism and internationalisation in the EHEA: Challenges and perspectives at a Swiss university. Language Learning in Higher Education, 2, 405–425. Murray, H., & Dingwall, S. (1997). English for scientific communication at Swiss universities: «God helps those who helps themselves». Babylonia, 4(97), 54–59. Pfenninger, S., & Watts, R. J. (2019). English in Switzerland. In R. Hickey (Ed.), English in the Germanspeaking world (pp. 315–333). Cambridge University Press. Schaller-Schwaner, I. (2009). Under the microscope: English for plurilingual academic purposes. In D. Veronesi, & C. Nickenig (Eds.), Bi- and multilingual universities: European perspectives and beyond: Conference proceedings Bolzano-Bozen, 20–22 September 2007 (pp. 245–263). Bozen University Press. Retrieved from http://www.unibz.it/it/library/Documents/bupress/publications/fulltext/9788860460240.pdf Schaller-Schwaner, I. (2012). The eye of the beholder: Is English as a lingua franca in academic settings a monolingual or multilingual practice? Language Learning in Higher Education, 1, 423–446. Schaller-Schwaner, I. (2015). The habitat factor in ELF(A) – English as a lingua franca (in academic settings) – And English for plurilingual academic purposes. Language Learning in Higher Education, 5, 329–351. Schaller-Schwaner, I. (2018). ELF as multilingual ‘edulect’ in a bilingual university. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 7, 113–129. Studer, P. (Ed.). (2018). Internationalising curricula in higher education: Quality and language of instruction. Bulletin VALS-ASLA, 107, 1–169. Studer, P., Pelli-Ehrensperger, A., & Kelly, P. (2009). Mehrsprachigkeit an universitären Bildungsinstitutionen: Arbeitssprache Englisch im Hochschulfachunterricht. ISBB Working Papers. Institut für Sprache in Beruf und Bildung, Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften. Retrieved from https://digitalcollection.zhaw.ch/handle/ 11475/74 Wächter, B., & Maiworm, F. (2014). English-taught programmes in European higher education: The state of play. Lemmens. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press.

233

PART III

English-medium instruction in higher education in the Middle East, North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa

17 ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE EAST, NORTH AFRICA, AND SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA Werner Botha Introduction The English language has in recent years spread as a language of instruction in many universities throughout the Middle Eastern, North African, and Sub-Saharan African regions. This growth may be mainly attributed to factors such as the increasing importance of English as an international language, the desire for internationalisation, and fostering global citizenship (Macaro, 2018). In addition, colonial history has also played a significant role in the African continent in shaping language policies, which often favour colonial languages, such as English or French, in African education (Kembo Sure, 2020). In the Middle East, countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have witnessed a rapid growth of English-medium instruction (EMI) programmes in higher education institutions (Al-Hoorie, Al-Shahrani, Al Shlowiy, & Mitchell, 2021; Allmnakrah & Evers, 2020; Alnasser, 2022; Barnawi, 2021; Elyas & Al-Ghamdi, 2018; Elyas & Picard, 2018). Similarly, Turkey and Egypt have also seen an increase in EMI policies and practices in their higher education institutions (Arık, 2020; Saleem, 2021). Some Sub-Saharan African countries, such as South Africa, have chosen to augment the use of indigenous languages alongside English as languages for teaching and learning, particularly in higher education (see Coetzee-Van Rooy & Botha, this volume, and Botha & Coetzee-Van Rooy, 2024). This chapter provides a brief overview of the spread of EMI first in the Middle East, North Africa (MENA), and then in Sub-Saharan Africa. In each case, it discusses the background of language policies and official languages across these regions, and how they relate to the spread of English, and the increasing adoption of EMI in these societies. The chapter will also briefly explore the challenges and opportunities, and consider the future outlook of EMI across these regions.

The spread of EMI in Middle East and North African higher education The noticeable spread of EMI in higher education systems in MENA is closely linked to globalisation and the increasing need for international cooperation and competitiveness in education,

237

DOI: 10.4324/9781003011644-20

Werner Botha

research, and labour markets (Alshammari, 2020). In Saudi Arabia, for example, significant changes in the education system over the past few decades have seen an increasing emphasis on internationalisation, resulting in increased use of EMI (Elyas & Al-Hoorie, this volume). To enable internationalisation, the King Abdullah Scholarship Program was launched in 2005, to facilitate the pursuit of higher education degrees abroad for thousands of Saudi students, the vast majority in English-speaking countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States, thereby contributing to the growth of EMI in the country (Alshammari, 2020). Additionally, some universities have established international partnerships and joint degree programmes with foreign institutions, further promoting EMI. Adoption of EMI has grown especially scientific and technical fields, as a means to enhance international cooperation, research, and innovation, although its implementation, according to Elyas and Al-Hoorie (this volume), has been varied and include both full EMI, where all courses are taught in English, and partial EMI, where a percentage of courses are taught in English. Similarly, an aspiration to increase internationalisation, in particular, through student exchange with European countries, has been a key factor in the exponential growth of EMI programmes in Turkey’s universities in the past two decades. This aspiration led to Turkey being part of the Bologna Process since 2001 (İnal, Bayyurt, & Kerestecioğlu, 2021), and the growth of EMI programmes in Turkish higher education is partly due to policies aligned with the Bologna Process (İnal et al., 2021). In 2013, there were 164 universities with 846 bachelor’s level programmes in English, corresponding to about 20% of the total (Arık & Arık, 2014). Currently, slightly more than 20% of bachelor’s level programmes require English language proficiency, with higher percentages in private institutions (around 47%) (Council of Higher Education, 2020). As in Saudi Arabia, EMI programmes in Turkish higher education institutions are diverse, with some offered fully or partially in English, or alternatively in English or Turkish (Council of Higher Education, 2020; Kurt & Bayyurt, this volume). The number of incoming international students from non-European countries has risen dramatically in recent years, with many opting for EMI programmes (Council of Higher Education, 2020). Turkey has become an affordable higher education destination for students from economically disadvantaged countries in the Middle East, Africa, and beyond (Council of Higher Education, 2020). The Council of Higher Education’s regulations on EMI in Turkey aim to ensure that graduates of associate, undergraduate, and graduate programmes acquire foreign language competencies related to their fields (Official Gazette, 2016). These regulations allow for partial or full EMI in higher education institutions, with the approval of the Higher Education Council and the university senate (Official Gazette, 2016). Moreover, compulsory preparatory classes in English or other foreign languages are required for EMI programmes (Official Gazette, 2016). Students must take an examination at the beginning of EMI programmes or prove their proficiency through an international exam or central foreign language exams approved by the Council of Higher Education (Official Gazette, 2016). While the regulations do not explicitly state which foreign languages can be used as a medium of instruction, English is by far the most predominant (Council of Higher Education, 2020; Kurt & Bayyurt, this volume). Although there are regulations to maintain a standard of EMI across higher education institutions, implementation varies greatly, including the tools used to assess English proficiency at entry (Official Gazette, 2016). In North Africa, Egypt has the oldest and largest higher education system in the Arab world and has attracted a substantial number of international university students (Lane, 2018; Latif, this volume). To internationalise higher education, Egypt has undertaken several measures, such

238

EMI across the Middle East, North Africa, and Sub-Saharan Africa

as establishing foreign language study programmes (mainly in English) in public universities, enacting a law in 1994 to create private universities, and forming partnerships with international universities (Adel, Zeinhom, & Mahrous, 2018; Lane, 2018). The Egyptian government aims to enhance the quality of public university education, attract foreign students, retain home students, build academic capital, and link education with labour market requirements (Kohstall, 2012; Lane, 2018; Latif, this volume). As a result of these reforms, the number of public and private universities in Egypt has increased significantly, with EMI playing a key role in newly established programmes and institutions (Kohstall, 2012; Lane, 2018; Latif, this volume). Some examples of EMI universities include the American University in Cairo, the German University in Cairo, the British University in Egypt, and international branch campuses of British universities such as Coventry University and the University of Hertfordshire. In addition, new private non-foreign EMI universities have emerged, such as Zewail City of Science and Technology, Nile University, and October University for Modern Sciences & Arts (Ead, 2019). In response to the growth of EMI institutions, public and private Arabic-medium universities have developed EMI social science and humanities programmes, often with higher tuition fees than Arabictaught programmes (Ead, 2019). English language requirements for joining EMI programmes vary across institutions, with some requiring international standardised tests like IELTS and TOEFL, while others require minimum scores on high school English exams (Ead, 2019; Latif, this volume). In addition to Egypt, EMI is also gaining increasing popularity in other North African regions, with different countries at varying stages of adoption. The reasons, however, are diverse. In Morocco, a francophone country where French serves as the medium of instruction and Arabic is the official language, growing interest in EMI is driven by the association of French with colonialism and the view of English as a symbol of modernity, globalisation, and economic participation in the global market. Tunisia shares a similar situation, having inherited French from the colonial system, which dominates higher education. Arabic is the official language and is primarily used in primary and secondary education (Botha & Coetzee Van Rooy, 2023; Ntombela, 2023). While there is an increasing appetite for EMI in Tunisia, the relegation of Arabic to lower education levels and the promotion of French and English in higher education has yet to be problematised. In Algeria, English is growing in popularity as a perceived solution to the country’s educational, technological, and economic challenges, even as the debate between supporters of French in education and proponents of Arabic as a symbol of religious identity continues. In Libya, while Arabic continues to dominate education, several private higher learning institutions offer instruction in English because it is perceived to be linked to global communication and access to both local and international job markets (Ntombela, 2023). Experimental language schools have also been established to facilitate a smoother transition into EMI. In both Algeria and Libya, English is seen as a means to achieve modernisation, globalisation, economic and business development, as well as technical and scientific research. However, a pervasive challenge in North Africa is the insufficient English language proficiency among students and faculty. Overall, EMI has become an increasingly significant aspect of higher education in the Middle East and North Africa, largely due to globalisation, internationalisation policies, and the desire for increased competitiveness in education and research. Across the Middle East and North Africa, EMI has expanded rapidly in both public and private institutions, offering students access to a more diverse range of educational opportunities.

239

Werner Botha

The spread of EMI in Sub-Saharan African higher education Across Sub-Saharan Africa, the spread of EMI can be attributed to a complex mix of factors, such as the region’s colonial history, linguistic diversity, and the significance of English as a world language (Mokaya, 2014). West Africa offers a fascinating example. The region consists of 17 countries that can be categorised based on the exoglossic languages they use for official purposes and as the primary medium of instruction (Plonski, Teferra, & Brady, 2013). English, however, is increasingly used in education and other sectors across these countries, regardless of their linguistic groupings (see Mohr & Barasa, this volume). Apia (2010) notes that English is the first compulsory foreign language taught in secondary schools in former French colonies such as the Ivory Coast, Mali, and Senegal. In addition, English is informally taught in all non-Englishspeaking countries in West Africa due to its instrumental role on the world stage. For instance, in Mauritania, where Arabic is the official language and medium of instruction, the Ministry of Higher Education has granted licences to more than 20 institutes to teach English (Yacoub, 2015). English is used in West African countries for various reasons, due to the region’s colonial history, but also due to the practicality of using English for communication among diverse ethnicities and people of linguistic backgrounds, and its status as a lingua franca in a region where countries are grouped around ex-colonial languages (Negash, 2011). The focus of EMI research in West Africa is primarily on higher education institutions in countries like Nigeria, Liberia, Cameroon, Ghana, Sierra Leone, and Senegal. In most Southern African societies, EMI has a long history in higher education. South Africa is the best example of this description, as English is used as a second or foreign language by the majority of its population, with only a minority using it as their first language. The South African educational authorities prefer using the term English as a ‘language of learning and teaching’ (LoLT) rather than ‘medium of instruction,’ emphasising the role of language in both student and lecturer’s experiences (Coetzee-Van Rooy & Botha, this volume; Van der Walt, 2013). English remains the dominant medium of instruction in South African schools and higher education institutions. As elsewhere in Southern African higher education, but despite the prominent status of English as the medium of instruction in South African higher education, the linguistic reality in classrooms and lecture halls is more complex due to the high frequency of code-switching and code-mixing (Botha & Coetzee-Van Rooy, 2021). Studies have shown that teachers use code-switching and -mixing to facilitate deep learning and understanding of the material, assignments, or tasks that learners are engaged with (Probyn, 2009). This suggests that Southern African EMI takes place within a vast and complex multilingual ecology, which is also reflected in the language-in-education policies of the region. One could argue that, more broadly, Southern African EMI can be considered a case of official EMI in a context of unofficial multilingual education. In East Africa, former British colonies like Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda have adopted EMI policies in their higher education systems. In Kenya, for instance, English is the official language and the medium of instruction in tertiary education (Mohr & Barasa, this volume). The adoption of EMI in Kenyan higher education institutions is linked not only to the country’s colonial past, but also the need for national unity in a multilingual society, and the demand for a skilled workforce that can effectively compete in the global economy (Mohr & Barasa, this volume). In Tanzania, EMI is implemented in secondary and tertiary education, with English being the medium of instruction and the language of examination, although this policy appears to have been received with mixed results (Brock-Utne & Qorro, 2015). In Uganda, EMI is also the norm in higher education institutions. English is one of the official languages and the medium of instruction in primary, secondary, and tertiary education and the National Curriculum Development Centre determines 240

EMI across the Middle East, North Africa, and Sub-Saharan Africa

language policy in education (Dearden, 2014). The adoption of EMI in Ugandan higher education institutions is driven by similar factors as in other African countries, such as colonial history, linguistic diversity, and the global significance of the English language (Mokaya, 2014). As can be seen, the growth of EMI in African higher education is a complex phenomenon influenced by various historical, socio-political, and economic factors. Despite the challenges and criticisms associated with its implementation, EMI continues to expand across the continent as African countries strive to improve the quality of education, promote internationalisation, and equip their graduates with the skills needed to compete in the global job market. The linguistic diversity and multilingual reality of African countries add another layer of complexity to the implementation of EMI.

Challenges and opportunities for EMI in the Middle East, North and Sub-Saharan Africa Challenges Despite the growing adoption of EMI in higher education in MENA and Sub-Saharan Africa, the chapters in this section indicate that there are many challenges that universities face. The first is the generally low English proficiency of both students and teachers. This can lead to a lack of understanding and comprehension, which may ultimately hinder learning outcomes. For example, in Sub-Saharan Africa, Mohr (2018; see also Mohr & Barasa, this volume) found that only 55% of respondents in her Tanzanian study felt that English classes prepared them to speak the language fluently. Similar concerns are found in West Africa, where there is a lack of motivation and weak political will to invest in the teaching and learning of English (Roy-Campbell & Qorro, 1997). Ensuring the English proficiency of EMI teachers also remains a problem, across the MENA regions and Africa. Another set of challenges concerns teacher shortages and lack of sufficient training to teach through the medium of English, as well as a lack of resources, and clear guidelines for teaching. Teachers may lack the necessary pedagogical skills and knowledge to effectively teach in English, which can negatively impact students’ learning experiences. A broader challenge is that political instability, conflict, and social unrest can disrupt education systems, hinder EMI adoption, and limit international collaborations. Related to this is the competition between English and local languages, where English faces competition from indigenous languages such as Swahili in East Africa, French in West Africa, and Arabic in the MENA regions. This competition can affect the effectiveness of EMI practices in these regions. Finally, there is the lack of effective implementation of multilingual and/or EMI policies, which has been attributed to factors such as the inability to transcend colonial influences, a lack of political will, and a lack of specific implementation roadmaps. This failure impacts not only the adoption or use of EMI, but also the use of indigenous languages and multilingualism in higher education.

Opportunities Despite the challenges outlined above, there are various opportunities for EMI in the Middle East, North, and Sub-Saharan African regions. The first is the increasing preference for EMI over other mediums of instruction as stakeholders consider English as an added advantage in securing employment, scholarships, respect, and prestige (Ochieng, 2015). This preference presents openings to further promote and enhance EMI in MENA and Sub-Saharan African countries. Another promising development is that proficiency in English in some regions is now considered high enough 241

Werner Botha

to use the language in higher education (Roy-Campbell & Qorro, 1997). Improving English proficiency could lead to more successful EMI implementation in such regions, and also provide upward social mobility to students who have studied through the medium of English. Increased international collaboration further provides an opportunity for EMI to contribute to the economic development in the MENA and Sub-Saharan African regions by preparing students for the global workforce. As mentioned above, proficiency in English can provide better access to higher-paying jobs, international opportunities, and global networks. Partnerships with universities and institutions from English-speaking countries can lead to the sharing of best practices, resources, and expertise, benefiting both students and educators. On a related note, the internationalisation and globalisation of higher education worldwide implies that universities in the Middle East, North and Sub-Saharan Africa can benefit from student and knowledge exchanges with other universities around the world, and from collaborating with international partners to share EMI best practices, resources, and expertise. Such collaborations can lead to improvements in teacher training, curriculum design, and the overall quality of EMI in the region. Technological developments also provide opportunities to enhance EMI (Can & Rey, 2022), where, for example, online platforms and digital tools can be used to provide EMI teaching materials, enhance communication between teachers and students, and offer professional development opportunities for educators. Finally, there are opportunities to develop localised EMI content, that is sensitive to local cultural, linguistic, and contextual factors. By doing so, educators can ensure that EMI remains relevant and engaging for students. Such opportunities today can occur concurrently with efforts to develop multilingual policy frameworks. One current effort is in South Africa, where the recent Language Policy framework for Public Higher Education Institutions (LPHE, 2020) emphasises fostering a multilingual higher education system. This could serve as a model for other Middle Eastern and African countries to promote multilingualism in higher education while still accommodating EMI.

Conclusion EMI has become increasingly popular in higher education institutions across the MENA, and Sub-Saharan Africa. The rise of EMI has been influenced by a range of factors, including colonisation (and decolonisation), economic and educational development, internationalisation, globalisation, and geopolitical issues, that have driven language policy initiatives in these regions. In MENA, EMI has become more popular due to a growing interest in English as a language associated with modernity, globalisation, and economic participation. However, the lack of adequate English proficiency among students and faculty poses challenges to the quality of teaching and learning. In multilingual Sub-Saharan Africa, with many African languages spoken in the region, a history of colonialism has meant that English and French have continued to play significant roles. A need for a neutral lingua franca and the status of English as the dominant world language has led to English becoming the most commonly used language in higher education across East and Southern Africa. In postcolonial Africa, policymakers have grappled with language policies that involve deciding whether to keep colonial languages such as English, French, Spanish, and Portuguese as the language of instruction or whether to use local indigenous languages (which is also referred to as the ‘language problem in Africa’, see Kamwangamalu, 2016). While some scholars maintain that using English as the medium of instruction reinforces the false notion that African languages are not complex and contributes to their ongoing underdevelopment, others note that the use of English could help prevent conflicts between different ethnic groups, promotes national unity, and boosts socioeconomic development by utilising English as a language of wider communication (Botha & Coetzee-Van Rooy, this volume). 242

EMI across the Middle East, North Africa, and Sub-Saharan Africa

In terms of challenges, the lack of infrastructure, such as trained teachers and teaching materials, poor policies, and students’ and teachers’ (often low) levels of English language proficiency are some of the main issues faced by higher education institutions implementing EMI in these regions. Additionally, students’ entry into EMI universities with lower levels of English language proficiency can also affect the quality of teaching and learning. However, there are opportunities for EMI to co-evolve into a form of multilingual and English-medium of instruction education, with the development of academic literacy in English and fostering awareness of the advantages of multilingualism. For instance, academic literacy courses in English and local languages should be given a more prominent role across higher education institutions in Sub-Saharan African countries. In the MENA region, institutions need to provide instructors with EMI training to enhance their professional skills in EMI contexts. Regular regional forums could also be established to present and showcase best practices in EMI, drawing from successful implementations across different institutions. One obvious conclusion here is that relevant policymakers need to consider the institutional context when developing EMI policies as EMI implementation and available resources across institutions greatly differ from one other. While some universities have been established as EMI universities from the beginning, others have been established over time, and have since increased in number in recent years. Universities’ hiring policies can also play a determining factor in EMI universities: Measures need to be taken to ensure that instructors with adequate and evidenced skills in EMI are hired. As EMI continues to be what appears to be an inevitable trend in tertiary education in the twenty-first century, with the number of EMI universities increasing significantly in the MENA and Sub-Saharan African region, it presents numerous challenges, such as the lack of infrastructure, poor policies, and low levels of English language proficiency among teachers as well as students. Nonetheless, there are also opportunities in these regions to co-evolve EMI into a form of multilingual and EMI education. Policymakers need to consider the institutional context and provide adequate training and resources to instructors and students to achieve optimal results in EMI programmes. The chapters in the subsequent sections of this volume provide a valuable overview of the current status of EMI in a selected number of MENA, and Sub-Sahara African higher education.

References Adel, H. M., Zeinhom, G., & Mahrous, A. (2018). Effective management of an internationalization strategy: A case study on Egyptian–British universities’ partnerships. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 17, 183–202. Al-Hoorie, A. H., Al-Shahrani, M., Al Shlowiy, A. S., & Mitchell, C. (2021). Preparation of teachers of English as an additional language in Saudi Arabia: Research, policy, curriculum, and practice. In N. Polat, L. Mahalingappa, & H. Kayi-Aydar (Eds.), Preparation of teachers of English as an additional language (EAL) around the world: Research, policy, curriculum, and practice (pp. 158–187). Multilingual Matters. Allmnakrah, A., & Evers, C. (2020). The need for a fundamental shift in the Saudi education system: Implementing the Saudi Arabian economic vision 2030. Research in Education, 106(1), 22–40. Alnasser, S. M. N. (2022). Exploring EFL instructors’ self-derived English language policies at higher education level: A case study in the Saudi context. Frontiers in Education, 7, 1–9. Alshammari, S. (2020). Writing to learn or learning to write: A critical review of English as a foreign language (EFL) teaching practices in writing in Saudi universities. Research in Education and Learning Innovation Archives, 24, 1–22. Apia, K. D. (2010). Contribution to ‘ambitions for English in francophone West Africa’ project. Prepared for heads of English meeting organised by British Council Sénégal, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 1–2 October 2010. Arik, B. T. (2020). English in Turkey: A sociolinguistic profile. World Englishes, 39, 514–527.

243

Werner Botha Arik, B. T., & Arik, E. (2014). The role and status of English in Turkish higher education: English is the language of instruction in around 20% of the programs in Turkish universities. English Today, 30(4), 5–10. Barnawi, O. Z. (2021). EMI as a performative technology of acceleration in higher education contexts: Academics and administrators’ perspectives. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2021.1954385 Botha, W., & Coetzee-Van Rooy, S. (2021). Language mixing in the social network of a South African student. World Englishes, 40, 63–83. Botha, W., & Coetzee-Van Rooy, S. (2024). English-medium instruction (EMI) in Africa. In K. Bolton (Ed.), The Wiley encyclopedia of world Englishes. Wiley Blackwell, in press. Brock-Utne, B., & Qorro, M. A. S. (2015). Multilingualism and language in education in Tanzania. In A. Yiakoumetti (Ed.), Multilingualism and language in education: Sociolinguistic and pedagogical perspectives from Commonwealth countries (pp. 19–31). Cambridge University Press. Can, T., & Rey, A. (2022). Training language teachers for English-medium instruction (EMI) contexts through the use of Augmented Reality. In Y. Kirkgöz, & A. Karakaş (Eds.), English as the medium of instruction in Turkish higher education: Policy, practice and progress (pp. 197–213). Springer. Council of Higher Education. (2020). Study in Turkey. Retrieved from http://www.studyinturkey.gov.tr/ Dearden, J. (2014). English as a medium of instruction – A growing global phenomenon. Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.es/sites/default/files/british_council_english_as_a_medium_of_instruction. pdf Ead, H. A. (2019). Globalization in Egyptian higher education: Egyptian higher education (EHE) as soft power in neighbouring countries, Cairo University as a case study. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 11, 531–543. Elyas, T., & Al-Ghamdi, A. A. (2018). A critical ‘positivist’ analysis of Tatweer policy in Saudi Arabia. In A. W. Wiseman, & P. M. Davidson (Eds.), Cross-nationally comparative, evidence-based educational policymaking and reform (pp. 241–276). Emerald Publishing. Elyas, T., & Picard, M. (2018). A brief history of English in Saudi Arabia. In C. Moskovsky & M. Picard (Eds.), EFL in Saudi Arabia: New insights into teaching and learning English (pp. 78–92). Routledge. İnal, D., Bayyurt, Y., & Kerestecioğlu, F. (2021). Problematizing EMI programs in Turkish higher education: Voices from stakeholders. In Y. Bayyurt (Ed.), Bloomsbury world Englishes, volume III: Pedagogies (pp. 192–207). Bloomsbury. Kamwangamalu, N. M. (2016). Language policy and economics: The language question in Africa. Palgrave Macmillan. Kembo Sure. (2020). Language policy and politics. In R. Vossen, & G. J. Dimmendaal (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of African languages (pp. 1–10). Oxford University Press. Kohstall, F. (2012). Free transfer, limited mobility: A decade of higher education reform in Egypt and Morocco. Revue des Mondes Musulmans et de la Méditerranée, 131, 91–109. Lane, J. E. (2018). Importing branch campuses to advance Egypt’s development. International Higher Education, 95, 7–9. Language Policy framework for Public Higher Education Institutions. (2020). Language Policy framework for Public Higher Education institutions (LPHE). Retrieved from https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/ gcis_document/202011/43860gon1160.pdf Macaro, E. (2018). English medium instruction: Content and language in policy and practice. Oxford University Press. Mohr, S. (2018). The changing dynamics of language use and language attitudes in Tanzania. Language Matters: Studies in the Languages of Africa, 49(3), 105–127. Mokaya, N. (2014). The language debate in African literature. Retrieved from https://www.academia. edu/8015888/THE_LANGUAGE_DEBATE_IN_AFRICAN_LITERATURE Negash, N. (2011). English language in Africa: An impediment or a contributor to development. Perceptions of English, Paper 8. Ntombela, B. X. S. (2023). The sociolinguistic problems of English medium instruction in the Middle East and North Africa: Implications for epistemic access. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2023.1084626 Ochieng, D. (2015). The revival of the status of English in Tanzania: What future does the status of the English language have in Tanzania? English Today, 31(2), 25–31. Official Gazette. (2016, March 23). Yükseköğretim Kurumlarinda Yabancı Dil Öğretimi ve Yabanci Dille Öğretim Yapilmasinda Uyulacak Esaslara İlişkin Yönetmelik [Regulation on the principles to be followed

244

EMI across the Middle East, North Africa, and Sub-Saharan Africa in foreign language teaching and teaching in a foreign language in higher education institutions]. Retrieved from https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/ eskiler/2016/03/20160323-6.htm Plonski, P., Teferra, A., & Brady, R. (2013, November 23). Why are more African countries adopting English as an official language? [Paper presentation]. African Studies Association Annual Conference, Baltimore. Retrieved from https://www.booksforafrica.org/ assets/documents/2013-ASA-Conference---EnglishLanguage-in-Africa-PAPER.pdfx Probyn, M. (2009). ‘Smuggling the vernacular into the classroom’: Conflicts and tensions in classroom codeswitching in township/rural schools in South Africa. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12, 123–136. Roy-Campbell, Z. M., & Qorro, M. A. (1997). Language crisis in Tanzania: The myth of English versus education. Mkuki na Nyota. Saleem, S. (2021). Egyptian medical civilization: From dawn of history to Kasr Al Ainy School. In Proceedings of the Conference on Pharmacy and Medicine in Ancient Egypt, Barcelona, Spain (pp. 104–115). Archeopress. Van der Walt, C. (2013). Multilingual higher education: Beyond English medium orientations. Multilingual Matters. Yacoub, D. (2015). English is all the rage in Mauritania. Retrieved from https://www.al-fanarmedia.org/ 2015/08/english-is-all-the-rage-in-mauritania/#:~:text=In%20Mauritania% t2C%20teaching%20English%20 is%20a%20new%20business%2C,French%20is%20taught%20beginning%20in%20the%20sixth% 20grade

245

18 ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN EGYPT Muhammad M. M. Abdel Latif

Introduction In the last few decades, the Englishisation of higher education has become a growing international phenomenon. In non-Anglophone countries in all regions of the world, there has been an increasing orientation towards using English as a medium of instruction in higher education institutions. Several factors have stimulated higher education institutions to adopt English-medium instruction (EMI) policies. Collectively, these factors include: (i) recognising the increasing importance of English as an international language and the growing trend towards using it in workplaces; (ii) attracting foreign students; (iii) promoting the international reputation of higher education systems and increasing institutional ranking; (iv) fostering the regional identity and global citizenship of higher education systems; (v) adopting the inclusion of EMI policies in the national higher education system; (vi) meeting the needs of the students receiving bilingual education at the preuniversity stages; and (vii) coping with the nature of source teaching materials written mostly in English (Coleman, 2006; Doiz, Lasagabaster, & Sierra, 2013; Galloway, 2020; Knight, 2013; Macaro, Curle, Pun, An, & Dearden, 2018). At present, the view of EMI in Egypt is no exception as there has been a growing interest in integrating it in many universities in the country. Egypt (Misr in Arabic) has one of the longest histories of any country in the modern world. It is a country that has been continuously inhabited since the 10th millennium BC. The ancient Egyptian language is also one of the oldest written languages. Its written records – the hieroglyphs – go back to about 3400 BC. Due to its long history, foreign language education in Egypt dates back to many centuries. As for English, it has been officially taught in Egyptian educational institutions for about a 150 years. Meanwhile, the use of EMI in Egyptian higher education institutions dates back to the end of the nineteenth century when English became the language of teaching in Kasr Al Ainy Medical School (Saleem, 2021). This chapter highlights the developments in the EMI policies and practices in Egypt, and discusses the challenges encountering the delivery of this instruction. The chapter starts with a description of the general sociolinguistic background in Egypt. Then, it traces and summarises the historical developments in the languages of instruction in the Egyptian higher education system.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003011644-21 246

English-medium instruction in higher education in Egypt

The fourth section discusses the current status of EMI and the educational policies related to it in Egypt. The larger section in this chapter covers the distinctive features, realities, and challenges of EMI in the different university types in the country. The chapter ends with providing some concluding thoughts drawn from this review and discussing the future of EMI in Egypt and the reforms needed in it.

The sociolinguistic background in Egypt Egypt is the most populous country in the Arab world; it currently has about 107 million people. Due to this factor and as a result of the influential Egyptian media, colloquial Egyptian Arabic is the most widely understood dialect in the region. It is often used interchangeably with ‘Cairene Arabic’. Egyptian Arabic with its different sub-dialects is generally the language used for social communication in everyday situations, and also in governmental offices and most mass media in Egypt. On the other hand, Egyptians use Modern Standard Arabic in official documents. Apart from Arabic, foreign languages also play a role in the sociolinguistic landscape in the country. English is the most dominant foreign language in the lives of Egyptians. Some Egyptian TV and radio channels are broadcasted in English, and several Egyptian newspapers are also published in English. Both Arabic and English are the two main languages used in the street signs, postage stamps, political banners, and restaurant menus. More than two decades ago, Schaub (2000) noted such widespread use of English and stated that: In most areas frequented by tourists or foreign expatriates, restaurant menus are usually bilingual or separate menus in English are available. [There have been] numerous functions – in contexts such as communication in business, higher education, medicine, and tourism – where Egyptians used some or much English in regular discourse with other Egyptians […] Well-educated young Egyptians will commonly use some English vocabulary during conversations that are primarily in Arabic. (Schaub, 2000, pp. 229–232) Compared to what Schaub reported at the turn of the millennium, English is now more widely used in the Egyptian society. The technological revolution, computer-mediated communication tools, and the social changes have undoubtedly added new dimensions to the use of English in the Egyptian context. On the one hand, many Egyptians now commonly post their microblogs on social media in English. Some write their microblogs completely in English, whereas others use Arabic but include English words. Additionally, Arabic-English code-switching has become a very popular phenomenon in the videos uploaded on YouTube and other media-sharing websites. On the other hand, the Egyptian society has recently witnessed major changes such as the building of luxurious gated compounds in Greater Cairo cities (for example, New Cairo, 6th October, and Sheikh Zayed districts), and the increasing number of international schools and universities. These changes have created Arabic-English bilingual communities in the Egyptian society where many young Egyptians normally prefer to interact with each other in English, and use Arabic for home communication with family members; and even their everyday communication with family and other community members is usually characterised by frequent Arabic-English code-switching. Nasser (2019) found that this Englishisation phenomenon is not only dominant among young Egyptians in their social communication but also encompasses creating new English names for

247

Muhammad M. M. Abdel Latif

traditional local dishes. In doing so, young Egyptians use some linguistic strategies such as borrowing and loan translation. Nasser interprets this Englishisation as follows: In fact, youth has their own way of life, and sometimes they do so to distance themselves from other people, or to show solidarity as a distinctive group. The preference for English over Arabic terms is mainly psychological. … [T]hey want to show that they are highly educated and belong to a higher social class. … For them, these names are more modernized and fashionable than the original Arabic counterparts. They are associated with a sophisticated, western lifestyle, and they are only used by young Egyptians because of their foreign appeal. (Nasser, 2019, pp. 106–107) Sharkawi (2013) also states that, in such Egyptian communities, English is perceived as the language of the elite, while Arabic is seen as a minority language in the fields of education, career achievement, and social mobility. Since English is increasingly used in everyday situations for social communication, identity characterisation, and graduate employability, many families in Egypt are interested in enabling their children to receive their education in EMI schools and universities and/or to have intensive English instruction (Abdel Latif, 2017; Abouelhassan & Meyer, 2016; Aboulfetouh, 2011; El-Fiki, 2012; Schaub, 2000).

Languages of instruction in the Egyptian higher education system The establishment of Egyptian higher education institutions dates back to the early decades of the nineteenth century. The institutions established during this century were not universities but they were separate higher education schools founded at that time for educating engineers, doctors, vets, pharmacists, agricultural specialists, lawyers, and translators. Specifically, these include the following schools established by Muhammad Ali Pasha (the founder of modern Egypt) and his successors: School of Engineering, School of Medicine, School of Pharmacy, School of Veterinary Medicine, School of Agriculture, School of Law, and Madrasat al-Alsun (that is, School of Languages). The main languages of instruction in these schools were French, Arabic, and English. During the early decades of nineteenth century, the majority of the subjects in these schools were taught by European faculty members (most of them were French) due to the lack of qualified specialised citizens at that time. That is why those faculty members taught their subjects in French but their instruction and interaction with the students was communicated through interpreters (Saleem, 2021). By the middle of the nineteenth century, there was more dependence on Arabic in learning the subjects taught in these schools. However, towards the end of the nineteenth century, English (due to the influence of the British occupation of Egypt) became the more dominant language of instruction. Saleem (2021) summarises this case with regard to the School of Medicine (known later as Kasr Al Ainy Medical School): Faculty staff members were Europeans who needed interpreters for Arabic […] With the inclusion of Egyptians as instructors, all courses were conducted in Arabic after 1839 […] By the year 1849, 55 textbooks were translated to Arabic. Graduates of Kasr Al Ainy Medical School mastered not only their medical knowledge and training, but also foreign languages (French), and contributed in research studies. Arabic remained the language of teaching at Kasr Al Ainy

248

English-medium instruction in higher education in Egypt

till 1880s, when the British occupation transferred the studies from Arabic to English language. Since that time, studies have been in English at Kasr Al Ainy Faculty of Medicine. (Saleem, 2021, pp. 107–108) It is worth noting that the above-mentioned specialised schools represented the roots of the Egyptian University (Cairo University, 2017). In the first four decades of the twentieth century, foreigners constituted the larger number of the faculty members at the newly established Egyptian University. They were mainly British and French, and their number increased in the applied sciences majors. Ead (2019a) describes the languages of instruction in the majors taught at the University during these decades as follows: The Egyptian University [i.e., known later as Fuad I University, and then Cairo University] possessed a liberal arts focus, offering courses in economics, philosophy, history and literature mainly taught by European professors of oriental studies. […] During the years from 1920s–1940s, the Egyptian University (Fuad I University) was advertising in very famous European Journals like Nature, for vacancies in some of the important specializations, such as: Chemistry, Botany and Zoology. […] European professors in the Egyptian University fall into two categories: those who lectured in French or English on topics unrelated to the Middle East and orientalists who lectured in Arabic on Arab and Islamic subjects. (Ead, 2019a, p. 4) Thus, it can be concluded that the three main languages of instruction used at Cairo University during this era were: Arabic, English, and French. In the second half of the twentieth century, more public universities were founded in the country, and the number of foreign faculty members steadily decreased. Since the mid-1990s, there has been a growing wave of establishing private universities in which an increasing number of Egyptian faculty members have been recruited. All these changes in the faculty members’ demographics have created new orientations in the languages of instruction in Egyptian universities. Currently, the vast majority of the faculty members in Egyptian public and private universities are citizens. As a result, the status of the languages of instruction at these universities has completely changed. Since the early 1950s, Arabic has become the main language of instruction in all the social sciences and humanities fields with the exception of foreign language majors, which are taught in the languages studied (for example, Chinese, English, French, German, Hebrew, Japanese, Spanish, Italian, and Urdu). In addition, some Egyptian universities offer students EMI study programmes but these are limited to specific majors such as business administration, mass communication, law, and politics. Some universities also offer French-medium instruction study programmes in the last two majors (as in law and politics). As for applied sciences majors (such as medicine, engineering, biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, and geology), they all are taught in English, and students’ academic performance is assessed in English as well. Accordingly, the two main languages of instruction in Egyptian universities, regardless of whether they are public or private ones, are Arabic and English, whereas French is used in some few study programmes.

EMI in higher education institutions in Egypt Egypt has the oldest and largest higher education system in the Arab world, and is one of the most attractive Arab countries to international university students (Jaramillo, Ruby, Henard, & Zaafrane, 2011). It has been regarded as a pioneering hub of students’ mobility in the region 249

Muhammad M. M. Abdel Latif

(Lane, 2018). For example, in 2019, there were 47,000 foreign students enrolled in Egyptian public universities (Ead, 2019b). With the rapid international and local changes in the education and labour market sectors, there has been a growing orientation towards internationalising higher education in Egypt. The following procedures have been taken in the last three decades to accomplish this purpose: (a) establishing study programmes taught in foreign languages, mainly in English, in a number of public universities; (b) enacting a new law in 1994 for founding private universities in the country (Kohstall, 2012); and (c) making partnerships with international universities and creating international branch campuses (IBCs) in New Cairo (Adel, Zeinhom, & Mahrous, 2018; Lane, 2018). In fact, the Egyptian government has taken these procedures for a number of reasons such as: (a) Overcoming the decreasing quality in public university education; (b) attracting foreign students and retaining home ones; (c) building the academic capital and promoting international reputation and competiveness; and (d) linking education with the requirements of the labour market (Enterprise, 2020a, 2020b; Kohstall, 2012; Lane, 2018). As a result of these higher education reform policies, the number of both public and private universities in the country has increased tremendously in the last three decades. Before 1994, Egypt had only 12 public universities and a private one (the American University in Cairo). By 2010, the country had 17 public and 16 private universities (Kohstall, 2012). In 2018, this number has increased to 24 public and 23 private universities (Lane, 2018). With this internationalisation movement of higher education, English has played a key role as it is the medium of instruction in many of these newly established study programmes, universities, and branch campuses. Table 18.1 gives a summary of the types of EMI universities/study programmes in Egypt and their English language-related admission requirement and support. At present, Egypt has several foreign universities in which English is used as a medium of instruction, including the American University in Cairo, the German University in Cairo, and the British University in Egypt, along with branch campuses for some British universities such as Coventry University and the University of Hertfordshire. Additionally, there are some other newly established private non-foreign EMI universities such as Zewail City of Science and Technology, Nile University, and October University for Modern Sciences & Arts. To cope with the emergence of such foreign and Egyptian EMI higher education institutions in the country, other public and private Arabic-medium instruction universities created particular EMI social science and humanities study programmes with higher tuition fees as compared to those taught in Arabic. Specifically, these EMI study programmes are taught in the following five university majors: business administration (a large number of Egyptian public and private universities); law (Cairo University, Ain-Shams University, Alexandria University, Tanta University, Mansoura University, Menoufia University, and Zagazig University); economics and politics (Cairo University); mass communication (Cairo University); and tourism and hospitality (Helwan University). It is worth mentioning that, in these EMI study programmes, most subjects are taught in English, whereas a small portion of them are taught in Arabic. In addition to these EMI social science and humanities majors, applied sciences programmes in public and private Arabic-medium instruction universities are also taught in English. Regarding the English language requirement needed for joining EMI study programmes, it generally differs from one university type to another. Foreign universities, IBCs, and Egyptian private EMI universities often require applicants to provide evidence of getting a minimum score on an international standardised test such as the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) and the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), or alternatively get a minimum score on an international test taken at the university applied for. For example, the AUC and the Nile University do not admit students whose academic IELTS scores are below 5 and 4.5, respectively. 250

English-medium instruction in higher education in Egypt Table 18.1  The types of EMI universities/study programmes in Egypt and their English language-related admission requirements and support Type of EMI universities/ study programmes

Examples

English language-related admission requirements and support

Foreign universities (in Greater Cairo)

American University in Cairo, German University in Cairo, and British University in Egypt Coventry University, and University of Hertfordshire

A minimum score on an international standardised test (e.g., IELTS, TOEFL) Or A minimum score on a standardised English admission test Remedial English courses to be completed if conditionally admitted Available English language instruction support

International branch campuses (in Greater Cairo) Egyptian private EMI universities (in Greater Cairo) Social sciences and humanities EMI study programmes in Egyptian Arabic-medium instruction universities Applied sciences study programmes in Egyptian Arabic-medium instruction universities

Zewail City of Science and Technology, Nile University, and October University for Modern Sciences and Arts Business administration, law, politics and economics, mass communication, and tourism and hospitality majors Medicine, engineering, biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, and geology

A minimum score on the English exam of the high school certificate Or A minimum score on an English admission test (non-standardised) Limited English language instruction support (in a few programmes) No English proficiency or test score required Limited English language instruction support (in a few programmes)

Source: University admission regulation documents, the websites of universities, and some empirical and news reports (Arrigoni & Clark, 2015; Tareq, 2015).

Meanwhile, the two universities ask applicants whose IELTS scores range from 4.5/5 to 6.5 to take in-sessional multi-skill English language courses, while students whose scores are 7 or above attend academic writing courses only. In Arrigoni and Clark’s (2015) study on the appropriateness of the IELTS cut-off scores used for admission and remedial course placement at the American University in Cairo, it was found that these scores were appropriate and matched students’ academic outcomes, and instructor and student evaluations. However, the study revealed that the cut-off scores used for remedial course placement were inconsistent with the writing section of the test and the content of the courses. As for the EMI study programmes in Egyptian public and private Arabic-medium instruction universities, these require applicants to get a minimum score on the English exam of their high school certificate. In very exceptional cases such as the EMI study programme of the Faculty of Economics and Political Science at Cairo University, applicants must get a minimum score on an admission test. On the other hand, applied sciences programmes in public and private Arabic-medium instruction universities do not require applicants to meet any English language requirement, but it is worth noting that these programmes admit students with top high school certificate scores (normally 95–98% of the total score). That is why, it is assumed they have English proficiency levels appropriate for meeting their study requirements. 251

Muhammad M. M. Abdel Latif

English language instruction support also varies from one university type to another. In foreign universities, IBCs and Egyptian private EMI universities, students receive adequate English language instruction support. This can take the form of courses in academic and assignment writing, academic study skills, or presentation skills. These courses are normally offered in the early years of the university study. In the applied sciences, social sciences, and humanities EMI programmes offered in public and private Arabic-medium instruction universities, English language instruction is limited and may be unavailable in many cases. If available, it may take the form of an English for specific purposes course that students study for one or two terms. While there are no conclusive official reports about the number of students attending these various EMI programmes and universities in Egypt, it is generally noted that increasing numbers of students join them annually. Additionally, a considerable number of Arab students join these programmes. Students’ main reasons for joining EMI programmes in Egypt include completing their higher education degrees in good learning environments, preparing themselves for a better future, and meeting the requirements of the labour market.

EMI features, realities, and challenges in Egyptian higher education As indicated earlier, the higher education policies adopted in Egypt has created various types of EMI universities and programmes. While the empirical evidence available cannot help us to completely describe the EMI practices in these different types of universities and programmes, it was possible to profile some dimensions of such practices based on a few related studies, online classroom instruction materials, faculty members’ profiles, some newspapers reports, and informal discussions with four faculty members. Overall, the insights gained from these multiple sources suggest that the EMI practices and realities vary from one university type to another. Such variance is explained and discussed in the following subsections.

Foreign universities, international branch campuses, and Egyptian private EMI universities While there is generally no adequate research evidence documenting the EMI practices in the three types of universities, the online profiles of the faculty members working in these universities, along with the author’s interaction with many of them, appear to indicate that they do not have teacherrelated challenges in using EMI. The vast majority of the faculty members recruited in the three university types are either ‘native speakers’ of English (mostly US or British citizens) or Egyptians holding PhD degrees from a Western university. That is why they can easily deliver EMI classes in their majors. Additionally, in most situations, if not all, English is the language used in out-ofclass teacher-student communication (for example, office hours and emails) in the three university types. What facilitates the EMI learning and teaching practices in the three university types is the fact that most of the students attending them have experienced EMI at the pre-university educational stages, and many of them communicate with each other in English outside the academic context. Refer to Schaub’s (1999) description of the sociolinguistic interaction at the American University in Cairo for further reading. However, EMI in these universities does not seem to be without some learner-related challenges. For example, Ghenghesh, Hamed, and Abdelfattah’s (2011) study explored the English language needs of the students majored in business at the British University in Egypt, and found they had a need for developing academic writing and reading skills. This study also showed that the faculty members perceived their students’ English language skills as lower than they were viewed by the students themselves. Meanwhile, both the students 252

English-medium instruction in higher education in Egypt

and teachers viewed that the placement assessment related to the remedial English courses should have covered other language areas such as writing and speaking in order to accurately mirror students’ overall English proficiency and identify their proper placement from the beginning. These results are similar to the aforementioned ones revealed by Arrigoni and Clark (2015) about the inconsistency between the IELTS cut-off scores used for placing students in the remedial writing courses at the American University in Cairo and the content of these courses. Both studies emphasise the need for reconsidering students’ placement in such in-sessional courses.

Social sciences and humanities EMI study programmes in public and private Arabic-medium instruction universities There seems to be almost no research profiling the EMI practices within the social sciences and humanities study programmes in public and private Arabic-medium instruction universities in Egypt. However, the informal telephone discussions with four faculty members along with available recorded lecturers and related newspaper reports have helped in gathering some evidence about how EMI is generally practised in such programmes. To initially explore the EMI practices in these programmes, the author had informal short telephone discussions with four faculty members teaching EMI courses in them (two teaching business administration, one teaching political sciences, and another teaching mass communication). All the four faculty members reported giving their lectures in English, and that they rarely switch to Arabic while explaining course content. They also noted that some of their colleagues may switch frequently to Arabic in their lectures. As for the out-of-class communication with students, they mentioned that it may be in English or Arabic depending on the language preferred or initiated by the student in the office hours and emails. The four faculty members congruently mentioned that their students do not have problems in understanding lectures, but they have weaknesses in English writing and speaking. Thus, they all recognise these learner-related challenges, but – as mentioned in the previous section – only a few of these EMI programmes offer students English language instruction support. On the other hand, YouTube is full of lectures recorded for the students attending some of these programmes, particularly in business administration and law majors. In these recorded lectures, the larger number of the faculty members clearly rely on reading a small content part in English, and then explaining it in Arabic. In fact, the available recorded lectures delivered fully in English are very rare. Such dependence on translation may be intended to facilitate students’ understanding of the content, or might reflect faculty members’ inability to explain the content fluently in English. The available lecture videos also show that faculty members’ English communicative competence levels vary from one major to another. For example, it is generally noted that business administration faculty members have a relatively better English communicative competence than those teaching law. Overall, the available recorded lectures seem to indicate that there are also teacher-related challenges in this type of social sciences and humanities EMI study programmes. A related newspaper report published in Al-Fanar Media (Tareq, 2015) supports the mentioned hypotheses about learner-related and teacher-related challenges. In this report, several students majored in mass communication, business administration, and politics and economics discussed some weaknesses in the EMI study programmes they were studying. Students were particularly dissatisfied with the learning materials written in English, faculty members’ English communicative competence, and class size. Some of these students also mentioned that they did not have the expected improvement in their English proficiency as a result of studying their EMI programmes; therefore, they were planning to take advanced-level English courses to be more well-prepared for the labour market. Thus, when compared to those in the aforementioned three 253

Muhammad M. M. Abdel Latif

university types, there seems to be a weaker version of EMI at the social sciences and humanities study programmes in Arabic-medium instruction universities. Since some learner- and teacherrelated challenges appear to hinder effective EMI practices in these programmes, there is a need for bringing about some reforms in them given that effective English communication is essential for their graduates in future workplaces.

Applied sciences majors in public and private Arabic-medium instruction universities As mentioned previously, applied sciences majors studying in English in Egyptian Arabic-medium instruction universities include medicine, dentistry, engineering, computer science, veterinary medicine, pharmacy, and other science branches (such as chemistry, physics, astronomy, and mathematics). The textbooks students read in these majors are written in English, and students also take their tests and exams in English. As for the way faculty members teach these majors, there is little empirical evidence about it. An early note was made by Bending (1976) about using English as a medium of instruction in these majors in Egyptian universities: English remains the medium of instruction within university faculties of medicine, dentistry, veterinary studies, engineering and certain other scientific subjects. … [P]rofessors at the universities tend to use a mixed medium combining English technical terminology linked together by colloquial Arabic. (Bending, 1976, pp. 316–317) Schaub (2000) also reported insights gained from interviews with two Cairo University graduates, a civil engineer and a vet, who said that during university study they were using English frequently in out-of-class communication with their mates, and that they used terminology only in English in their discussions. The current status of EMI in the applied sciences majors in Egyptian Arabic-medium instruction universities seems to be similar to these two earlier reports (Bending, 1976; Schaub, 2000). At present, there are dozens of lectures posted on YouTube for the students majored at different applied sciences fields in these universities. The following three common characteristics can be easily noted in these recorded lecturers regardless of the major: The main subject content is given in English on a PowerPoint slide or a board; while this content is written in English, it is explained in Arabic; and English is mainly used when referring to terminology. Thus, Bending’s (1976) aforementioned description still appears to apply to the way applied sciences majors are currently taught in this type of universities. Numerous research reports support this conclusion. For example, Sabbour, Dewedar, and Kandil (2010) explored Egyptian university students’ English language difficulties in medical education using a questionnaire with 400 students and 150 faculty members. They found that 56.3% of the students had difficulties with studying medicine in English, particularly regarding oral exams, textbook understanding, and patient communication. As for the faculty members, they viewed that first-year medicine students only had such English language difficulties. The study also revealed that many students in this university context relied on translation as a strategy for studying medicine (particularly medical terms), and that they preferred doing some clinical study dimensions (for example, patient history-taking) in Arabic rather than English. It seems that there is a mutual interaction between faculty members’ use of Arabic in their lectures and their students’ reliance on translation into Arabic as a way for studying materials in 254

English-medium instruction in higher education in Egypt

these applied sciences majors. Though the content is written in English, faculty members resort to explaining it in Arabic to communicate the subject matter effectively, facilitate students’ understanding, or perhaps to avoid potential communication problems in English. Likewise, students rely on translation because they see their teachers do the same in classes/lectures, or perhaps to understand the subject matter in a way they could communicate to their future workplace audience (such as patients and industry audience). What may have fostered students’ translation practices is the lack of emphasis on effective English language performance in testing situations, and the absence of English language units/programmes within each academic department. These two factors may have caused many students to pay less attention to learning the course contents of their major in English, and to prefer relying on Arabic translation in learning it. One main language policy issue associated with the aforementioned results about the tendency to use Arabic in teaching and learning medicine is the debate on the Arabisation versus the Englishisation of applied sciences. This issue has long been debated not only in Egypt but also in the Arab world. It has generally been discussed and researched in relation to applied sciences (Ahmed, Peeran, & Ahmed, 2015; Al Jarf, 2008; Albar & Assuhaimi, 1996; Al-Saadat & Sheikh Al-Shabab, 2005), though some few studies have also linked it with social sciences and humanities majors (Ellili-Cherif & Alkhateeb, 2015). Collectively, the calls for using Arabic as a medium of instruction are rationalised by facilitating students’ learning, protecting the national identity, and avoiding linguistic imperialism (Ahmed et al., 2015). Other specific reasons have been raised in relation to some majors such as medicine. For example, some faculty members reported that using EMI in the medicine major creates a gap between the language of teaching medicine (English) and the one used in actual practices in medical settings (Arabic) (Sabbour et al., 2010). Despite these calls, a few relevant studies conducted in Egypt found variance in stakeholders’ views regarding whether Arabic should be used as a medium of instruction in ­applied sciences majors or not (Barakat, 2003; Sabbour et al., 2010). At a practical level, the high quality of EMI in university departments remains a main factor pushing increasing numbers of students compete annually for joining them.

Conclusion As has been explained earlier, English has long been used as a language of instruction in higher education institutions in Egypt. While this was limited to some university majors in the past, the situation is completely different at present. The last two decades have witnessed a growing phenomenon of Englishising higher education institutions and programmes in the country. Several educational policies have been enacted to internationalise higher education. Intuitively, the Englishisation of instruction has been a key feature in the vast majority of the university programmes following these internationalisation policies. The contextual factors stimulating the internationalisation and Englishisation policies in Egypt are similar to those found worldwide (for example, promoting international reputation, attracting students, and preparing them for future workplaces). The increasing orientations towards higher education internationalisation in Egypt have created numerous EMI institutions and programmes with different characteristics. As indicated earlier, EMI practices seem to have a few challenges in foreign universities, international branch campuses, and Egyptian private EMI universities. These challenges are mainly learner-related ones (for example, students’ academic writing levels). In such universities, EMI means using learning content written in English and communicating it in the classroom using English as well. On the other hand, the Egyptian public and private universities in which Arabic is the dominant language of instruction appear to have many learner- and teacher-related barriers to effective EMI 255

Muhammad M. M. Abdel Latif

practices: for example, students’ language competence, teachers’ communicative language ability, and in some cases teachers’ negative attitude towards using English in their courses. In this type of universities, EMI implies using learning content written in English but communicating it in the classroom through, depending on the context, parallel language practices in some cases or code-switching in others. These initial indicators suggest that, in Egypt, there is still a long way to develop EMI practices in Arabic-medium instruction universities as compared to their EMI counterparts (i.e., foreign universities, IBCs, and Egyptian private EMI universities). It is expected that more and more EMI universities and programmes will be founded in the country as a result of the internationalisation policies adopted by the Ministry of Higher Education, the increasing numbers of students enrolled in international and language schools, and the new cities established in Greater Cairo. Considering the information presented earlier, there is a need for reforming EMI practices in higher education institutions in Egypt. These reforms will vary from one university type to another. In the EMI universities, students’ in-sessional language placement and remedial courses will need to be reconsidered. Meanwhile, bringing about the desired learning goals in the EMI programmes in the Arabic-medium instruction universities will require making reforms at different levels, including: student admission policies, in-sessional English language instruction, faculty members’ preparation and training, and regulation of teaching and out-of-classroom communication conventions. Given the scarcity of the research on the realities of EMI and its implementation in the Egyptian context, it is important to remind readers that the review given previously is based on some initial indicators about the EMI features, realities, and challenges in different types of universities. Thus, there is a pressing need for future research on EMI practices and realities in these university types. Addressing these contextual EMI research gaps will require changing the experimental language teaching research orientations dominant in the Egyptian context (Abdel Latif, 2015, 2018). The importance of such research lies in that could help us profile the status of EMI in each university type, and may enable stakeholders to overcome problematic learning and teaching practices. Research collaboration between language teaching investigators and faculty members working in EMI programmes could be also an effective approach to facilitating data collection procedures. The variety of EMI higher education institution and programme types found in Egypt can offer researchers an opportunity to obtain rich data about EMI features that seem to be unique as compared to those found in many other countries. Thus, paying due attention to investigating EMI in higher education and the realities of its implementation in Egypt will represent a potentially significant contribution to international research on the area.

References Abdel Latif, M. M. M. (2015). Reading sources and academic freedom as determinants of trends in English language teacher research in Egypt: An interview-based study. European Journal of Teacher Education, 38, 137–153. Abdel Latif, M. M. M. (2017). English education policy at the pre-university stages in Egypt: Past, present and future directions. In R. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), English language policy in the Middle East and North Africa (pp. 33–45). Springer. Abdel Latif, M. M. M. (2018). English language teaching research in Egypt: Current trends and challenges. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 39, 818–829. Abouelhassan, R. M., & Meyer, L. M. (2016). Economy, modernity, Islam, and English in Egypt. World Englishes, 35, 147–159. Aboulfetouh, M. (2011). Parents’ attitudes towards their children’s bilingualism and cultural identity in international schools in Egypt (Master’s dissertation). The American University in Cairo, Egypt.

256

English-medium instruction in higher education in Egypt Adel, H. M., Zeinhom, G., & Mahrous, A. (2018). Effective management of an internationalization strategy: A case study on Egyptian–British universities’ partnerships. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 17, 183–202. Ahmed, K., Peeran, S., & Ahmed, M. (2015). Attitudes of Libyan dental and medical students toward the use of English language as a medium of instruction. Dentistry and Medical Research, 3(2), 53–58. Albar, A. A., & Assuhaimi, S. A. (1996). Attitude of medical students and 26 postgraduate residents at King Faisal University towards teaching medicine in Arabic. Saudi Medical Journal, 17, 230–234. Al Jarf, R. (2008). The impact of English as an international language (EIL) upon Arabic in Saudi Arabia. Asian EFL Journal, 10(4), 193–210. Al-Saadat, A., & Sheikh Al-Shabab, O. (2005). English, the language of super power, and Arabization in Saudi Arabia. Arabization of Arabia, 20(8), 9–25. Arrigoni, E., & Clark, V. (2015). Investigating the appropriateness of IELTS cut-off scores for admissions and placement decisions at an English medium university in Egypt. IELTS Research Report Series No. 3, 1–29. Barakat, M. A. E. (2003). ‫دراسة اتجاهات أعضاء هيئة التدريس بجامعة المنوفية نحو تعريب تعليم العلوم والتقنية‬ ‫"كمدخل لمواجهة التحديات المعاصرة "العولمة وتهديد الهوية القومية‬. [Investigating Menoufia University faculty members’ attitudes towards Arabization of sciences and technology as an approach to overcoming current challenges (globalization and threat to national identity)]. Journal of Curriculum & Instruction, 15, 578–610. Bending, H. B. (1976) Motivation for English in an examination-geared school system. ELT Journal, 30, 315–320. Cairo University. (2017). Roots of Cairo University. Retrieved from https://cu.edu.eg/page. php?pg=contentFront/SubSectionData.php&SubSectionId=234 Coleman, J. A. (2006). English-medium teaching in European higher education. Language Teaching, 39, 1–14. Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. (2013). Globalisation, internationalisation, mutlingualism and linguistic strains in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38, 1407–1421. Ead, H. A. (2019a). Globalization in higher education in Egypt in a historical context. Research in Globalization, 1, 100003. Ead, H. A. (2019b). Globalization in Egyptian higher education: Egyptian higher education (EHE) as soft power in neighbouring countries, Cairo University as a case study. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 11, 531–543. El-Fiki, H. A. (2012). Teaching English as a foreign language and using English as a medium of instruction in Egypt: Teachers’ perceptions of teaching approaches and sources of change (PhD thesis). University of Toronto, Canada. Ellili-Cherif, M., & Alkhateeb, H. (2015). College students’ attitude toward the medium of instruction: Arabic versus English dilemma. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 3, 207–213. Enterprise. (2020a). Can Egypt’s internationalization strategy persuade Egyptians to study here at home? Retrieved from https://enterprise.press/stories/2020/09/28/can-egypts-internationalizationstrategy-persuade-egyptians-to-study-here-at-home-22523/ Enterprise. (2020b). Is Egypt’s internationalization policy on track to keep more students in the country? Education leaders give their opinions. Retrieved from https://enterprise.press/stories/2020/10/05/isegypts-internationalization-policy-on-track-to-keep-more-students-in-the-country-education-leadersgive-their-opinions-22841/ Galloway, N. (2020). English in higher education – English medium Part 1: Literature review. London: British Council. Ghenghesh, P., Hamed, M., & Abdelfattah, Y. (2011). A study of perceptions of English needs of business students and the Faculty of Business at the British University in Egypt. Arab World English Journal, 2(1), 233–254. Jaramillo, A., Ruby A., Henard, F., & Zaafrane, H. (2011). Internationalization of higher education in MENA: Policy issues associated with skills formation and mobility. World Bank Report No. 63762-MNA. World Bank. Knight, J. (2013). The changing landscape of higher education internationalization – For better or worse? Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 17(3), 84–90. Kohstall, F. (2012). Free transfer, limited mobility: A decade of higher education reform in Egypt and Morocco. Revue des Mondes Musulmans et de la Méditerranée, 131, 91–109.

257

Muhammad M. M. Abdel Latif Lane, J. E. (2018). Importing branch campuses to advance Egypt’s development. International Higher Education, 95, 7–9. Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J., & Dearden, J. (2018). A systematic review of English medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching, 51, 36–76. Nasser, M. A. E. M. (2019). Englishization as a linguistic phenomenon among Egyptian youth with reference to selected Egyptian traditional dishes: A lexical-cultural approach. Journal of Scientific Research in Arts, 9, 85–110. Sabbour, S., Dewedar, I., & Kandil, S. (2010). Language barriers in medical education and attitudes towards Arabization of medicine: student and staff perspectives. Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal, 16, 1263–1271. Saleem, S. (2021). Egyptian medical civilization: From dawn of history to Kasr Al Ainy School. In Proceedings of the Conference on Pharmacy and Medicine in Ancient Egypt, Barcelona, Spain (pp. 104–115). Archeopress Publishing. Schaub, M. (1999). Sociolinguistic profiling and the negotiation of stakeholder expectations in a writing programme: A case study (PhD thesis). Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. Schaub, M. (2000). English in the Arab Republic of Egypt. World Englishes, 19, 225–238. Sharkawi, T. (2013). The official language is a minority language: Language-in-education policy and planning in Egypt [Paper presentation]. 3rd International Conference of the Future of Education, Florence, Italy. Tareq, R. (2015). ‫طالب جامعة القاهرة يشتكون من برامج اللغة اإلنجليزية‬. [Cairo University students complain about EMI programmes]. Al-Fanar Media.

258

19 ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN SAUDI ARABIA Tariq Elyas and Ali H. Al-Hoorie

Introduction The past decade has witnessed a rapid growth of English-medium Instruction (EMI) programmes in many higher education institutions in Saudi Arabia (Al-Hoorie, Al-Shahrani, Al Shlowiy, & Mitchell, 2021; Allmnakrah & Evers, 2020; Almoaily & Alnasser, 2019; Alnasser, 2022; Barnawi, 2017, 2021a, 2021b; Barnawi & Al-Hawsawi, 2017; Elyas, 2008, 2011; Elyas & Al-Ghamdi, 2018; Elyas & Badawood, 2016; Elyas & Picard, 2010, 2013, 2018; Phan & Barnawi, 2015). Commentators have identified several factors regarding this rapid growth of EMI in the Saudi context. These include the desire for internationalisation (Phan & Barnawi, 2015), economic growth (Elyas & Al-Ghamdi, 2018; Elyas & Picard, 2013), the need to reform and shift educational policy coupled with the desire to improve university rankings towards a transnational world (Allmnakrah & Evers, 2020; De Costa, Green-Eneix, & Li, 2020; Kirkpatrick, 2014; Tsou & Kao, 2017). These driving forces have led to the expansion of EMI across Saudi universities, particularly in top-tier universities (De Costa, Green-Eneix, & Li, 2021), and the quest towards ‘global multiversities’ (Collini, 2012). The chapter reviews a range of historical and current investigations that may serve as an important resource for EMI researchers and policymakers at a time when EMI programmes, particularly in Saudi Arabia, are getting increasing attention.

Description of the general sociolinguistic background Since its founding in 1932, Saudi Arabia has been paying increasing attention to education generally and higher education more specifically. For decades, there were only eight universities serving the whole country, but since the late King Abdullah was crowned in 2005, the number of universities has exploded to 29 public universities, 12 private universities, 13 colleges (both public and private), and seven military colleges. The Saudi law mandates that Arabic be the medium of instruction for all courses, unless otherwise approved by the respective university council. Majors are, therefore, taught in Arabic, with the exception of certain ones such as medicine, engineering, and computer science. While Arabic is the official language of the Gulf countries, English serves as the de facto lingua franca (Alharbi, 2017). The foundation year, which includes intensive English courses, is currently a requirement at most Saudi universities. Outside

259

DOI: 10.4324/9781003011644-22

Tariq Elyas and Ali H. Al-Hoorie

the nation’s borders, the country has also established a generous scholarship programme, mostly to English-speaking countries, through which hundreds of thousands of undergraduate and graduate students have been admitted to over the years (for more on the history of teaching English in Saudi Arabia, see Al-Hoorie et al., 2021; Barnawi & Al-Hawsawi, 2017; Elyas & Picard, 2018; Mahboob & Elyas, 2014). At a societal level, pre-9/11, conservative commentators in the country expressed concerns about the introduction of English to education (Elyas, 2008). From their perspective, this move was viewed as a threat to Arab and Muslim identity, ‘relegating Arabic to a second-class status’ (Habbash & Troudi, 2015, p. 71), and potentially creating a linguistic cultural dualism (Louber & Troudi, 2019). Some went as far as describing it as a conspiracy targeting Islam and its values, with the aim of westernising Muslim societies (Elyas, 2008, 2011). Calls were made to Arabise Saudi curricula, including medicine, following the Syrian example where medical education has been taught in Arabic for decades. From the government’s perspective, English is seen as one tool to address the heavy dependence on foreign workforce in the country and lower the unemployment rate in the country. This is because English is the lingua franca of science in this globalised world, allowing citizens to gain knowledge and skills and to build intellectual and economic capital. Furthermore, some view the Englishisation and internationalisation of education generally, and higher education specifically, as a means to cultivate tolerance and understanding of the West and non-Muslims in an atmosphere plagued by extremism and othering the West for about half a century (Barnawi & Al-Hawsawi, 2017). Thus, despite the legal requirement of using Arabic as a medium of instruction, and in recognition of the value of English skills in the global neoliberal market (Elyas & Picard, 2013), the Saudi government established an ambitious 1-billion-dollar initiative, the Colleges of Excellence initiative, to provide locals with technical and vocational skills needed in the job market. The business model for ‘Colleges of Excellence’, established in 2013, invites international training providers to bid for training services in a multi-stage tender process. Successful bidders then run their colleges within Saudi Arabia independently while being regulated, funded, and overseen by the Colleges of Excellence administration. EMI is an essential element in these colleges. To date, around 20 colleges were set up involving 30 different majors in 16 cities serving 200,000 students. Successful bidders have come mostly from the UK and Canada, with some coming from Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and New Zealand. Since the language of instruction is English, this has resulted in a high demand for teaching English to post-secondary students. Private language institutes took advantage of this opportunity, creating ‘a growing shadow market’ (Phan & Barnawi, 2015, p. 56), with centres such as Direct English, New Horizon, Education First, and Interlink. This situation has created an attractive job market for English-language teachers, especially ‘native speakers’. According to Phan and Barnawi (2015), ‘the country has become one of the most generous EFL job markets on earth, in which wages on offer are extremely high’ (p. 56). Impressive as it is, and overshadowing the discussion in the next section, the above situation was apparently also open to abuse (Phan & Barnawi, 2015). Local newspapers, such as Al-Riyadh, Al-Watan, and Okaz, reported that some providers resorted to subcontracting to local and international schools and centres, a move that was deemed illegal. A second issue was the teacher qualifications, with some claiming that teachers were sometimes hired based on a short training course such as CELTA, while the minimum qualification required by contract was a relevant master’s degree. According to Bin Ali (2018), the Colleges of Excellence initiative maintains a high level of secrecy and lack of transparency about its operations and outcomes. Reportedly, its colleges have a high student

260

English-medium instruction in higher education in Saudi Arabia

turnover rate, its degrees are not recognised by the Ministry of Human Resources in the country, and its graduates are not welcome in the private sector because of doubts about the quality of their qualifications (Bin Ali, 2018).

Official language policies relating to EMI higher education English-language policies in Saudi Arabia have received growing attention in recent years by homegrown scholars (Alnasser, 2022; Elyas & Badawood, 2016; Payne & Almansour, 2014), and the policies in Saudi Arabia’s higher education seem to be implicit in nature. Saudi Arabian government is viewed as fully responsible for higher education and indeed all education (Elyas & Picard, 2013). Like the general education policies, the English-language teaching policies have been centrally determined by the Ministry of Education (MoE), more specifically, by the Curriculum Department Centre for Development. The general educational policies between 1970 and 2001 are represented in Figures 19.1a, b (Elyas & Al-Ghamdi, 2018).

English pre-2000 English-language instruction, like the rest of the curriculum in Saudi Arabia, is directly linked to the notion of ‘the faith of Islam’ (‫ )الدين اإلسالمي‬and thus the ‘network of educational practices’ which should serve the purposes of the Islamic religion (Meyer, 2001). The structure of the discourse also reflects overthrow of the English subject to the demands of religious teaching. The policy begins with a statement about ‘one of the goals of the education system in Saudi Arabia emphasizes the role of the Islam in everyday citizen’s life’. It concludes with the role of English is to ‘contribute to the spread of the faith of Islam and service to humanity’ (‫للمساهمة في انتشار الدين‬ ‫)اإلسالمي وخدمة اإلنسانية‬, emphasising the vital importance of Islamic faith in every subject (Elyas & Al-Ghamdi, 2018). Many changes were made at the beginning of 2001. The MoE consequently developed the Ministry of Education Ten-Year Plan (2004–2014), which outlined the goals for that ten-year period, as follows: (i) Building houses of expertise and instructional design centres; (ii) complete development of interactive digital curricula which balances between the presented amount of knowledge with learner’s needs and requirements; (iii) developing primary levels curriculum that enhance stable personality and values and develop life skills for the learners; (iv) developing secondary school curricula to contribute to the labour market; (v) forming general curriculum and specialised material standards along with curriculum developments; (vi) orientation of staff working in creating the curricula; and (vii) preparing experts in creating curricula (Ministry of Education, 2005). In this document, Islamic religious and national ‘aspirations’ are put aside in favour of brief mentions of ‘legitimacy and national balanced vision’, which is interpreted as valuing of both Islamic and ‘global identities.’ The rest of the document, focusses on educational discourse, as well as the role of the individual and global ‘digital’ interactions. These interactions are complex in nature and may challenge the dynamic and visible power hierarchy between the teachers and students. Elyas and Picard (2013) claimed that MoE works on a transnational neoliberal governmentality [at the time] which operates on the local educational hierarchy and the discourses are made visible in hierarchical policies and practices affecting the teachers, while the students appear to be directly influenced by transnational governmentality as well as through the visible power of their institution. (p. 36)

261

Tariq Elyas and Ali H. Al-Hoorie

English post-2000 After 2000, the General Director of Curriculum Department Centre for Development, Dr. Al-Mikaizmi, introduced a new policy related to ELT. The central control of the MoE and the value they placed on this policy is emphasised by the fact that this policy is included on the second page of each student’s English textbook at elementary, middle, and secondary schools in the country. Interestingly, this policy has not been revised with the advent of Tatweer-Development (‫( )تطوير‬Elyas & Badawood, 2016),1 although the emphasis on information literacy is likely to impact the teaching of English (Elyas & Al-Ghamdi, 2018). This document is represented in Figure 19.1a (Arabic version) and 19.1b (English translation by authors). As with the previous policy documents, the role of English as an instrument to acquire other knowledge ‘Arts and Science’ is emphasised. However, this policy appears to adopt a ‘weaker Islamization’ position than the former one. The emphasis is no longer merely on ‘modern-day knowledge’ in the form of science and technology; knowledge in ‘arts’ is placed alongside and equal to sciences, as represented by the parallel grammatical structure. Saudi Arabian education underwent a significant transformation between1970 and 2001 due to the MoE policy that highlighted the goals and objectives of education in the country. This policy served as the primary guideline provided to teachers and curriculum designers defining and describing how education should be conducted in Saudi Arabia over that period (Al-Attas, 1979). This document addressed a range of discourses prevalent in Saudi Arabia, most importantly the notion of the centrality of the Islamic religion in every facet of life and the notion of the ‘religious networks’ operating according to the tenets of the Qur’an and Hadith (Tibi, 1997, 2001). This ‘network of practice’ (Meyer, 2001), operated within religious as well as political spheres in Saudi societal network of practices. Equally, as noted in a previous study (Elyas, 2011), Islamic studies and Arabic language instruction were compulsory for university students, and all curricula were infused with religious and moral content. Educational policy relating to general education, university education and even the teaching of English were likewise infused with sacred texts (Elyas, 2011).

‫ ﻻﺳﺘﻌﺎدة دور اﻟﻤﺴﻠﻤﯿﻦ‬، ‫اﻧﺘﺸﺎرا ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ‬ ‫إﻋﺪاد أطﻔﺎﻟﻨﺎ ﻻﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠﯿﺰﯾﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ أﺻﺒﺤﺖ ﻣﻦ أﻛﺜﺮ اﻟﻠﻐﺎت‬ ً ‫ ﯾﻤﻜﻦ اﻟﻘﯿﺎم ﺑﺬﻟﻚ دون‬.‫ﻓﻲ اﻟﺤﻀﺎرة اﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﯿﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل اﻛﺘﺴﺎب اﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻔﻨﻮن واﻟﻌﻠﻮم اﻟﻤﻜﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﺑﮭﺬه اﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬ .‫ﺗﻌﺰﯾﺰ اﻷﺧﻼق واﻟﻌﺎدات اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺘﻌﺎرض ﻣﻊ ﻣﻌﺘﻘﺪاﺗﻨﺎ اﻟﺪﯾﻨﯿﺔ وﻋﺎداﺗﻨﺎ‬

To prepare our children to use English, which has become one of the most widely used languages in the world, for the resumption of the Muslims’ role in human civilization through gaining knowledge in arts and science written in this language. This can be done without promoting moral and customs that are contradictory to our religious beliefs and customs.

Figure 19.1 (a) Policy for ELT 21 century for all school levels ‘Arabic Version’ (Ministry of Education, General Director of Curriculum, 2002). (b) Policy for ELT 21 century for all school levels ‘English Version’ (Ministry of Education, General Director of Curriculum, 2002).

262

English-medium instruction in higher education in Saudi Arabia

The expansion of EMI in Saudi Arabia In the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, like elsewhere in the world, the Saudi government has placed a great importance to its national education reforms and has made enormous efforts over the past decade in improving its status quo by launching a series of reforms (Elyas & Al-Ghamdi, 2018; Elyas & Picard, 2013). As its reforms have attracted a good share of criticism for not attaining their desired outcomes, there is an imperative need to re-address Saudi education policies to meet the increasing demand of Saudi’s new economic vision and strategic goals towards a sustainable economy through school graduates (Allmnakrah & Evers, 2020). One of its reform policies is the Saudisation of governmental and private jobs, which, among other objectives, aims to develop local citizens’ English proficiency in order to replace the sheer number of foreign workers with Saudi nationals where English is being used as a lingua franca among the diverse nationalities in large corporations and companies (Alharbi, 2017). Recently, there has been a growing recognition of the urgent need for educational reform in Saudi Arabia, especially after the launch of the Economic Vision 2030.2 Several researchers and experts have argued

Figure 19.2  Saudi Arabia’s Economic Vision 2030 initiative.

263

Tariq Elyas and Ali H. Al-Hoorie

that essential changes in the education system are also necessary if young Saudis are to remain competitive for twenty-first-century jobs (Allmnakrah & Evers, 2020; Salameh, 2016). Krieger (2007) notes that ‘the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is one of the places where people are starting to question more, particularly under a reform-oriented king’ (p. 6). Saudi universities are likely to internationalise their educational services in relation to the Saudi government’s 2030 Vision. Most Saudi students recognise English as a language required for passing examinations, but it is also of utmost importance in higher education, trade, and international business communication (Al-Thubaiti, 2019). The Economic Vision 2030 has been created to fit into three tracks, one of its biggest calls to link education with economic growth (see Figure 19.2 above). Thus, the 2030 Vision has been a leading force towards the expansion of EMI (Macaro, Curle, Pun, An, & Dearden, 2018; Wächter & Maiworm, 2014), especially in Saudi higher education. This switch towards EMI across academic disciplines has occurred as a dyad with curriculum ‘Englishisation’ across the globe (Rose & McKinley, 2018). This kind of rapid and bold neoliberalism, some argue, serves as a covert language policy mechanism pushing the global spread of English (Piller & Cho, 2013). According to McCarthy, Pitton, Kim and Monje (2009), neoliberalism should be seen in the context of multinational capital’s strategic translation of globalisation and the corresponding withdrawal and disengagement of the state in a broad range of economic and political affairs. Although neoliberalism in education (and higher education in particular) have been explored extensively over the past three decades (Davies & Bansel, 2007), it is only more recently that neoliberal governmentality has been explored in relation to education in developing countries such as in the Saudi Arabian context (Ansell, Hajdu, Robson, Van Blerk, & Marandet, 2012). Neoliberalism ‘relies on a society of individuals’ (Harrison, 2007, p. 1313) who are motivated by global market forces, while transnational neoliberal governmentality transmits its non-corporeal power to individuals in developing countries with the power to directly transmit these discourses, as in the case of Saudi Arabia’s recent and rapid economic development across an array of fields, including the education sector. In the new ‘neoliberalism movement’, Elyas and Picard (2013) highlight that ‘neoliberalism could hopefully address the needs of local learners and teachers to operate in a globally’ (p. 38) competitive environment to meet the ever-developing economy and education in Saudi Arabia. As Baker and Fang (2021) surmise, EMI universities are a fertile place to nurture global citizens. It is apparent that English in higher education in Saudi Arabia has recently gained some ground (Barnawi, 2022; Elyas & Picard, 2013). This shift has given English a new status in higher institutions in Saudi Arabia. The English language is used to teach academic subjects in countries where the first language of the majority of the population is not English (Macaro, 2018). Others have described the process of Englishisation of higher education as having ‘muddied the water of EMI’ implementation and causing various social and academic problems for both students and lecturers (Hu & Lei, 2014; Piller & Cho, 2013), as well as inadequate learning outcomes and poor teaching quality (Hu & Duan, 2019; Rose, McKinley, Xu, & Zhou, 2020; Rose, Sahan, & Zhou, 2022). More than a decade ago, Elyas and Picard (2013) claimed that Saudi Arabia adopted a ‘safe harbors’ approach of settled educational practices and philosophies in order to better address the challenges posed to schooling by the dynamics associated with globalisation and multiplicity and effectiveness of its EMI implications (Elyas & Picard, 2013; McCarthy et al., 2009).

264

English-medium instruction in higher education in Saudi Arabia

The effectiveness of EMI in Saudi higher education English-language teaching and learning in Saudi Arabia have experienced fluctuations over the years (Elyas, 2008; Mahboob & Elyas, 2014). Saudi schools have started preparing students to study abroad to seek a ‘Western education’, in keeping with twentieth-century skills and requirements. In 1936, the Scholarship Preparation School was established in Makkah, primarily to prepare students to travel abroad (Al-Ghamdi & Abd-Jawad, 2008; Alsuhaibani, 2015). Essentially, English-language teaching in Saudi Arabia began at this school. Qualified Middle Eastern teachers then started to teach at the Scholarship Preparation School (SPS). Most of those teachers were Egyptian, hence the curriculum for all subjects (except Islamic courses) was modified to align with the Egyptian education system, which was, to a great extent, influenced by the French system (Mahboob & Elyas, 2014). There is a general dissatisfaction with the quality of English-medium outcomes in the country. To address this issue, most Saudi universities have implemented a foundation year programme, benchmarked against the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. The exit level of the foundation year is typically set at B1, which is equivalent to an intermediate user of English. However, this aspiration may be unrealistic once the secondary school exit level is taken into account. According to Barnawi and Al-Hawsawi (2017): it is undisputable that today Saudi public school students’ English literacy is very weak, to the extent that some high school graduates cannot even differentiate between different phonics of English, let alone accomplish the tasks of writing their names or conducting a basic conversation in English. (Barnawi & Al-Hawsawi, 2017, p. 210) It seems fair to argue that it would be too ambitious to expect a student who is practically illiterate in English to reach B1 within one year and be able to study an academic major taught fully in English. This situation also raises questions about why schools have not succeeded in improving students’ proficiency even though English is currently taught since elementary school. If the factors that hindered school success are also present in higher education, one wonders why higher education outcomes should be any different. Indeed, ‘local communities and the media have been aggressively attacking the Saudi higher education system for producing manpower with poor English-language proficiency for job markets that see English as an essential tool for national development’ (Barnawi & Al-Hawsawi, 2017, p. 206). In this section, we review some empirical studies conducted in several higher education institutions in Saudi Arabia. These studies have revealed some dynamics within these institutions and pointed out clear discrepancies between official policy regarding EMI and de facto practice. In one study, Shamim, Abdelhalim and Hamid (2016) reported a case study on the foundation year programme at a public university in Saudi Arabia. In this qualitative study, the researchers collected data from students and teachers through classroom observation and interviews. The results showed that teachers and students with higher self-reported proficiency in English generally endorsed the continued use of English as a means of instruction at their institution. Students with lower proficiency, in contrast, considered EMI as an unnecessary obstacle. One student explained that it was ‘not fair’ that English in the foundation year is the main factor that can ‘determine our fate’ (Shamim et al., 2016, p. 40). Despite the endorsement of EMI by both teachers and most students, the researchers’ classroom observations revealed that most instruction actually took place

265

Tariq Elyas and Ali H. Al-Hoorie

in Arabic. Teachers also used standardised PowerPoint slides developed by the course coordinator and used across all campuses, thus leaving little room for teacher input and creativity. Although, officially, English is supposed to be the medium of instruction, teachers had to accommodate their students’ proficiency level by giving them bilingual vocabulary lists, specifying certain paragraphs from the English textbook to study, and preparing mock exams, thus making the educational process heavily exam-oriented. As for students, they spent most of their time translating study materials word by word and memorising the information for the sake of exams. The students’ primary focus was the lecture presentations and the class notes prepared by their teachers. This process waters down the curriculum and limits students from expanding the scope of their study whether by accessing additional learning resources or engaging in meaningful learning. In another qualitative study, Louber and Troudi (2019) interviewed expatriate teachers of scientific subjects as well as engineering students in the foundation year of a Saudi university. The researchers’ aim was to compare official policies regarding EMI and actual practice. The results showed that Arabic was actually the de facto medium of instruction. The teachers attributed this to the low proficiency of their students. Students in turn preferred Arabic despite their awareness of policies regarding EMI and the value of improving their proficiency level for the job market. As one student put it, ‘we ask them [the teachers] to speak to us in Arabic because like this, we do not have to translate into Arabic ourselves’ (Louber & Troudi, 2019, p. 65). Besides the low level of students, the teachers also pointed out that EMI is a consumerist trend and a Western model of education imported to their context in a top-down fashion and without negotiation. They argued that textbooks were not suitable for their context in that they were originally designed for ‘native speakers’ in the United States and the United Kingdom. According to one teacher, these textbooks were simply a way ‘for western publishers to make money in the KSA [Saudi Arabia]’ (Louber & Troudi, 2019, p. 66). Commenting on these textbooks, one student maintained that they ‘were too thick and very complicated, that’s why we never finish the whole book’ (Louber & Troudi, 2019, p. 66). The issue of using EMI as consumerist trend was taken further by Barnawi (2021a), who considers the implementation of EMI as a neoliberal ideology intended to maximise profit in a free market, forcing higher education institutions to compete within and among each other for rankings, accreditation, and status. One manifestation of this neoliberal ideology is speed. ‘Speed, as an effort to shorten production cycles, is construed as a defining feature of our contemporary capitalist society’ (Barnawi, 2021a, p. 209). In order to investigate this topic more closely, Barnawi (2021a) conducted a qualitative study involving interviews with engineering students at a Saudi university where EMI is enforced mainly through employing teachers who do not speak Arabic. Similar to the results of the studies reviewed earlier, Barnawi (2021a) found that the accelerated pace of education coupled with EMI made students feel in constant pressure. As one student explained, ‘we do not have enough time to understand, read and write technical concepts and ideas from different subjects in English. That is why I focus on final exams’ (Barnawi, 2021a, p. 222). In a follow-up study, Barnawi (2021b) examined the perspective of teachers and administrators in relation to the acceleration of EMI. In this qualitative study, the researcher found that there is a strong desire by the institution to continuously update their programmes to keep up with the demands of the industry, to align education with job market needs, and to seek international accreditations. While teachers appreciated the value of this approach, they also stated that this speeded environment leaves little time for deep learning and individual, meaningful feedback to students. In other words, the role of the teacher shifted from an educator cultivating learners intellectually, psychologically, and socially to a McDonald worker whose primary goal is preparing profit-making students efficiently (Barnawi, 2021b; Bernstein, Hellmich, Katznelson, Shin, & Vinall, 2015). 266

English-medium instruction in higher education in Saudi Arabia

EMI in higher education has, therefore, become a performative technology of acceleration with practices that ‘value quantity over quality, performative accountability, efficiency, performative competition, and aligning education with job market needs’ (Barnawi, 2021b, p. 9).

Problems with EMI in Saudi Arabia It is a well-known fact that all Saudi universities contain English departments and English-language institutes that provide language-teaching services to English and non-English major students (Alnasser, 2022; Alsuhaibani, 2015). Almost every higher education institution in Saudi Arabia has an English department that offers academic graduate and postgraduate programmes and teachings of English courses to students at an institutional level (Alnasser, 2022). However, a handful Saudi researchers have found that there are many pedagogical issues with using EMI in most Saudi universities (Alnasser, 2022; Barnawi, 2021a, 2021b; Phan & Barnawi, 2015). Researchers in the Arabian Gulf, have also voiced their concern with rapid expansion of EMI and its impact on Arabic language and heritage. Such concerns centre around Arabic being pushed out of both the public and educational domains, English acting as an academic gatekeeper for better jobs, an increased cognitive overload for students, and a reduced sense of belonging (Hillman & Ocampo Eibenschutz, 2018; Hopkyns, 2020a, 2020b; Hopkyns & Elyas, 2022). Scholars have found that there is are apparent binary and divisive language ideologies surrounding the regions’ two dominant languages: Arabic and English in the Gulf countries (Hopkyns & Elyas, 2022). Yet, Alhendi (2019) argues that setting one language in a country’s education can be positive and stimulate its economy. The rapidly changing policies and socio-political environment and mixed messages presented both in the media and policy documents are also likely to cause ideological conflicts within the students and teachers. Adopting an English-only policy in education has been argued to not only increase pressure on students learning and using English, but also to lead to inequity in the learning context (Hamm-Rodriguez & Morales, 2021). Some scholars have argued that EMI policy in Saudi Arabia is not always based on solid foundations. For example, Louber and Troudi (2019) claimed that the language policy did not undergo careful analysis, including consultation with key stakeholders such as teachers and parents. A similar argument was made by Barnawi and Al-Hawsawi (2017), who gave several examples of key policy changes throughout the decades that were made without clear and publicly announced rationales. Some of these policy changes include ceasing to teach French in Saudi schools, cancelling English from elementary school, reducing the number of weekly English classes from six to four, the blanket requirement that all universities have a foundation year focusing on English language, and the uncritical adoption of the Common European Framework Reference for Languages despite the issues raised about it. Clearly and explicitly formulated policies are an important element for a successful educational system. One example of a nationwide policy has to do with accreditation. All higher education institutions in Saudi Arabia are required to obtain accreditation both at the programme level and the institutional level. However, as previously described, students, teachers, and administrators feel that accreditation is little more than a financially motivated enterprise that has no relevance to actual classroom teaching and learning. Worse still, it might have a negative effect on the quality of the educational process by introducing certain restrictions that may not be inappropriate to the local context, or at least by making faculty and administrators too busy with paperwork to devote their time and attention to introducing genuine change and improvement to the educational process at their institutions. Improving policy should ideally be based on solid empirical evidence. However, as can be seen from the previous section, most research on EMI and its implementation and effectiveness concern 267

Tariq Elyas and Ali H. Al-Hoorie

small-scale qualitative studies. Education authorities in the country should encourage (and fund) concerned academics to conduct large-scale and representative research in order to inform policy. Educational authorities should also sponsor conferences where academic can present their findings and communicate directly with policymakers in order to have mutual understanding and collaboration. As an example, several commentators have called for Arabising higher education in Saudi Arabia, including technical and medical programmes. However, such a radical step can lead to disastrous outcomes if done without careful planning. Unlike the social science, technical, engineering, and medical fields are constantly and rapidly changing, and students need to stay abreast of their developments. This requires that educational institutions set policies to keep up with these developments, such as by updating and translating textbooks regularly. Currently, faculty have to rely on available textbooks in the market. This may be possible with English-language textbooks, but to use Arabic textbooks, there needs to be an official translation policy. In addition, while Arabising curricula might be possible for undergraduate students, it seems less feasible for graduate programmes. After all, English is the lingua franca of science, and knowledge of English can undeniably provide individuals an advantage relative to monolingual speakers. To address this issue, some institutions require demonstrating a certain proficiency level (for example, on a standardised language test) as part of their admission criteria. They may also assign English readings as part of their courses. However, it has to be acknowledged that learning a foreign language is a long-term process and obtaining a certain score on a standardised test may not necessarily allow the student to fluently read and understand the dry and highly technical language used in academic journals. This makes careful planning and consideration of the pros and cons of such a policy, and its continuous evaluation once it is instituted, is urgently needed.

Conclusion It is apparent that English in Saudi Arabia has shifted from being taught as a foreign language and has become an important medium of instruction and has mushroomed at off-campus and satellite universities across the region fostering intercultural citizens (Barnawi, 2017; Hillman, Graham, & Eslami, 2021). De Costa et al. (2021) stress that ‘the possibility and promise of developing such citizens is further enhanced as higher education through EMI programs implemented at local universities where English is not the primary language of the student population’ (p. 120). Hence, some argue that EMI seems a natural impetus towards an ever-needed globalised education. Other researchers are advocating for linguistic hybridity where students are ‘dancing between Arabic and English’, towards creative hybridity over linguistic purity (Hopkyns, 2020b, 2021; Hopkyns, Zoghbor, & Hassall, 2018). Therefore, stakeholders as well as teachers and students can bridge the ideological divide between English and Arabic (Hopkyns & Elyas, 2022), in Saudi higher education.

Notes 1 Tatweer is a project for the development of general education in Saudi Arabia, which began in 2007 and ended in 2013, with allocated $293 million budget. The primary objective of this programme was to focus on the quality of education to ensure that students in public education system in the Saudi Kingdom are equipped with the necessary skills to participate in an increasingly globalised society and engage with the complex and myriad problems that globalisation brings. 2 Under the leadership of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, Vision 2030 was launched. It is a roadmap drawn up by His Royal Highness, the Crown Prince, to harness the strengths God bestowed upon us – our strategic position, investment power and place at the centre of Arab and Islamic worlds. See https://www.vision2030.gov.sa/.

268

English-medium instruction in higher education in Saudi Arabia

References Al-Attas, S. M. (1979). Aims and objectives of Islamic education. Hodder and Stoughton. Al-Ghamdi, H., & Abd-Jawad, N. (2008). The development of the education system in Saudi Arabia (3rd ed.). Al-Rushd Library. Al-Hoorie, A. H., Al-Shahrani, M., Al Shlowiy, A. S., & Mitchell, C. (2021). Preparation of teachers of English as an additional language in Saudi Arabia: Research, policy, curriculum, and practice. In N. Polat, L. Mahalingappa, & H. Kayi-Aydar (Eds.), Preparation of teachers of English as an additional language (EAL) around the world: Research, policy, curriculum, and practice (pp. 158–187). Multilingual Matters. Al-Thubaiti, K. A. (2019). Selective vulnerability in very advanced L2 grammars: Evidence from VPE constraints. Second Language Research, 35, 225–252. Alharbi, N. (2017). English as a lingua franca in the Gulf Cooperation Council states. In J. Jenkins, W. Baker, & M. Dewey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English as a lingua franca (pp. 127–137). Routledge. Alhendi, O. (2019). Language policy and economics: Does English language accelerate the wheel of development in the economies or not? A review. The Annals of the University of Oradea. Economic Sciences, 2, 366–379. Allmnakrah, A., & Evers, C. (2020). The need for a fundamental shift in the Saudi education system: Implementing the Saudi Arabian economic vision 2030. Research in Education, 106(1), 22–40. Almoaily, M., & Alnasser, S. M. N. (2019). Current English language policies in Saudi Arabian higher education English departments: A study beyond the domain of the classroom. Journal of Arts, 31, 35–47. Alnasser, S. M. N. (2022). Exploring EFL instructors’ self-derived English language policies at higher education level: A case study in the Saudi context. Frontiers in Education, 7, 1–9. Alsuhaibani, Y. (2015). The perceptions and practice of L1 Arabic in Saudi university English classrooms (PhD thesis). Newcastle University, UK. Ansell, N., Hajdu, F., Robson, E., Van Blerk, L., & Marandet, E. (2012). Youth policy, neoliberalism and transnational governmentality: A case study of Lesotho and Malawai. In P. Kraftl, J. Horton, & F. Tucker (Eds.), Critical geographies of childhood and youth: Contemporary policy and practice (pp. 43–49). Policy Press. Baker, W., & Fang, F. (2021). ‘So maybe I’m a global citizen’: Developing intercultural citizenship in English medium education. Language Culture and Curriculum, 34, 1–17. Barnawi, O. Z. (2017). Neoliberalism and English language education policies in the Arabian Gulf. Routledge. Barnawi, O. Z. (2021a). EMI-cum-acceleration policy in the contemporary transnational HE market: Experiences of Saudi engineering students. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 44, 208–228. Barnawi, O. Z. (2021b). EMI as a performative technology of acceleration in higher education contexts: Academics and administrators’ perspectives. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2021.1954385 Barnawi, O. Z. (2022). Branding in transnational English medium instruction-oriented universities in the Arabian Gulf: Implications for language policy. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 58–72. Barnawi, O. Z., & Al-Hawsawi, S. (2017). English language education policy in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Current trends, issues and challenges. In R. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), English language education policy in the Middle East and North Africa (pp. 199–222). Springer. Bernstein, K. A., Hellmich, E. A., Katznelson, N., Shin, J., & Vinall, K. (2015). Introduction to special issue: Critical perspectives on neoliberalism in second/foreign language education. L2 Journal, 7(3), 3–14. Bin Ali, A. (2018). Colleges of excellence from unknown to unknown. Maaal. Retrieved from https://maaal. com/2018/06/109155-2/ Collini, S. (2012). What are universities for? Penguin. Davies, B., & Bansel, P. (2007). Neoliberalism and education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 20, 247–259. De Costa, P. I., Green-Eneix, C. A., & Li, W. (2020). Problematizing EMI language policy in a transnational world: China’s entry into the global higher education market. English Today, 38, 80–87. De Costa, P. I., Green-Eneix, C., & Li, W. (2021). Problematizing language policy and practice in EMI and transnational higher education: Challenges and possibilities. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 44, 115–128. Elyas, T. (2008). The attitude of American English within the Saudi education system. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 2(1), 28–48.

269

Tariq Elyas and Ali H. Al-Hoorie Elyas, T. (2011). Diverging identity: A ‘contextualized’ exploration of the interplay of competing discourses in two Saudi university classrooms (PhD thesis). University of Adelaide, Adelaide. Elyas, T., & Al-Ghamdi, A. A. (2018). A critical ‘positivist’ analysis of Tatweer policy in Saudi Arabia. In A. W. Wiseman & P. M. Davidson (Eds.), Cross-nationally comparative, evidence-based educational policymaking and reform (pp. 241–276). Emerald Publishing Limited. Elyas, T., & Badawood, O. (2016). English language educational policy in Saudi Arabia post 21st century: Enacted curriculum, identity, and modernisation: A critical discourse analysis approach. FIRE, 3, 70–81. Elyas, T., & Picard, M. (2010). Saudi Arabian educational history: Impacts on English language teaching. Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues, 3(2), 24–40. Elyas, T., & Picard, M. (2013). Critiquing of higher education policy in Saudi Arabia: Towards a new neoliberalism. Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues, 6(1), 31–41. Elyas, T., & Picard, M. (2018). A brief history of English in Saudi Arabia. In C. Moskovsky & M. Picard (Eds.), EFL in Saudi Arabia: New insights into teaching and learning English (pp. 78–92). Routledge. Habbash, M., & Troudi, S. (2015). The discourse of global English and its representation in the Saudi Context: A postmodernist critical perspective. In R. Raddawi (Ed.), International communication with Arabs: Studies in educational, professional and societal contexts (pp. 57–75). Springer. Hamm-Rodriguez, M., & Morales, A. S. (2021). (Re)producing insecurity for Puerto Rican students in Florida schools: A raciolinguistic perspective on English-only policies. Centro Journal, 33(1), 112–131. Harrison, A. (2007). Globalization and poverty. University of Chicago Press. Hillman, S., Graham, K. M., & Eslami, Z. R. (2021). EMI and the international branch campus: Examining language ideologies, policies, and practices. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 44, 229–252. Hillman, S., & Ocampo Eibenschutz, E. (2018). English, super-diversity, and identity in the state of Qatar. World Englishes, 37, 228–247. Hopkyns, S. (2020a). The impact of global English on cultural identities in the United Arab Emirates: Wanted not welcome. Routledge. Hopkyns, S. (2020b). Dancing between English and Arabic: Complexities in Emirati cultural identities. In N. Randolph, A. F. Selvi, & B. Yazan (Eds.), The complexity of identity and interaction in language education (pp. 249–265). Multilingual Matters. Hopkyns, S. (2021). Multilingualism and linguistic hybridity in Dubai. In P. Siemund & J. Leimgruber (Eds.), Multilingual global cities: Singapore, Hong Kong and Dubai (pp. 248–264). Routledge. Hopkyns, S., & Elyas, T. (2022). English vis-à-vis Arabic in the Gulf countries: Bridging the ideological divide. In S. Hopkynz & W. Zoghbor (Eds.), Linguistics identities in the Arabian (pp. 17–33). Routledge. Hopkyns, S., Zoghbor, W., & Hassall, P. J. (2018). Creative hybridity over linguistic purity: The status of English in the United Arab Emirates. Asian Englishes, 20(2), 158–169. Hu, G., & Duan, Y. (2019). Questioning and responding in the classroom: A cross-disciplinary study of the effects of instructional mediums in academic subjects at a Chinese university. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22, 303–321. Hu, G., & Lei, J. (2014). English-medium instruction at a Chinese University: Rhetoric and reality. Language Policy, 13, 21–40. Kirkpatrick, A. (2014). The language (s) of HE: EMI and/or ELF and/or multilingualism? The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 4–15. Krieger, Z. (2007). Saudi Arabia puts its billions behind Western-style higher education. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 54, 1–6. Louber, I., & Troudi, S. (2019). “Most of the teaching is in Arabic anyway”: English as a medium of instruction in Saudi Arabia, between de facto and official language policy. International Journal of Bias, Identity and Diversities in Education, 4(2), 59–73. Macaro, E. (2018). English medium instruction. Oxford University Press. Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J., & Dearden, J. (2018). A systematic review of English medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching, 51, 36–76. Mahboob, A., & Elyas, T. (2014). English in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. World Englishes, 33, 128–142. McCarthy, C., Pitton, V., Kim, S., & Monje, D. (2009). Movement and stasis in the neoliberal reorientation of schooling. In M. W. Apple, W. Au, & L. A. Gandin (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of critical education (pp. 36–50). Routledge. Meyer, M. (2001). Between theory, method and politics: Positioning of the approaches to CDA. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 14–32). Sage Publications.

270

English-medium instruction in higher education in Saudi Arabia Ministry of Education. (2005). English for Saudi Arabia. Almadina Almunawara Press. Ministry of Education, General Director of Curriculum. (2002). English for Saudi Arabia. Almadina Almunawara Press. Payne, M., & Almansour, M. (2014). Foreign language planning in Saudi Arabia: Beyond English. Current Issues Language Planning, 15, 327–342. Phan, L. H., & Barnawi, O. Z. (2015). Where English, neoliberalism, desire and internationalization are alive and kicking: Higher education in Saudi Arabia today. Language and Education, 29, 545–565. Piller, I., & Cho, J. (2013). Neoliberalism as language policy. Language in Society, 42, 23–44. Rose, H., & McKinley, J. (2018). Japan’s English-medium instruction initiatives and the globalization of higher education. Higher Education, 75, 111–129. Rose, H., McKinley, J., Xu, X., & Zhou, S. (2020). Investigating policy and implementation of English medium instruction in higher education institutions in China. British Council. Rose, H., Sahan, K., & Zhou, S. (2022). Global English medium instruction: Perspectives at the crossroads of global Englishes and EMI. Asian Englishes. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2022.2056794 Salameh, M. (2016, May 3). Saudi Arabia’s 2030. Research Center for Energy Management. ESCP Europe Business School. Retrieved from http://www.rcem.eu/posts/2016/may/31/ vision-2030.aspx Shamim, F., Abdelhalim, A., & Hamid, N. (2016). English medium instruction in the transition year: Case from KSA. Arab World English Journal, 7(1), 32–47. Tibi, B. (1997). Arab nationalism: Between Islam and the nation-state. St. Martin’s Press. Tibi, B. (2001). Islam between culture and politics. Palgrave in association with the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs Harvard University. Tsou, W., & Kao, S. M. (2017). Overview of EMI development. In W. Tsou & S. M. Kao (Eds.), English as a medium of instruction in higher education: Implementations and classroom practices in Taiwan (pp. 3–18). Springer. Wächter, B., & Maiworm, F. (2014). English-taught programmes in European higher education: The state of play. Lemmens.

271

20 ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN TURKEY Yavuz Kurt and Yasemin Bayyurt

Introduction Turkey (Türkiye), with a population over 80 million, is a nation that spans from Asia to Europe, a region where Eastern and Western cultures merge. Historically, this region has been linguistically rich, hosting many languages throughout the Ottoman period and the following Republic of Turkey. Currently, a total of 40 languages are associated with Turkey, with 39 of them being living languages (Eberhard, Simons, & Fennig, 2020). Turkey does not have a colonial history with English-speaking countries, which categorises it as an Expanding Circle country in Kachruvian terms. The only official and the most widely spoken language in Turkey is Turkish, which is the mother tongue for about 90% of the population (Kornfilt, 2009). Other major languages include Kurdish with about 8 million speakers, Arabic with 2.3 million speakers, and Zazaki and Kabardian with 1.5 and 1 million speakers, respectively (Arık, 2020). Today, there are many dialects of Turkish spoken across the different geographical regions of the country, which are usually mutually intelligible, but Istanbul Turkish is thought by many to be the standard variety. Although the features of this variety are defined in a prescriptive way by a national institution called Türk Dil Kurumu (‘Turkish Language Association’), a comprehensive corpus-based description of spoken Turkish is not available (Bayyurt, 2010). It should be noted that the name ‘Istanbul Turkish’ is also a misnomer, as it gives the impression that a standardised variety of Turkish is spoken in Istanbul region. However, this variety, as it is described by Türk Dil Kurumu (‘Turkish Language Association’), is usually not what one will hear in the streets of Istanbul, where it is more probable to hear a mix of Turkish dialects, along with other languages. With the establishment of the new Turkish Republic in 1923, a series of reforms were put into effect with the aim of westernisation and secularisation. One of such reforms was the replacement of the Turkish script from Arabic to Latin in 1928, along with endeavours for creating a modernised version of Turkish as part of national identity. This was indeed a fundamental language reconstruction, and in fact, as Bayyurt (2010, p. 118) indicates, the Turkish Language Reform (TLR) ‘is one of the most significant language reform movements in the world. It involved script reform and purification of the Turkish language, which meant eliminating foreign words and structures, mainly those taken from Arabic and Persian’. This was accompanied by promotion of the learning of European languages instead of Arabic and Persian. Demircan (1988) reports that various DOI: 10.4324/9781003011644-23 272

English-medium instruction in higher education in Turkey Table 20.1  Historical representation of the prioritised foreign languages in Turkey Period

Languages in order of importance

Pre-1773 1773–1923 1923–1950 1950–1980 Post 1980s

Arabic, Persian, Turkish Arabic, Persian, French, English, German French, English, German, Arabic English, French, German, Arabic, Persian English, German, French, Arabic, Persian

Note:  Adapted from Demircan (1988, p. 116).

languages have gained importance in Turkey over time (see Table 20.1). While Arabic and Persian were the primary languages that were prioritised before 1923 (though French and German were also among the promoted languages in attempts at westernisation towards the end of the Ottoman Empire), French was the dominant foreign language in the beginning of the republic era until the 1950s, followed by English and German. After the 1950s, English has become the most important foreign language (Demircan, 1988). The liberal economic policies followed by the government in Turkey after the 1980s have made the country more globally connected, which has increased the demand for an English-speaking workforce (Doğançay-Aktuna, 1998).

Background to English in Turkey Büyükkantarcıoğlu (2004) indicates that Turkish and British contact can be traced back to the crusades, but official relations between the two communities began in the sixteenth century, during the time of Queen Elizabeth I. However, the English language was not properly introduced in schools until the beginning of the nineteenth century, when two naval schools started offering education in English during the Ottoman period (Selvi, 2011). The commercial relations with the United States during the same period paved the way for the foundation of American-initiated schools that offer English-medium instruction (EMI) (Doğançay-Aktuna, 1998). The first of such institutions was Robert College, which was established in Istanbul in 1863 and was the first American school founded outside the borders of the United States. Renamed as Boğaziçi University when it became a state university in 1971, this institution still offers EMI and is one of the most prestigious higher education (HE) institutions in Turkey today. During the mid-1950s, the English language became a medium of instruction for several stateled Anatolian high schools across the country, as well as a newly established university, Middle East Technical University in Ankara. The spread of English accelerated in the 1980s with more open economic policies of Turkish governments, and as theTurkish companies became more international, the demand for the English language kept increasing. In 1984, the first private university of Turkey, Bilkent University, was established as an EMI institution. Over the last four decades, educational institutions at every level offering EMI increased exponentially due to the high demand in the market, mostly because English has an instrumental value to access economical resources for Turkish people. Today, English is a compulsory foreign language taught at every level of Turkish educational system. In state schools, students are offered two hours of weekly English courses starting with grade two. The weekly number of hours increases to three at grade five, and to four hours at grade seven (Ministry of Education, 2021). The Ministry of Education has also been piloting foreign language intensive fifth-grade education in certain schools since 2017, 273

Yavuz Kurt and Yasemin Bayyurt

but this has not become a mainstream implementation across the country. Compulsory English as foreign-language courses are also offered to varying degrees in different kinds of secondary level state schools. However, implementations of EMI in Anatolian high schools were abandoned in 2006. On the other hand, in the private sector, foreign-language education usually starts with kindergarten, and various forms of EMI at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels of education are very common with different kinds of implementation, and EMI is usually a strong marketing strategy for private educational institutions. Although English language teaching holds an important place across all levels of education, how it is practiced is not uniform. As Doğançay-Aktuna and Kızıltepe (2005, p. 256) put it, ‘though all students in the national education system are said to be studying English as a curricular requirement, there is considerable discrepancy in the quality and quantity of instruction students receive across various types of schools’. While students in state schools have a limited number of hours of foreign-language classes and use locally produced materials, the students in private institutions usually have access to more intensive and better quality foreign-language education as well as better resources. English holds a very important place in Turkish academia. Publishing in international journals, especially those indexed in prestigious databases, has become a must for academics both to progress in their career and to receive financial incentives. Academics whose native language is English or who complete their PhD in an English-speaking country are usually favoured over others in higher education (HE) institutions. Indeed, anyone working in the civil service is offered financial incentives on the condition that they prove proficiency in a foreign language in the centrally administered Yabancı Dil Sınavı (‘Foreign Language Examination’) by Ölçme Seçme ve Yerleştirme Merkezi (ÖSYM) (‘Student Selection and Placement Center’). In the 2018 Spring exam, for example, a total of 115,084 people took the exam in 25 foreign languages, and 102,115 of these people preferred English language (ÖSYM, 2018). In a sense, the government at the macroscale and the institutions at the microscale encourage proficiency in a foreign language in Turkey, and for the majority of people, this foreign language is English. The extensive existence of English in Turkish academia and EMI in the educational system has been a topic of controversy (Karakaş, 2013; Selvi, 2014), with some scholars referring to advantages in terms of internationalisation and scientific advancement, while some others suggest that foreign-language medium education has adverse effects on teaching and learning, as well as on the Turkish language (Alptekin & Tatar, 2011; Demircan, 2003; Köksal, 2003). In line with the global trends, English has also prospered in the area of business in Turkey. In 1998, Doğançay-Aktuna stated that On an interpersonal level, it [English] is used as a link language for international business and for tourism while also providing a code which symbolises modernisation and elitism to the educated middle classes and those in the upper strata of the socioeconomic ladder. (p. 37) This description of the status of English still holds true today in Turkey (Arık, 2020), probably with even higher levels of spread across various domains of life, and larger gaps between low and high socioeconomic groups in terms of access to quality education, thereby higher-paying prestigious jobs. In 1998, Doğançay-Aktuna revealed that, out of 773 positions advertised in two widely circulated newspapers, 55% of the job openings required foreign-language proficiency, and 68% of these specifically asked for English language skills, particularly the ones related to international commerce, data analysis, sales, product management, and secretarial duties. In the 274

English-medium instruction in higher education in Turkey

last two decades, tourism in Turkey has also developed significantly, hosting over 30 million visitors yearly, which has contributed to the need for English-speaking employees in the service sector. Recently, Arık (2020) cited an ongoing study of herself with a colleague regarding English requirements in job ads in Turkey. She stated that: We found that in 2014 traditionally high-paying jobs such as those in the engineering (15%), information technology (8%), accounting (9%), sales (8%), and service sectors (6%) are more likely to be conducted in English than are traditionally lower paying jobs such as call/ customer service (3%), internships (1%), and secretarial jobs (1%). (Arık, 2020, p. 6) It seems that the requirement of English in high-paying jobs is still strong, and proficiency in English is a key to economic success in Turkey. The high prestige attached to English can also be observed in business names. Selvi (2016) examined 1,200 business signs in a particular region of Ankara, capital of Turkey, and he found that almost half of the signs (49%) that involved a foreign language were in English only. Interestingly, although 72% of the business owners thought using English in business names degenerate Turkish, they still used English names, with a feeling of obligation as a marketing strategy. Finally, English is also prevalent in Turkish media, with many newspapers (printed or online) published in English (for example, Hürriyet Daily News, Daily Sabah, Türkiye Newspaper), TV channels that have English names (such as Show, Star, and Fox) or broadcast in English (for example, TRT World, A News), radio channels that have English names (for example, Slow Turk, Best FM, Joy Turk) or broadcast in English (for example, TRT World). Besides, people also have access to numerous international TV and radio channels that broadcast in English. Apart from the traditional media tools, recently English in social media has been penetrating into the lives of Turkish people who follow famous figures or institutions on Instagram and Twitter, and interact with the international community via English. Furthermore, again as a recent development, online streaming services have gained tremendous popularity (which has gained even more momentum with global lockdowns throughout 2020 due to COVID-19). These streaming services, such as Netflix and Amazon Prime, usually offer lots of international content (for example, movies, series, and documentaries) that are available in English, and the viewers might choose to watch contents in their original language, along with dubbed or subtitled versions. Previous research shows that Turkish viewers tend to watch movies in their original language rather than dubbed. In an examination of the languages of movies released in Turkish theatres, Arık and Arık (2019) revealed that about 60% of the movies involved English (as the sole or one of the languages). The researchers report that: When we consider all the movies shown in theaters, 35% were in Turkish, 52% were in a language other than Turkish and shown with Turkish subtitles, and 13% were dubbed into Turkish. When we consider movies originally in English, about four-fifths of them were shown in English with Turkish subtitles, while the rest were dubbed. (Arık & Arık, 2019, p. 4) Although English has no official status in Turkey, it has made its way in Turkish society in many domains of life, some of which are not addressed in this chapter. However, among these, the growth of EMI in Turkish higher education institutions is a prominent one. Therefore, the rest of the chapter will examine EMI in Turkish higher education from various aspects. 275

Yavuz Kurt and Yasemin Bayyurt

EMI and official language policies in Turkish higher education Currently, there are 207 higher education institutions in Turkey. 129 of these are state universities, 74 are foundation (private) universities, and the remaining four are foundation vocational training schools. Since EMI implementations across institutions vary to a great degree, with various programmes offered completely or partially in English and sometimes alternatively in English or Turkish, it makes more sense to approach EMI implementations in terms of programmes, rather than institutions. Table 20.2 is constructed based on the data from the Higher Education Council’s website in December 2020, and it presents the numbers of all bachelor’s level programmes in Turkish HE institutions as well as bachelor’s level EMI programmes. As can be seen from Table 20.2, along with programmes with English as the only medium of instruction, programmes with 30% EMI are also an option in Turkish HE system. In partially English programmes, learners are supposed to complete 30% of their courses in the English language, and the rest of the courses in Turkish. It should be noted that the number of universities as well as the number of EMI programmes in Turkey have exponentially increased in the last two decades. In 2013, for example, as Arık and Arık (2014) reported, there were 164 universities in Turkey and 846 bachelor’s level programmes available in English (corresponding to about 20% of the total). The current statistics show that slightly more than 20% of bachelor’s level programmes require English language proficiency in Turkey. However, the percentages are remarkably higher when we specifically look at private institutions (around 47%). On the other hand, the existence of other languages is rather limited compared to English. For example, the next most frequent foreign languages as the medium of instruction in bachelor programmes are Arabic with 141 programmes (116 programmes are available as 30% Arabic and 25 as only Arabic), German with 62 programmes (8 are 30% German and 54 are only German), and then French as the only language of 34 programmes (Council of Higher Education, 2020). Turkey has been part of the Bologna Process since 2001 as part of European Union compliance protocols, and has been exchanging students with European countries. The increasing number of EMI programmes in Turkish HE, therefore, partly emanates from internationalisation policies followed in accordance with the Bologna Process (İnal, Bayyurt, & Kerestecioğlu, 2021). However, recently, the number of incoming international students from countries outside of Europe has increased dramatically. Figure 20.1 shows the number of international students in the last two decades coming to Turkey for tertiary-level education. As can be observed from Figure 20.1, not only does the number of incoming students increase, but also the rate of increase is also getting higher. During the 2019–2020 academic year, the top countries where the students

Table 20.2  Number of bachelor programmes and EMI programmes offered in Turkish HE institutions State universities Number of all bachelor’s level programmes Number of full EMI bachelor’s level programmes Number of 30% EMI programmes at bachelor’s level

Private universities

 Total

Percentage

6,582

1,815

8,397

100%

561

758

1,319

15.7%

317

98

415

4.9%

Note: The number of all programmes and the number of EMI programmes were extracted from http://www. studyinturkey.gov.tr/ (December, 2020).

276

English-medium instruction in higher education in Turkey 200000 180000 160000 140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 Number of international students

Figure 20.1 Number of international students coming to Turkey for higher education since 2001. Source:  The Council of Higher Education, http://www.studyinturkey.gov.tr/ (December, 2020).

came from are Syria, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Somali, and Germany. Most of these are fee-paying students and come to receive education in EMI programmes (rather than Turkish-medium programmes). The private institutions are internationally marketing their EMI programmes, which is obviously becoming a growing business in Türkiye. The cost of education is usually lower compared to countries that have larger shares in the global market, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. It seems that Turkey is becoming a cheaper option to access HE for students from economically disadvantaged countries, not only those geographically close, but also other regions, such as Arabic and African countries. The growth of EMI is partly facilitated by the educational policies in Türkiye. The Council of Higher Education states that: … yabancı dilde öğretimin amacı ise önlisans, lisans ve lisansüstü diploma programı mezunlarının alanlarına ilişkin yabancı dil yeterliliklerini kazanmalarını sağlamaktır (‘the aim of teaching in a foreign language is to enable the graduates of associate, undergraduate and graduate programmes to gain foreign language competencies related to their fields). (Official Gazette, 2016; authors’ translation) The same regulation also states that: Yükseköğretim kurumlarında önlisans, lisans veya lisansüstü programlarda senato kararı ve Yükseköğretim Kurulunun onayı alınarak kısmen veya tamamen yabancı dilde eğitim verilebilir. Bu programlarda zorunlu hazırlık sınıfı açılır (‘Education in a foreign language can be offered partially or completely in associate, undergraduate or graduate programmes in higher education institutions with the decision of the senate and the approval of the Higher Education Council. A compulsory preparatory class is offered in these programmes’). (Official Gazette, 2016; authors’ translation) However, the regulation does not clearly state which foreign languages are allowed to be implemented as a medium of instruction, but obviously, English has been by far the most predominant 277

Yavuz Kurt and Yasemin Bayyurt

one. The preparatory classes mentioned in the regulation refer to English language (or other languages) support to be provided to students before moving to their departments. The council also indicates that students need to prove their proficiency in the medium of instruction with a language test to be able to start their programmes. These tests are administered by the universities themselves or students have to take through an international exam or central foreign-language exams approved by Council of Higher Education. Widely known as English language preparatory schools, these units of universities usually provide a year of language education to improve learners’ proficiency in academic English. The regulation adds that: Yabancı dil hazırlık sınıfında yarıyıllık ve yıllık ders kredileri, Türkiye Yükseköğretim Yeterlilikleri Çerçevesinde öğrencinin hazırlık sınıfına başlangıçtaki yabancı dil düzeyi de dikkate alınarak yükseköğretim kurumunun yetkili kurulları tarafından belirlenir (‘One-­ semester and annual course credits in foreign language preparatory classes are determined by the authorized committees of higher education institutions in accordance with the National Qualifications Framework for Higher Education in Turkey [NQF-HETR] and the proficiency level of the student at the beginning of the preparatory class’). (Official Gazette, 2016; authors’ translation) NQF-HETR, as stated on its website, is a framework which: is guaranteed to be completed by Bologna Process countries in an effort to increase the transparency, recognition and mobility in higher education systems of these countries in accordance with the objectives of Lisbon Strategy published in 2000 by European Union (EU) and with the objectives of Bologna Process in which our country was included as a member in 2001. (NQF-HETR, 2010) It appears that the Council of Higher Education is not concerned about restricting foreign-language medium programmes in Turkey for the time being. Furthermore, theoretically there are regulations to keep a standard of EMI across HEs; however, the implications of individual institutions vary to a great degree (for example, the tests they use to assess English proficiency at entry).

A critical look at EMI in Turkey Previous studies have found that university students in Turkey usually have instrumental motivations to study EMI programmes (Kırkgöz, 2005; Turhan & Kırkgöz, 2018). A recent report by TEPAV (Türkiye Ekonomi Politikaları Araştırma Vakfı ‘The Economic Policy Research Foundation of Turkey’) and British Council (2015) list a number of the primary motivations of students to choose EMI (see Table 20.3 below). It seems that students usually perceive EMI as an opportunity to improve their proficiency. On the other hand, the research also reveals the principal tasks that students need to carry on in an EMI context. For instance, Kırkgöz (2009, p. 87), based on a survey study conducted in a state university in Turkey on 220 students, reports that ‘answering exam questions’, ‘following the lecturer’s instructions during lessons’, ‘note-taking in a lecture and summary writing using notes’, ‘summarising a text’, ‘reading various texts on a topic to express one’s own opinion’, ‘guessing the meanings of unfamiliar words from the context’ and ‘writing a project on a topic incorporating ideas from various sources’ are among the major academic tasks required from students. With how 278

English-medium instruction in higher education in Turkey Table 20.3  Motivations of students to learn English (as rated by students) Importance score

Reason

2.6 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.7 1.7

To meet employers’ demands for good English To study in other countries To travel to other countries To pass professional exams To pass international English language exams To follow university lectures/classes To write university papers/essays To read academic books/journals To take part in university discussions To use the Internet/computer

Note: Adapted from TEPAV and British Council (2015, p. 58). Scores were between 0 (not important) and 3 (most important of all).

much effectiveness these tasks are performed, however, is uncertain. Implementations of EMI in Turkey have been questioned in terms of various aspects in several studies (Başıbek et al., 2014; Kırkgöz, 2014; TEPAV and British Council, 2015). Based on surveys and focus-group interviews with students, Kırkgöz (2014), for example, identifies four areas of difficulty experienced by engineering students in a state university due to EMI instead of Turkish-medium instruction (TMI), which are ‘The difficulty in understanding disciplinary knowledge’, ‘The difficulty in understanding specific details’, ‘Time consuming nature of EMI’ and ‘Understanding examination questions’ (pp. 451–453). To illustrate this point, Kırkgöz (2014) quotes one of the students who participated in her study as follows: Although receiving our courses in English is essential for us as electrical-electronics engineering students, for many of us it turns out to be a torture, particularly when we cannot understand what’s being taught in the lessons and remain unable to ask questions. As a result, we cannot have interactive lessons (EEE). (Kırkgöz, 2014, p. 451) There is no doubt that EMI comes with its costs, along with its perceived benefits. Sert (2008), based on a large scale study with students and academics, found that the students had little motivation to artificially use English in class, the perceived effectiveness of EMI on their English skills was questionable, and they were not sure whether they effectively learn the content through English. Other studies have also pointed to some problems, for example, that the students’ poor proficiency in English results in decreased motivation for students to participate in lessons (Gülle, Özata, & Bayyurt, 2015; Kılıçkaya, 2006), increases their workload (Kılıçkaya, 2006; Turhan & Kırkgöz, 2018), and causes difficulties in content learning (Başıbek et al., 2014; Gülle et al., 2015). Based on observational data from corresponding lessons delivered in English and Turkish, Arkın and Osam (2015) revealed that the participant instructor talked more slowly, made more repetitions and paraphrasing when conducting the lessons in English compared to Turkish, thereby signalling less effective use of time when the medium was English. The authors interpret these practices in EMI classes as deliberate strategies employed by the instructor in order to ensure content learning, rather than limited L2 fluency (Arkın & Osam, 2015). In line with this interpretation, 279

Yavuz Kurt and Yasemin Bayyurt

Karakaş (2014) also found that a sample of 33 content instructors from three HE institutions in Turkey were generally satisfied with their proficiency in English, noting that ‘it seems clearly that Turkish lectures [sic] in my study felt capable of lecturing through EMI, without any obvious language-related obstruction’ (p. 122). However, these findings represent a very limited number of cases, and therefore, should not give the impression that EMI instructors in Turkey are generally free from L2 proficiency-related problems. Previous research in Turkish context has shown how content instructors prioritise meaning over form and how they do not see language teaching as their responsibility Gülle et al., 2015). Moreover, Karakaş (2016) in a study in Turkish HE context, reveals that although there are conflicting ideas, instructors generally tend to support occasional use of the mother tongue in EMI classes to support more effective content learning. On the other hand, instructors have been found to support EMI from several aspects, such as availability of more teaching materials in English (Kahvecioğlu, 2019), improving students’ English skills and creating better employment opportunities for them (Sert, 2008; Turhan & Kırkgöz, 2018). Similarly, students were also shown to be generally satisfied with EMI, although they complain about not being able to effectively follow lessons and the fact that language preparation schools cannot adequately cater to their needs (Karakaş, 2017). Since students usually graduate from high school, especially the state schools, with poor levels of English proficiency, English preparatory schools of universities undertake a huge responsibility to improve students’ academic English skills in one year. This sometimes means students start content classes before they are fully ready. Between 2018 and 2019, a series of workshops, titled ‘Use of English as the medium of instruction at universities: a holistic approach’, were conducted in four different cities in Turkey and Northern Cyprus in order to examine the challenges associated with EMI implementations in Turkish HE, such as English proficiency problems, inexperience in teaching through English, and the coordination between the department and the English preparatory units at universities applying EMI. Sharing of experiences and ideas between the participant EMI scholars, administrators, policymakers, and other stakeholders from many different institutions resulted in the proposal of a range of potential solutions. To illustrate, in the workshop organised at Kadir Has University in Istanbul on June 2018, the following items emerged as the prominent challenges regarding EMI in HE: (a) Loss of motivation and self-confidence; (b) Felt linguistic insecurity both by instructors and students; and (c) Hindering content learning and in-class discussions (İnal et al., 2021, p. 199). The discussion between the participants also yielded numerous suggestions in response to the challenges, which, among other things, included the ‘adoption of quality assurance approaches’ and ‘building an academic bond between language and content teachers’ (p. 12). Moreover, the participants suggested several instructional solutions which, for example, included the use of strategies such as using visual and technological support, incorporating more interactive activities and summarising the content more frequently in order to increase the effectiveness of English-medium courses (İnal et al., 2021). On the other hand, for instructors, a series of preventive solutions such as adjustments of instructor hiring practices, immediate solutions such as cooperation between experienced and inexperienced instructors operating in EMI, and improving solutions such as in-service training programmes were offered in the Northern Cyprus workshop (Osam, Arkın, & Selvi, 2018).

Conclusion There seems to be a general lack of support for instructors to improve their professional skills and better operate in EMI contexts around the world (Macaro et al., 2018), which is also the same 280

English-medium instruction in higher education in Turkey

for the instructors in Tukish HE system (Başıbek et al., 2014; British Council, 2015; Osam et al., 2018). The British Council’s (2015) report regarding the situation of EMI in Turkey concludes that EMI practices are ineffective in Turkey, hinting that instructors in EMI programmes should be provided with EMI training. However, this conclusion erroneously assumes the context of EMI is similar across Turkish HE institutions. Any precautionary policies to improve the effectiveness of EMI should be developed by taking into account institutional context because EMI implementations and available resources across institutions greatly differ from each other. They also have quite different historical backgrounds regarding EMI, and therefore, different conventions of implementing it. For instance, in their comparison of two universities in Istanbul, Gülle et al. (2015) show how instructors’ perception of their institution’s extent of internationality, students’ language of instruction preferences, students’ perception of their own and their instructors’ proficiency, and students’ attitudes towards use of L1 in EMI classes differ from each other. In another study, Karakaş (2014) finds a statistically significant difference between two groups of instructors (one from a state university in Ankara and the other from a private university in Istanbul) in their perception of speaking skill. It is important to note that there are basically two types of EMI universities in Turkey. The first one encompasses the universities that were established as EMI universities by law – that is, Middle East Technical University (1956), Bilkent University (1984) – including those that had an EMI tradition for more than 100 years – such as Boğaziçi University (formerly Robert College, 1863). The second group of EMI universities include those that were established after late 1990s and have been booming in numbers to date. As Kamasak and Özbilgin (2021) also emphasise, many universities are preferred by students on the basis of their medium of instruction. EMI universities are the most popular ones among foreign-medium universities as students and their families associate English with internationalisation, mobility, and future professional success. Hence, the expectations of these students could be met by careful planning of EMI programmes that ensures effective teaching and learning. As Karakaş and Bayyurt (2019) report even in highly established EMI universities, universities may not have a consistent English language policy (for example, using more than one variety of English on their websites). Instructors and students may not have desired levels of proficiency to teach and follow courses in English (TEPAV and British Council, 2015). These issues should be addressed contextually within institutions and through continuous evaluation of the effectiveness of English-medium programmes, and in some cases shifting the medium of instruction if the universities are not equipped with qualified EMI instructors. Universities’ different instructor hiring policies are also worth attention. In some HE institutions, the instructors applying for academic positions might be required to present a certificate to prove their proficiency in English or to have a degree from an English-medium university, and to deliver a sample lecture in English in front of a jury assessing their instructional skills as well as their use of English for content delivery. In others, although instructors are expected to have high levels of English proficiency, the linguistic requirements might be more flexible to be accepted for the position. Another important issue is the level of students’ proficiency in the English language, which needs closer examination in the Turkish context. In most cases, students enter EMI universities with lower levels of English language proficiency. After a year of intensive English programme, they are expected to follow courses in English. As İnal et al. (2021) indicate, a one-year intensive English programme may not be sufficient for following courses in English. In that case, instructors may search for alternative solutions to enable students to follow the content they teach in English (Kerestecioğlu & Bayyurt, 2018). EMI in higher education has become one of the most important trends in tertiary education in the twenty-first century, and the number of EMI universities has increased substantially. With the 281

Yavuz Kurt and Yasemin Bayyurt

rise of English as a global lingua franca, there is a clear need for effective EMI policies in higher education institutions worldwide. More research is needed on this issue in all the international higher education contexts where EMI has become an important strand of course design and implementation. Nevertheless, regardless of the benefits of EMI, it is clear that, as in the Turkish context, it is also important for EMI educators and students to receive appropriate and effective support, so that such programmes can be implemented in order to achieve optimal results.

References Alptekin, C., & Tatar, S. (2011). Research on foreign language teaching and learning in Turkey (2005–2009). Language Teaching, 44, 328–353. Arik, B. T. (2020). English in Turkey: A sociolinguistic profile. World Englishes, 39, 514–527. Arik, B. T., & Arik, E. (2014). The role and status of English in Turkish higher education: English is the language of instruction in around 20% of the programs in Turkish universities. English Today, 30(4), 5–10. Arik, B. T., & Arik, E. (2019). The use of English in movies in Turkey: English is the language of half of the movies shown in theaters in Turkey. English Today, 36(2), 35–41. Arkın, E., & Osam, N. (2015). English-medium higher education: A case study in a Turkish university context. In S. Dimova, A. K. Hultgren, & C. Jensen (Eds.), English-medium instruction in European higher education (pp. 177–200). Mouton de Gruyter. Başıbek, N., Dolmacı, M., Cengiz, B. C., Bür, B., Dilek, Y., & Kara, B. (2014). Lecturers’ perceptions of English medium instruction at engineering departments of higher education: A study on partial English medium instruction at some state universities in Turkey. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 1819–1825. Bayyurt, Y. (2010). A sociolinguistic profile of Turkey, Northern Cyprus and other Turkic States in Central Asia. In M. J. Ball (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of sociolinguistics around the world (pp. 117–126). Routledge. British Council. (2015). The state of English in higher education in Turkey. Retrieved from https://www. britishcouncil.org/education/he-science/knowledge-centre/english-language-higher-education Büyükkantarcıoğlu, N. (2004). Sociolinguistic analysis of English in Turkey. International Journal of Sociology of Language, 165, 5–32. Council of Higher Education. (2020). Study in Turkey. Retrieved from http://www.studyinturkey.gov.tr/ Demircan, Ö. (1988). DündenbugüneTürkiye’deyabancidil [Foreign languages in Turkey: From past to today]. Remzi Kitabevi. Demircan, Ö. (2003). Yetersiz Yabancı Dille Seçkin Öğretim mi? In B. Yediyıldız (Ed.), Dil, Kültür ve Çağdaşlaşma (pp. 305–324). Hacettepe Universitesi, Ataturk Ilkeleri ve Inkilap Tarihi Enstitusu. Doğançay-Aktuna, S. (1998). The spread of English in Turkey and its current sociolinguistic profile. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 19, 24–39. Doğançay-Aktuna, S., & Kızıltepe, Z. (2005). English in Turkey. World Englishes, 24, 253–265. Eberhard, D. M., Simons, G. F., & Fennig, C. D. (Eds.). (2020). Ethnologue: Languages of the world (23rd ed.). SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com. Gülle, T., Özata, H., & Bayyurt, Y. (2015). A case study on attitudes and perceptions towards English-medium instruction and internationalisation of higher education. Paper presented at 21st IAWE Conference, Istanbul, Turkey, 8–10 October. İnal, D., Bayyurt, Y., & Kerestecioğlu, F. (2021). Problematizing EMI programs in Turkish higher education: Voices from stakeholders. In Y. Bayyurt (Ed.), Bloomsbury world Englishes, volume III: Pedagogies (pp. 192–207). Bloomsbury. Kahvecioğlu, A. S. (2019). The perceptions of the main stakeholders of universities regarding English medium instruction in Turkey (Master’s dissertation). Bilkent University, Ankara. Kamasak, R., & Özbilgin, M. (2021). English medium instruction as a vehicle for language teaching or a product for marketing? The case of Turkey. In J. D. Branch & B. Christiansen (Eds.), The marketisation of higher education: Concepts, cases and criticisms (pp. 321–341). Palgrave Macmillan. Karakaş, A. (2013). The expansion of the English language across Turkey: Threat or opportunity? Mediterranean Journal of Humanities, 3(2), 159–171.

282

English-medium instruction in higher education in Turkey Karakaş, A. (2014). Lecturers’ perceptions of their English abilities and language use in English-medium universities. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 5, 114–125. Karakaş, A. (2016). Turkish lecturers’ views on the place of mother tongue in the teaching of content courses through English medium. Asian Englishes, 18(3), 242–257. Karakaş, A. (2017). The forgotten voices in higher education: Students’ satisfaction with English-medium instruction. Journal of English as an International Language, 12, 1–14. Karakaş, A., & Bayyurt, Y. (2019). The scope of linguistic diversity in the language policies, practices, and linguistic landscape of a Turkish EMI university. In J. Jenkins & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Linguistic diversity on the EMI campus (pp. 96–122). Routledge. Kerestecioğlu, F., & Bayyurt, Y. (2018). ‘Üniversitelerde İngilizcenin eğitim dili olarak kullanımı: Bütüncül bir yaklaşım’ Sonuç Raporu. İstanbul, Kadir Has University. Retrieved from https://www. researchgate.net/publication/327562164_Universitelerde_Ingilizce’nin_ Egitim_Dili_Olarak_Kullanimi_ Butuncul_Bir_Yaklasim Kılıçkaya, F. (2006). Instructors’ attitudes towards English-medium instruction in Turkey. Humanising Language Teaching, 8(6), 1–8. Kırkgöz, Y. (2005). Motivation and student perception of studying in an English-medium university. Dil ve Dilbilimi Çalışmaları Dergisi, 1(1), 101–123. Kırkgöz, Y. (2009). Students’ and lecturers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of foreign language instruction in an English-medium university in Turkey. Teaching in Higher Education, 14, 81–93. Kırkgöz, Y. (2014). Students’ perceptions of English language versus Turkish language used as the medium of instruction in higher education in Turkey. Journal of Turkish Studies 9(12), 443–459. Köksal, A. (2003). Türkiye’nin Önündeki En Büyük Engel: Yabancı Dille Öğretim. In B. Yediyıldız (Ed.), Dil, Kültür ve Çağdaşlaşma (pp. 329–352). Hacettepe Üniversitesi. Kornfilt, J. (2009). Turkish and the Turkic languages. In B. Combrie (Ed.), The world’s major languages (2nd ed., pp. 519–544). Routledge. Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J., & Dearden, J. (2018). A systematic review of English medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching, 51, 36–76. Ministry of Education. (2021). Board of Education lesson schedules. Retrieved from https://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/ NQF-HETR. (2010). National qualifications framework for higher education in Turkey. Retrieved from http://tyyc.yok.gov.tr/ Official Gazette. (2016). Yükseköğretim Kurumlarinda Yabancı Dil Öğretimi ve Yabanci Dille Öğretim Yapilmasinda Uyulacak Esaslara İlişkin Yönetmelik [Regulation on the principles to be followed in foreign language teaching and teaching in a foreign language in higher education institutions]. Issue: 29662, 23 March. Retrieved from https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2016/03/20160323-6.htm Osam, Ü. V., Arkın, İ. E., & Selvi, A. F. (2018). Üniversitelerde İngilizcenin eğitim dili olarak kullanımı: Bütüncül bir yaklaşım III Sonuç Raporu. KKTC Gazimağusa, Doğu Akdeniz Üniversitesi. Retrieved from https://emi-sempozyum.emu.edu.tr/tr/PublishingImages/DAU%20EMI%20SEMPOZYUM%20 RAPORU.pdf ÖSYM. (2018). 2018—YDS ilkbahar dönemi sonuçlarına ilişkin sayısal bilgiler. Retrieved from https://dokuman.osym.gov.tr/pdfdokuman/2018/YDSILKBAHAR/ SayisalBilgiler26042018.pdf Selvi, A. F. (2011). World Englishes in the Turkish sociolinguistic context. World Englishes, 30, 182–199. Selvi, A. F. (2014). The medium-of-instruction debate in Turkey: Oscillating between national ideas and bilingual ideals. Current Issues in Language Planning, 15, 133–152. Selvi, A. F. (2016). English as the language of marketspeak: Reflections from the linguistic landscape of Turkey. English Today, 32(4), 33–39. Sert, N. (2008). The language of instruction dilemma in the Turkish context. System, 36, 156–171. TEPAV and British Council. (2015). The state of English in higher education in Turkey: A baseline study. British Council. Turhan, B., & Kirkgöz, Y. (2018). Motivation of engineering students and lecturers toward English medium instruction at tertiary level in Turkey. Dil ve Dilbilimi Çalışmaları Dergisi, 14(1), 261–277.

283

21 ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES Sarah Hopkyns Introduction The Arabian Gulf nation of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is characterised by cultural and linguistic diversity and dynamic change. Within its short history as a nation, the UAE’s essence, and ambiance, in terms of demographics, cityscapes, linguistic landscape, and infrastructure, is dramatically different from how it was just 50 years ago. Before the UAE became an independent nation, the region was known as the Trucial States due to a series of truces signed with Britain in 1820 to protect British trade routes to India and provide Gulf ports with security from piracy (Ledstrup, 2019, p. 12). Due to the Trucial States being an ‘extremely poor area prior to the discovery of oil’ (Gobert, 2019), it was never granted the status of official colony but rather was considered part of ‘Britain’s informal empire’ (Onley, 2005, p. 29). With the discovery of oil in the late 1950s, and under mounting pressure, Britain retreated, and the UAE gained independence in 1971. Both before independence and particularly afterward, oil wealth fuelled a pace of development that has been described as ‘breathtaking’ (Bristol-Rhys, 2010). Within five decades, the UAE transformed from a desert land populated by Bedouin tribes, pearl divers, and traders to a global hub at the forefront of prosperity and growth. To implement such dramatic change, skilled and unskilled foreign workers were, and continue to be, recruited from almost 200 countries, speaking over 100 languages. Consequently, foreign workers now comprise approximately 88.5% of the nation’s general population, and more than 90% of the working population (Nickerson, 2015, p. 240), making local Emiratis a linguistic and ethnic minority in their own country. The vast majority of foreign workers come from India, and other South Asian nations, such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal, where the expression Dubai chalo meaning ‘Let’s go to Dubai’ is common, with the UAE representing the possibility of accumulating relative wealth quickly (Ahmed, 1984). As many South Asian nations are linguistically diverse, often with British colonial histories, English tends to be used as a lingua franca between speakers not sharing a language. Although a sizable group of foreign workers are Arabic speakers, diglossia in Arabic complicates its use. For example, different forms of Arabic include Quranic or classical Arabic, which is tied closely to religion, Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) used in education and for official communication, and the Khaleeji dialect (or Emirati Arabic), which lacks a written form and is used among

DOI: 10.4324/9781003011644-24 284

EMI in higher education in the United Arab Emirates

Emiratis for everyday communication. Khaleeji dialects differ from dialects spoken in other areas of the Arab world, such as the Levant. While a middle ground is often found between Arabic speakers by using ‘white dialect’ (Esmail, 2016; Hopkyns, Zoghbor, & Hassall, 2018), which is planned or spontaneously moderated Arabic, it is also common for English or both English and Arabic, and sometimes French (Siemund, Al-Issa, & Leimgruber, 2020), to be used between Arabs from different regions. As with the aspects of the UAE’s fast-paced development briefly summarised thus far, the domain of education has also witnessed multiple transformations influenced by oil wealth, changing demographics, and the establishment of a rentier state, together with the influence of local and global politics and ideologies. Changes relating to higher education mainly centre around the increase of English-medium instruction (EMI). To demonstrate the centrality of EMI in higher education (HE), Christina Gitsaki (2021), the editor of the local academic journal Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, explained that despite the journal’s scope relating to higher education in general, the vast majority of articles submitted focus on English language learning and the challenges of EMI. Pecorari and Malmström (2018) define EMI as the use of English for instructional purposes where English is not itself the subject being taught and where language development is not the primary intended outcome. In addition, EMI contexts are populated by students for whom English is usually the second language. As Fenton-Smith, Humphreys, and Walkinshaw (2017) add, EMI is a geopolitical, economical, and ideological phenomenon which affects whole university ecosystems inside and outside the classroom. Here, the term ‘English-medium education’ (EME) is also relevant as the emphasis is not only on instruction but also research and university communication affected by internationalisation (Dafouz & Smit, 2014, 2021). This chapter begins by exploring policy changes in education, which have resulted in an increasing emphasis on EMI. Current policies and practices will then be explored with reference to a marked disjunction between monolingual policies and multilingual practice. Stakeholder attitudes relating to the benefits and challenges of EMI will then be explored before discussing future prospects.

History of languages of instruction in UAE higher education To understand the roles of EMI and EME in UAE higher education today, it in useful to briefly reflect on the history of languages of instruction in the nation. Formal education was first introduced in 1953 when the first Kuwaiti educational mission opened in the emirate of Sharjah (Ridge, Kippels, & Farah, 2017). Following this, curricula were imported from Arab nations, such as Bahrain, Egypt, Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia (Ridge, 2014; Suliman, 2000). Foreign language teaching in the UAE officially began with the formation of the Ministry of Education (MOE) in 1971, with the first English language curriculum being imported from Kuwait (Suliman, 2000). There were multiple reasons for choosing English as a foreign language, including the historical presence of Britain, the spread of English through American popular culture and the dominance of English on the Internet (Gobert, 2019). Such factors not only influenced the UAE’s choice to invest in English language teaching but simultaneously English in education was also spreading apace or ‘galloping’ (Rose, 2021, p. 147) in many other contexts as part of the global phenomenon of internationalisation, which is considered a significant educational trend (Baker & Fang, 2020; Chapple, 2015; Macaro, 2018). As part of the UAE’s rentier state structure, education at all levels was made ‘free-of-charge’ (Dafouz & Smit, 2021, p. 21) for Emirati citizens, underlying the importance of education in the development of a knowledge-based economy.

285

Sarah Hopkyns

The UAE’s eponymous flagship federal university was founded in 1976 and was originally established with the help of advisors and experts from the Arabic-speaking world (Badry & Willoughby, 2016). Although the United Arab Emirates University (UAEU) began with Arabic-­ medium instruction (AMI) (Burden-Leahy, 2009), a move toward hiring advisors and experts from Anglophone nations such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, was accompanied with a change from AMI to EMI (Chell, Mukkilä-Erdmann, Iiskala, & Dillon, 2021; Cook, 2017). The UAE’s two other federal higher educational institutions, the Higher Colleges of Technology (formed in 1988) and Zayed University (formed in 1998) also use EMI, as do other public and private locally-owned universities, such as Khalifa University, the American University of Sharjah, and the Canadian University of Dubai (Badry & Willoughby, 2016). In addition to locally-owned public and private universities, in the last two decades, a flood of mainly Anglophone-international branch campuses (IBC) using EMI, such as New York University Abu Dhabi and Birmingham University Dubai, have been established. According to Lane (2014), the UAE is the largest importer of IBCs with over 200 of such institutions. Even IBCs which originate from non-Anglophone countries have adopted EMI. For example, almost all the master’s programmes at Paris Sorbonne Abu Dhabi are taught in English rather than French (Gobert, 2019; van den Hoven & Carroll, 2016). English is deemed essential in the UAE due to it being a lingua franca of workplaces. As Gobert (2019) states, English is closely linked to employment and is seen as the language of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). STEM fields are viewed as driving the future job market and ‘increasing the knowledge capacity of the society’ (Gobert, 2019, p. 114). To summarise, while many different types of university exist in the UAE, with federal ones mainly populated by Emirati students and IBCs being more international, all are dominated by EMI, apart from courses such as Arabic, Islamic studies, and Sharia law (Gallagher, 2016; Hopkyns, 2020a). Although EMI has long been present in higher education as well as in private and international schools, its arrival is relatively new to public schools in the UAE. Educational reforms such as the Abu Dhabi-based ‘New School Model’ (NSM) in 2010 and the recent Emirate-wide ‘Emirates School Model’ in 2019 have introduced EMI for core subjects such as Mathematics and Science. Such reforms were influenced by global and local factors. After 9/11, international pressure mounted to increase English in schooling across the Arabian Peninsula as a way of reducing what was seen as too dominant a focus on Islamic teachings (Karmani, 2005). Neoliberal ideologies connecting English with modernisation and economic success also fuelled the increase of English in schools. A further factor was the wide gap between government school students’ English level upon graduating and the language readiness needed to complete a degree in English. To start an EMI degree at any of the UAE’s institutions, students need to earn a minimum score of 5.0 on the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) or at least 1,100 on the local Emirates Standardized Test (EmSAT) as set by the Commission for Academic Accreditation (Pennington, 2017; Schoepp, 2018). Such a requirement is far below recommendations made by IELTS where a score of at least 6.5 is deemed necessary for pursuing an EMI degree course (IELTS, 2016). Raising the university entrance requirement, assessed by IELTS and EmSAT, however, would prevent a high number of students from entering higher education (Schoepp, 2018). To bridge the English proficiency gap between high school graduates’ English level and university EMI entrance requirements, preparatory, foundation, or academic bridge programmes of up to two years have long been a necessary for many new university students. However, as Gallagher (2016) points out, it is extremely difficult to bridge a shortfall in English proficiency in just a year or two. Furthermore, the foundation programmes have been widely criticised in the media and in public discourse, due to their high cost and students’ begrudgingly viewing them 286

EMI in higher education in the United Arab Emirates

as a type of ‘educational limbo’ as they bare no credits and delay graduation (Gallagher, 2016, p. 142). According to Hoath (2004), university bridging programmes cost over 300 million AED (80 million USD) annually, which accounts for a third of federal universities’ yearly budgets. As a result of such factors, a plan was made at a cabinet retreat in 2013 to phase out university bridging programmes by 2018 (Pennington, 2017). Such a decision was deemed appropriate due to forecasting higher English proficiency of high school graduates having completed a full cycle of the NSM. However, due to officials realising this target was too ambitious, a new goal for ending foundation programmes was set for 2021 as part of Vision 2021 to mark the golden jubilee of the formation of the nation (Pennington, 2017).

Policies and practice in EMI contexts The policies outlined in the previous section have resulted in EMI dominating tertiary institutions in the UAE. In universities, the presence of English also extends to areas outside instruction such as communication via emails, websites, publications, materials, libraries, and events. Thus, as Dafouz and Smit (2014, 2021) point out, ‘English-medium education in multilingual university settings’ (EMEMUS) is a more wide-reaching and useful concept than the more narrowly focussed term EMI. As internationalised university settings in the UAE often involve linguistically diverse students and faculty, these agents contribute different linguistic resources. As a result, EME typically involves a ‘dynamic and fluid use of the language resources available rather than abstract, bounded and norm-orientated English’ (Dafouz & Smit, 2021, p. 45). The concept of EMEMUS is useful for the UAE context as, while English may be the primary medium of instruction in higher education, linguistic ecologies tend to be highly eclectic, influenced by diglossia in Arabic, as well as linguistically diverse students and international faculty. To demonstrate the presence of both EME and multilingual ecologies in UAE HE, Figure 21.1 shows a huge monolingual (English) ‘Happiness’ sign placed in one of Abu Dhabi’s federal

Figure 21.1  Monolingual ‘Happiness’ sign adorned with multilingual messages.

287

Sarah Hopkyns

Figure 21.2  Multilingual linguistic ecology (English, Arabic, Mandarin and Portuguese).

universities. The university’s linguistically diverse faculty and students have covered the monolingual sign with multilingual handwritten messages. The sign was placed at the university in the spring semester of 2019 as part of the nation’s focus on wellbeing, a year before the COVID-19 pandemic transformed campuses into ghost towns. To look more closely at the handwritten messages, Figure 21.2 (a and b) shows the first letter ‘H’ and the last two letters ‘SS’ of the happiness sign. As could be expected, the handwritten messages are primarily in English and Arabic. However, other languages such as Portuguese and Mandarin can also be seen. Regardless of whether the messages were written by students or faculty, there is a clear contrast between top-down EME and bottom-up multilingual ecologies in higher education spaces. In addition to the presence of multiple languages used side-by-side in university spaces, languages are often mixed both routinely and creatively through linguistic hybridity or ‘translinguistics’ (Lee & Dovchin, 2020). Recently in the field of Applied Linguistics, the ‘trans-turn’ recognises translingual practice as a key feature of language use in multilingual educational settings (Hawkins & Mori, 2018, p. 3). Studies have shown that such practice is also an ordinary part of university life in the UAE (Al-Bataineh & Gallagher, 2018; Hopkyns, Zoghbor, & Hassall, 2018, 2021; Palfreyman & Al-Bataineh, 2018; van den Hoven & Carroll, 2016, 2020). In van den Hoven and Carroll’s (2020) study with 12 Emirati pre-service teachers, participants explained that they used English differently according to purpose, space, and interaction patterns. One mode of English which participants felt dominated EMI classrooms was ‘College-flavour English’ whereby a hybrid language involving full linguistic repertoires was used amongst classmates. One participant in van den Hoven and Carroll’s (2020) study estimated that over 90% of her language use fit this category. Linguistic repertoires of Emirati students are dominated by the Khaleeji dialect (Emirati Arabic) and English, but also third and fourth languages in some cases. Students in van den Hoven and Carroll’s (2016) study spoke of their passion for South Korean dramas, leading to an interest in the Korean language, which they 288

EMI in higher education in the United Arab Emirates

incorporated into conversations with classmates combined with English, Arabic, and vocabulary from additional languages. Similarly, in Hopkyns, Zoghbor, and Hassall’s (2021, p. 184) study, 78% of the 100 Emirati university student participants stated that they used their full linguistic repertoires in their EMI university. Students used translanguaging in both oral and written communication where a mixture of English and Arabic was used in short stories and for note-taking. Participants gave three main reasons for translanguaging: (1) words not being easy to translate, (2) increased comfort levels, and (3) more precise meaning/helps communication and understanding. A type of translingual practice unique to the Arabic-speaking world, which is known as Arabizi, was also found to be common in EME (Hopkyns et al., 2021). Arabizi involves mixing English, Arabic, and semiotic resources such as symbols. The Romanised alphabet is often combined with English numbers to represent Arabic sounds. For example, the number seven is used for ‫ ح‬in Arabic, representing a constricted ‘h’ sound not found in English (Swan & Smith, 2001, p. 197). Here, a word such as Ma7aba, meaning ‘hello’, is mostly transliterated with ‘7’ replacing ‘h’ for more accurate pronunciation. Originally arising from necessity due to the dominance of English keyboards for computers and Blackberry phones, Arabizi is now commonly used out of habit and choice when communicating informally. Arabizi has no definite rules and tends to be used in a relaxed and casual way. In this sense, it could also be classified as college-flavour English due to its common and natural use between friends and classmates. Although translingual practice is ordinary in multilingual university settings, ‘sociolinguistic tension between situated communicative practices and an orientation to linguistic norms’ often occurs in EME (Dafouz & Smit, 2021, p. 45). An emphasis on English-only instruction and assessments can cause both students and faculty to associate the use of languages other than English as transgressive or undesirable within the domain of EMEMUS. Previous studies in the UAE have thus found mixed attitudes toward translingual practice. While some students are comfortable with translingual practice in EMEMUS, others hold firm monolingual ideologies or language purity beliefs where linguistic hybridity is viewed negatively (Al-Bataineh & Gallagher, 2018; Hopkyns, forthcoming; Hopkyns et al., 2021; Palfreyman & Al-Bataineh, 2018). Such language purity beliefs centre around the notion of languages as ‘two solitudes’ where bilingualism is valued as long as languages are separated (Cummins, 2007). Findlow (2006) refers to such language ideologies in the UAE as ‘linguistic dualism’ due to the dominance of EMI excluding Arabic from its domain just as the use of English is often frowned upon by older generations if used in the home setting or in religious contexts (Hopkyns, 2020a; O’Neill, 2016), despite multilingual and translingual realities. There is, thus, a notable chasm between lived linguistic realities and EME expectations, especially relating to EMI and English-only assessments.

Implications of EMI in UAE higher education Although recent policy changes, such as increasing EMI in schools and the phasing out of university foundation programmes, indicate the need for less English language support as time goes on, IELTS test scores in the UAE remain comparatively low globally. From the top 40 countries where the IELTS is taken, the UAE ranks 39th in terms of mean score (band 4.9) (IELTS, 2016, as cited in Schoepp, 2018, p. 272). While English-readiness is increasing gradually, English language struggles in universities and sociolinguistic implications of EMI such as Arabic domain loss and impact on identities continue to be discussed in the literature (Al-Bataineh, 2020; Belhiah & Elhami, 2015; Engin & McKeown, 2017; Hopkyns, 2014, 2016, 2020a, 2020b; Mouhanna, 2016; Rogier, 2012; Schoepp, 2018). 289

Sarah Hopkyns

High expectations and challenging realities Previous studies investigating Emirati university students’ EMI experiences have found mainly positive attitudes towards EMI due to dominant neoliberal ideologies where English is seen as a commodity. English, in this sense, is viewed as an enabling language that leads to prestige, brighter futures, better job opportunities, and economic success. As Troudi and Jendli (2011) state, English in the UAE represents ‘power and success, modernism, liberalism, freedom and equality’ (p. 26). English is linked with innovation and the future as well as being contrasted with negative memories of teacher-centred AMI classes, strengthening the symbolic appeal of English as a ‘a departure from old-fashioned and inefficient educational systems’ (p. 26). English is also connected to ‘access’ due to 85–90% of all scientific research being published in English (Ammon, 2006). Although attitudes towards EMI tend to be positive with a focus on anticipated outcomes, such high hopes are often juxtaposed with challenging experiences on the ground. Hopkyns’ (2023) study involving 100 Emirati university students and seven faculty members at a federal university revealed a gap between positive attitudes toward the ‘idea’ of EMI and vulnerabilities experienced by many students in EMI classrooms. Vulnerabilities include linguistic struggles, English as an academic gatekeeper, Arabic domain loss affecting identities, and limited agency affecting equity and social justice.

Pedagogical challenges In terms of linguistic struggles, studies have found that intersecting factors such as educational background, language proficiency, and region can affect EMI experiences. For example, during the COVID-19 period of emergency remote teaching and learning, privately educated Emirati students who had attended EMI private or international schools showed greater willingness to engage in online discussions whereas lack of confidence in English proficiency acted as a barrier for other students who feared judgement from peers, amongst other factors (Hopkyns, 2022). Here, EMI had a polarising effect on the student body by benefiting those already privileged and disadvantaging those with less access to English or from more conservative or rural backgrounds. A divide between private and state educated students in EMI settings has also been found in other contexts worldwide. For example, in Nepal, Sah and Li (2018) argue that rather than EMI being an educational equaliser, EMI ‘served to (re)produce linguistic marginalization and educational inequalities’ (p. 109). Further concerns relating to linguistic struggles in UAE EMI contexts include the gatekeeper status of English as seen via the use of monolingual assessments. Especially, international benchmark tests such as IELTS can cause anguish for students unable to achieve the necessary score to progress in their chosen field of study. International tests such as IELTS have been criticised for being culturally biased due to a focus on mainly Western geographical areas and topics which are often unfamiliar to test-takers in periphery contexts (Freimuth, 2016, 2022). Although locally designed alternatives to IELTS have recently been created, such as the EmSAT, assessments generally remain inflexible and intolerant of non-standardised English and translingual practice. Here, as discussed previously, there is a mismatch between multilingual and translingual sociolinguistic realities and monolingual expectations in EME.

Sociolinguistic challenges Not only are linguistic struggles present in UAE EME but also sociolinguistic factors such as ‘lack of belonging’ have been voiced by Emirati students in numerous studies. As EMI universities hire mainly foreign faculty, many of whom are non-Arabic speakers, feelings of ‘us and them’ 290

EMI in higher education in the United Arab Emirates

or ‘otherness’ can cause discomfort amongst Emirati students in EMI settings (Hudson, 2019, p. 252; Hopkyns, 2020a; Toth, 2020). As curricula and materials tend to be imported from Western Anglophone countries, there is also an absence of local sociolinguistic realities reflected in course material as well as an absence of local bilingual teachers as role models (Toth, 2020). Although the government initiative of ‘Emiratization’ aims to address this foreign/local imbalance by hiring more Emiratis to replace foreign faculty, the rentier state system makes it ‘difficult to attract nationals to teaching’ as there remains a strong preference amongst Emiratis for public sector government jobs due to higher salaries, shorter working hours, and cultural considerations such as gender segregated work environments (Gallagher, 2019, p. 127). As EMI is automatic in higher education rather than optional, frustration and resentment occur amongst those who would not have chosen EMI if such a choice had been available. When investigating Emirati students’ preferences regarding medium of instruction (MOI), previous studies have found the most common choice was to have a mixture of EMI and AMI. For example, in Kennetz and Carroll’s (2018, p. 178) study with 248 Emirati university students, approximately 50% wanted to study in both English and Arabic, and 30% wanted only AMI. Similarly, in O’Neill’s (2014) study, 60% of Emirati university students stated they would opt for bilingual instruction if given the choice. Reasons for having an AMI option, included Arabic domain loss, increased understanding, attainment, creativity, and comfort levels, as well as strengthening cultural identities in education (Belhiah & Elhami, 2015; Hopkyns, 2020a, 2020b; Kennetz & Carroll, 2018; O’Neill, 2014). English, on the other hand, was deemed important too due to its association with progress and success, as previously discussed. Most of all, students in previous studies stressed the need for greater agency and choice surrounding MOI (Belhiah & Elhami, 2015; Hopkyns, 2020a, 2020b; Troudi & Jendli, 2011). From university teachers’ perspectives, previous studies have also revealed a general dissatisfaction with English-only education in UAE HE. For example, university teacher participants in Hopkyns’ (2020a) study favoured a dual stream approach due to witnessing many students’ linguistic struggles and discomfort in EMI settings. Teachers have also pointed out the wide divide between students who have attended EMI schools and those who have attended government schools where English was introduced at a later stage (Gallagher, 2019; Hopkyns, 2023; Troudi & Jendli, 2011).

Towards more effective EMI in the UAE context To help address pedagogical and sociolinguistic challenges arising from EMI in the UAE context, four suggestions can be made: (1) context-specific and culturally responsive pedagogy; (2) increased language support and collaboration; (3) legitimising translingual practice; and (4) greater agency for stakeholders regarding MOI.

Context-specific and culturally responsive pedagogy Firstly, EMI needs to be tailored to specific contexts and be culturally responsive. The MOE set an educational goal as part of Vision 2021 to incorporate both local and international best practices in university classrooms. A ‘glocal’ approach (Robertson, 1994) to teaching can be applied in UAE English-medium HE by ‘combining the strengths of the local population (collaboration and society building) with the strengths of global best pedagogical practices’ (Eppard, Bailey, McKeown, & Singh, 2021, p. 464). Several steps can be taken by teachers and students as agentic players within EMEMUS to better mould EME to suit context-specific preferences and needs. For example, culturally responsive teaching, whereby learning utilises local concepts and builds 291

Sarah Hopkyns

on students’ lived experiences, can provide a greater sense of belonging, autonomy, and agency in educational spaces. Including locally focussed topics is particularly important considering the lack of representation of selves in imported Western textbooks and in international English tests (Freimuth, 2016). In addition, unstructured collaborative work, such as problem-based learning (PBL) through ‘communities of practice’, can enhance learner agency and is particularly suited to Arabian Gulf mentalities which favour collectivism over individualism (Alteneiji, 2015; van Lier, 2004). It is, however, important to recognise different learning styles within EMI classrooms, especially in IBCs where student populations are particularly diverse. Recognising the close connection between autonomy and motivation is important, especially considering structural constraints around agency in relation to the MOI.

Language support and collaboration Secondly, to minimise language struggles, adequate in-sessional support is needed, as well as greater collaboration between content teachers and language specialists. As Rose (2021) states, with reference to EMI in Asian contexts, language support is essential for student success and confidence. Especially with the phasing out of university foundation programmes, in-sessional support from language specialists is vital. Many content teachers feel it is not their responsibility or role to teach language. For example, in Eppard et al.’s (2021) study involving 10 faculty members at a federal UAE university, one content teacher stated, ‘I’m not a trained English teacher. I know my subject. I don’t know how to simplify to students without sacrificing content’ (p. 466). Other content teachers in Eppard et al.’s (2021) study adjusted their teaching to include activating prior knowledge, using multimodal presentations, and incorporating reading circles, which benefited students struggling with language by allowing time and space for processing and discussing new language and concepts. However, it was felt that such methods increased faculty workload and may be viewed as tiresome or unnecessary by students who had attended private EMI schools and would find the classes too easy. An alternative way to support low proficiency students is to provide tuition through English language learning centres on campus, which focus on English, study skills, and academic literacy. However, although such centres already exist in UAE universities, students often neglect such services due to lack of time and seeing no direct benefit in the form of credits. As Chell et al. (2021) state, ‘students view any elective sessions as an extra burden as they are already overloaded with assignments, cannot clearly see an immediate return and are not fully aware of the benefits of attending an EAP class’ (p. 59). Thus, it is important to raise awareness amongst students as to the worth and advantages of such sessions if they are to be well-attended. A further step suggested by Schoepp (2018) and Chell et al. (2021) is setting university entrance requirements at a level which promote success. After analysing marking rubrics at one of the UAE’s federal universities, Chell et al. (2021) argue that with the current minimum entrance score being IELTS 5 for undergraduates and IELTS 6 for master’s students, top scores were out of reach for most students, often due to insufficient command of grammar.

Legitimising translingual practices Thirdly, for greater understanding and a sense of belonging in EMEMUS, it is important to narrow the gap between monolingual EME expectations and multilingual or translingual practice. Rose (2021) stresses the need for greater flexibility surrounding EMI with a move away from English-only instruction. Although, translingual practice is ordinary in EMI classrooms, there is currently little recognition or legitimisation of such practice, especially in assessments. There is 292

EMI in higher education in the United Arab Emirates

also stigma attached to the use of the L1 in classrooms influenced by language purity beliefs and monolingual ideologies, as discussed previously. When implementing educational policies, it is important not to ‘bracket out the social’ (Bourdieu, 1991, p. 34). In this sense, teachers as agents can adapt language policies to suit sociolinguistic realities by acting as bottom-up policymakers within their own classrooms. While some may take a ‘linguistic dentistry’ approach to EMI by policing non-standardised English, others recognise students’ L1 as a resource by actively creating choices surrounding language use (Cushing, 2019; Shohamy, 2013). A grassroots step toward greater flexibility and agency around the medium of education involves the legitimisation of translingual practice in classrooms as well as in assessments. This can be achieved by actively incorporating the L1 into activities, such as reading a text in English but promoting translingual group discussions. Teachers can also help raise awareness for the need to legitimise translingual practice in EMI contexts by having students discuss and debate language use and attitudes. For example, Al-Bataineh and Gallagher (2018) set an assignment for their Emirati pre-service teacher students whereby the students created translingual (English and Arabic) story books for young learners. Initially, there was ideological resistance, but this initiated awareness-raising discussions around language policy and education in the UAE. As Canagarajah (2013) argues, validating students’ translingual identities not only facilitates learning but also strengthens a sense of belonging in multilingual universities.

Greater agency for stakeholders regarding medium of instruction Finally, in addition to emphasis being placed on agentive roles of stakeholders within EMI classrooms, many scholars have advocated greater choice and agency at an institutional level, whereby students are provided with active choices surrounding the MOI (Belhiah & Elhami, 2015; Hopkyns, 2020a; Troudi & Jendli, 2011). It is argued that pathways should be created that allow students to earn university degrees in both English and Arabic. Benefits of providing such a choice include the strengthening of Arabic as a language of education, thus helping to prevent domain loss, increasing student motivation as they actively choose their MOI, and promoting social justice regarding linguistic rights. Cook (2017) points out that promoting English as the sole language of science in grade school and the dominant MOI in universities goes against goals set in the Arabic Language Charter, which was formulated as part of Vision 2021. While the Arabic Language Charter aims to promote the Arabic language and Islamic identities, current EMI policies ‘directly contradict the linguistic goals laid out in the Charter’ (Cook, 2017, p. 387). It is unusual for choices around university MOI to be so restricted. As has been argued previously, English should not act as a barrier to academic success.

Conclusion This chapter discussed EMI in the context of UAE higher education and aimed to shine a spotlight on central debates. Key issues discussed included a disjunction between EME policies and multilingual/translingual practice, a notable divide between state and private school educated students in terms of English proficiency affecting EMI experiences and access, as well as pedagogical and sociolinguistic implications of EMI. The chapter suggested context-specific steps to take in order to address key issues arising. While some of the suggested steps are currently being taken to various degrees, others need further attention for future progress. Al-Bataineh (2020) stresses the need for ‘linguistic balance’ in UAE universities. The need for greater balance amongst languages in multilingual settings also applies beyond the classroom, in the UAE and other contexts worldwide, with 293

Sarah Hopkyns

regard to the medium of conferences and publications (Block & Khan, 2021). As the UAE is a dynamic context characterised by ongoing fast-paced change, it is important to revisit and reflect upon the topics discussed in this chapter regularly in light of ongoing developments and policy changes.

References Ahmed, A. S. (1984). ‘Dubai chalo’: Problems in the ethnic encounter between Middle Eastern and South Asian Muslim societies. Asian Affairs, 15, 262–276. Al-Bataineh, A. (2020). Language policy in higher education in the UAE: Proficiency, choices and the future of Arabic. Language Policy, 20, 215–236. Al-Bataineh, A., & Gallagher, K. (2018). Attitudes towards translanguaging: How future teachers perceive the meshing of Arabic and English in children’s story books. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24, 386–400. Alteneiji, E. A. (2015). Leadership cultural values of United Arab Emirates: The case of United Arab Emirates University (Master’s dissertation). The University of San Diego, California. Ammon, U. (2006). Language planning for international scientific communication: An overview of questions and potential solutions. Current Issues in Language Planning, 7, 1–30. Badry, F., & Willoughby, J. (2016). Higher education revolutions in the Gulf: Globalization and institutional viability. Routledge. Baker, W., & Fang, G. F. (2020). ‘So maybe I’m global citizen’: Developing intercultural citizenship in English medium education. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 34, 1–17. Belhiah, H., & Elhami, M. (2015). English as a medium of instruction in the Gulf: When students and teachers speak. Language Policy, 14, 2–23. Block, D., & Khan, S. (2021). The secret life of English-medium instruction in higher education. Routledge. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Polity Press. Bristol-Rhys, J. (2010). Emirati women. Hirst. Burden-Leahy, S. M. (2009). Globalization and education in the postcolonial word: The conundrum of the higher education system of the United Arab Emirates. Comparative Education, 45, 535–544. Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. Routledge. Chapple, J. (2015). Teaching in English is not necessarily the teaching of English. International Educational Studies, 8(3), 1–13. Chell, G., Mukkilä-Erdmann, M., Iiskala, T., & Dillon, A. (2021). A comparative study of academic literacy in English medium instruction programs in the UAE and Finland. Issues in Educational Research, 31, 56–75. Cook, W. R. A. (2017). More vision than renaissance: Arabic as a language of science in the UAE. Language Policy, 16, 385–406. Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10, 221–240. Cushing, I. (2019). The policy and policing of language in schools. Language in Society, 28, 321–354. Dafouz, E., & Smit, U. (2014). Toward a dynamic conceptual framework for English-medium education in multilingual settings. Applied Linguistics, 37, 397–415. Dafouz, E., & Smit, U. (2021). ROAD-MAPPING English medium education in the internationalized university. Palgrave Macmillan. Engin, M., & McKeown, K. (2017). Motivation of Emirati males and females to study at higher education in the United Arab Emirates. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 41, 678–691. Eppard, J., Bailey, F., McKeown, K., & Singh, H. (2021). Expatriate faculty and student perspectives on teaching and learning in a United Arab Emirates university. Issues in Educational Research, 31, 458–475. Esmail, A. (2016). The effect of the empowerment of the ‘white dialect’ on enhancing Standard Arabic. Paper presented at The 5th International Arabic Conference. United Arab Emirates, Dubai. Fenton-Smith, B., Humphreys, P., & Walkinshaw, I. (Eds.). (2017). English medium instruction in higher education in Asia Pacific: From policy to pedagogy. Springer. Findlow, S. (2006). Higher education and linguistic dualism in the Arab Gulf. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 27, 19–36. Freimuth, H. (2016). An examination of cultural bias in IELTS Task 1 non-process writing prompts: A UAE perspective. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 13, 1–16.

294

EMI in higher education in the United Arab Emirates Freimuth, H. (2022). Cultural bias in English examinations and its effect on Gulf linguistic and cultural identities. In S. Hopkyns & W. Zoghbor (Eds.), Linguistic identities in the Arab Gulf states: Waves of change (pp. 165–180). Routledge. Gallagher, K. (2016). From ‘late-late’ to ‘early-early’ immersion: Discontinuities and dilemmas in medium of instruction of instruction policies and practices. In L. Buckingham (Ed.), Language, identity and education on the Arabian Peninsula (pp. 139–160). Multilingual Matters. Gallagher, K. (2019). Challenges and opportunities in sourcing, preparing and developing a teacher force for the UAE. In K. Gallagher (Ed.), Education in the United Arab Emirates (pp. 127–145). Springer. Gitsaki, C. (2021). Planning AILA Middle East: Applied linguistics and language teaching association. Conference presentation at the American Association for Applied Linguists (AAAL) 2021 Virtual Conference. Gobert, M. (2019). Transformation in English language education in the UAE. In K. Gallagher (Ed.), Education in the United Arab Emirates: Innovation and transformation (pp. 113–126). Springer. Hawkins, M. R., & Mori, J. (2018). Considering ‘trans’ perspectives in language theories and practices. Applied Linguistics, 39, 1–8. Hoath, N. (2004, January 22). Performance of higher colleges under scrutiny. Gulf News. Retrieved from http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/04/01/22/108662.html Hopkyns, S. (2014). The effects of global English on culture and identity in the UAE: A double-edged sword. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 11(2), 5–24. Hopkyns, S. (2016). Emirati cultural identity in the age of ‘Englishization’: Voices from an Abu Dhabi university. In L. Buckingham (Ed.), Language, identity and education on the Arabian Peninsula (pp. 87–115). Multilingual Matters. Hopkyns, S. (2020a). The impact of global English on cultural identities in the United Arab Emirates: Wanted not welcome. Routledge. Hopkyns, S. (2020b). Dancing between English and Arabic: Complexities in Emirati cultural identities. In N. Randolph, A. F. Selvi, & B. Yazan (Eds.), The complexity of identity and interaction in language education (pp. 249–265). Multilingual Matters. Hopkyns, S. (2022). Cultural and linguistic struggles and solidarities of Emirati learners in online classes during the COVID-19 period. Policy Futures in Education, 20, 451–468. Hopkyns, S. (2023). English-medium instruction in Emirati higher education: Expectations and hardships. In P. K. Sah & F. Fang (Eds.), Policies, politics, and ideologies of English medium instruction in Asian universities: Unsettling critical edges (pp. 184–202). Routledge. Hopkyns, S., Zoghbor, W., & Hassall, P. (2018). Creative hybridity over linguistic purity: The status of English in the United Arab Emirates. Asian Englishes, 20(2), 158–169. Hopkyns, S., Zoghbor, W., & Hassall, P. (2021). The use of English and linguistic hybridity among Emirati millennials. World Englishes, 40, 176–190. Hudson, P. (2019). A gin and tonic and a window seat: Critical pedagogy in Arabia. In M. E. Lopez-Gopar (Ed.), International perspectives on critical pedagogies in ELT (pp. 241–263). Palgrave Macmillan. IELTS. (2016). Test taker performance 2015. Retrieved from https://www.ielts.org/teaching-and-research/ test-taker-performance. Karmani, S. (2005). Petro-linguistics: The emerging nexus between oil, English, and Islam. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 4, 87–102. Kennetz, K., & Carroll, K. (2018). Language threat in the United Arab Emirates? Unpacking domains of language. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 25(4), 165–184. Lane, J. E. (2014). The impact of branches of foreign universities in the UAE. The future of education in the UAE: Innovation and knowledge production (pp. 123–150). The Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research. Ledstrup, M. (2019). Nationalism and nationhood in the United Arab Emirates. Palgrave Macmillan. Lee, J. W., & Dovchin, S. (Eds.). (2020). Translinguistics: Negotiating innovation and ordinariness.Routledge. Macaro, E. (2018). English medium instruction. Oxford University Press. Mouhanna, M. (2016). English as a medium of instruction in the tertiary education setting of the UAE: The perspectives of content teachers (PhD thesis).University of Exeter, UK. Nickerson, C. (2015). Unity in diversity: The view from the (UAE) classroom. Language Teaching, 48, 235–249. O’Neill, G. T. (2014). ‘Just a natural move towards English’: Gulf youth attitudes towards Arabic and English literacy. Gulf Perspectives, 11, 1–21.

295

Sarah Hopkyns O’Neill, G. T. (2016). Heritage, heteroglossia and home: Multilingualism in Emirati families. In L. Buckingham (Ed.), Language, identity and education on the Arabian Peninsula (pp. 13–38). Multilingual Matters. Onley, J. (2005). Britain’s informal empire in the Gulf, 1820–1971. Journal of Social Affairs, 22(87), 29–45. Palfreyman, D., & Al-Bataineh, A. (2018). ‘This is my life style, Arabic and English’: Students’ attitudes to (trans)languaging in a bilingual university context. Language Awareness, 27, 79–95. Pecorari, D., & Malmström, H. (2018). At the crossroads of TESOL and English medium instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 52, 497–515. Pennington, R. (2017, July 22). Pre-university year for Emiratis won’t be phased out yet. The National. Retrieved from: https://www.thenationalnews.com/uae/education/pre-university-year-for-emiratis-won-t-bephased-out-yet-officials-say-1.613147 Ridge, N. (2014). Education and the reverse gender divide in the Gulf States: Embracing the global, ignoring the local. Teachers College Press. Ridge, N., Kippels, S., & Farah, S. (2017). Curriculum development in the UAE. Policy Paper No. 18. Sheikh Saud bin Saqr al Qasimi Foundation for Policy Research, 1–17. Robertson, R. (1994). Globalisation or Glocalisation? Journal of International Communication, 1, 33–52. Rogier, D. (2012). The effects of English-medium instruction on language proficiency of students enrolled in higher education in the UAE (PhD thesis). University of Exeter, UK. Rose, H. (2021). Students’ language-related challenges of studying through English: What EMI teachers can do. In D. Lasagabaster & A. Doiz (Eds.), Language use in English-medium instruction at university (pp. 145–166). Routledge. Sah, P. K., & Li, G. (2018). English medium instruction (EMI) as linguistic capital in Nepal: Promises and realities. International Multilingual Research Journal, 12, 109–123. Schoepp, K. (2018). Predictive validity of the IELTS in an English as a medium of instruction environment. Higher Education Quarterly, 72, 271–285. Shohamy, E. (2013). A critical perspective on the use of English as a medium of instruction at universities. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster, & J. M. Sierra (Eds.), English-medium instruction at universities (pp. 196–210). Multilingual Matters. Siemund, P., Al-Issa, A., & Leimgruber, J. R. E. (2020). Multilingualism and the roles of English in the United Arab Emirates. World Englishes, 40, 191–204. Suliman, O. (2000). A descriptive study of the educational system in the United Arab Emirates (PhD thesis). University of Southern California, California. Swan, M., & Smith, B. (2001). Learner English (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. Toth, J. (2020). National identity in the UAE and its capacity for social transformation. In N. Lenze & C. Schriwer (Eds.), Participation culture in the Gulf (pp. 127–149). Routledge. Troudi, S., & Jendli, A. (2011). Emirati students’ experiences of English as medium of instruction. In A. Al-Issa & L. S. Dahan (Eds.), Global English and Arabic: Issues of language, culture and identity (pp. 23–48). Peter Lang. Van den Hoven, M., & Carroll, K. S. (2016). Emirati pre-service teachers’ perspectives of Abu Dhabi’s rich linguistic context. In L. Buckingham (Ed.), Language, identity and education on the Arabian peninsula (pp. 39–58). Multilingual Matters. Van den Hoven, M., & Carroll, K. S. (2020). English-medium policy and English conversational patterns in the UAE. World Englishes, 40, 205–218. van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Springer.

296

22 ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN EAST AFRICA Susanne Mohr and David Barasa

Introduction In recent decades, there has been an increasing global trend towards the implementation of ­English-medium language policies in higher education (HE) (Dearden, 2014; Macaro, Curle, Pun, An, & Dearden, 2018). In East Africa, English-medium instruction (EMI) is common in higher education, and African languages are rarely used media of instruction (MOI) (Skattum, 2020). This prevalence of English is intricately linked to colonial history, especially in the tertiary education sector, where ‘programmes, courses and training […] were based on colonial interests, while African cultures […] and languages were left out’ (Woldegiorgis, 2021, p. 4). Subsequently, postindependence decision-making on language policies was closely tied to language rationalisation ideologies and policies aimed at promoting national unity on the basis of endorsing one privileged language, often English, and denying recognition to other languages in public spheres (Kembo Sure, 2020; Patten, 2001). Importantly, these privileged languages were seen as providing equal opportunities for social mobility and being more suitable for technology and higher education (Kembo Sure, 2020, p. 5). The development of suitable scientific vocabulary might be an actual challenge that needed to be addressed. In this chapter, we discuss these issues in light of the sociolinguistics of the East African region, the history of languages of instruction, and current language policies. Based on this, we consider the effectiveness of and problems with EMI in higher education and provide an outlook on its future in East Africa. Before delving into a language-related discussion of higher education policies, however, a few words on higher education in East Africa in general are in order. According to the Ethnologue, 20 countries form part of Eastern Africa, including Burundi, Comoros, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mayotte, Mozambique, Réunion, Rwanda, Seychelles, Somalia, South Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe (Eberhard, Simons, & Fennig, 2021). Not all of them use English as MOI in higher education, and discussing all of them in detail is beyond the scope of this chapter. The East African Community (EAC) provides a more manageable framework of analysis, as it only consists of six countries: Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, South Sudan, Tanzania, and Uganda. English does not have official status in higher education in Burundi. Moreover, there is as yet little information available on English in South Sudan, where it is the statutory national working language, given the relative youth of the country (Eberhard et al., 297

DOI: 10.4324/9781003011644-25

Susanne Mohr and David Barasa

2021). Hence, we focus on EMI in higher education in Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda here. Some information on other countries in the region, such as Ethiopia, the only Afrophone country on the continent (Skattum, 2020), will be added where relevant. The modern era of higher education in East Africa is often traced back to 1963 when Makerere University (founded in 1922 and a constituent college of the University of London from 1949) transformed into the University of East Africa following the independence of Uganda (Bretz & Heimlich, 2017; Otieno, 2010). In 1970, it was reconstituted as Makerere University in Kampala, the University of Dar es Salaam in Tanzania, and the University of Nairobi in Kenya (Otieno, 2010). Today, higher education in the region is steadily growing, although through different trajectories. This includes increased privatisation and regionalisation in Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda and increased centralisation in Rwanda (Blumbach, 2017). According to the Commission for University Education (2021), there are 74 universities and colleges in Kenya today, 52 in Tanzania (Tanzania Commission for Universities, 2021), and 11 public and more than 40 private universities in Uganda (Bretz & Heimlich, 2017). Rwanda implemented the ‘one university project’ in 2014 with the aim of optimising governmental resources by reducing the number of universities in the country. Today there are three public universities and colleges and 27 private universities (Higher Education Council, 2021). Generally, private institutions abound in Africa, which is an important factor regarding MOI, given that they are not subject to governmental language policies (Woldegiorgis, 2021). Participation in higher education varies across East Africa, with enrolment rates of 11.46% in Kenya, 6.73% in Rwanda, 4.81% in Tanzania, and 4.84% in Uganda in 2020 (DAAD, 2020a, 2020b, 2020c, 2020d). These differences can be attributed to low participation in secondary education in Tanzania, which in turn is linked to inadequate funding as compared to primary education in the country (Ishengoma, 2010). In contrast, enrolment in higher education in Kenya is steadily growing (Otieno, 2010), similar to Uganda, where enrolments increased by more than 260% between 1995 and 2005 due to the introduction of universal primary and secondary education and the relatively low entry requirements at Ugandan universities (Musise & Mayega, 2010; Ogachi, 2009). It is against this backdrop that language policies and EMI in higher education in East Africa need to be viewed and evaluated.

The sociolinguistics of East Africa The East African countries included in our overview all qualify as potential EMI countries according to Macaro et al.’s (2018) definition cited at the beginning of this chapter. In these countries, English is not the first language of the majority of the population. Generally, English remains a language of an educated minority and ‘attitudes towards the language are often ambivalent’ (Isingoma, 2017; Mohr, Lorenz, & Ochieng, 2020, p. 373). Most sociolinguistic research on English in East Africa, specifically in a world Englishes paradigm, has established Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda as the ‘heartland’ or ‘core’ countries of East Africa (Schmied, 2012). Other countries that form part of the region geographically and/or linguistically as outlined earlier, such as Malawi or Burundi, have less extensive documentation on the Englishes spoken there. Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda have been argued to form a sociolinguistic unit, exhibiting a triglossic language situation in the wake of colonialism (Schmied, 2012), so that: (i) English is an exoglossic language used in government administration, diplomacy, education, and international commerce; (ii) Kiswahili is an endoglossic language used in administration, having the status of a national language in Kenya and Tanzania, and is recognised as an official language in Uganda; and (iii) other endoglossic languages are employed for intra-ethnic communication (Kipacha, 2012). 298

English-medium instruction in higher education in East Africa

Kiswahili is recognised as the official language of the EAC, alongside English. However, the above tripartite grouping has recently been questioned by research on the linguistic situation of Uganda (Meierkord, Isingoma, & Namyalo, 2016; Mohr et al., 2020). It is specifically the status and use of Kiswahili that is different in Uganda, since the language never took over the role of a widespread lingua franca. Even though it was chosen as second administrative language over Luganda officially at the beginning of the twentieth century, other endogenous languages (especially Luganda) have been and continue to be practically used in different parts of the country (Mohr et al., 2020). The sociolinguistics of Rwanda are different from what is described earlier, as there are three official languages, Kinyarwanda, English, and French, with the latter two both being former colonial languages. Both English and French are not widely spoken, while Kiswahili is used frequently, especially with people from neighbouring countries (Clay & Lemarchand, 2021).

Kenya There are 80 languages spoken in Kenya today; out of which 61 are endogenous, seven are exogenous, 10 are unestablished and two are macrolanguages (Eberhard et al., 2021). The endogenous languages are broadly classified into three families: Bantu, Nilotic, and Cushitic. The exogenous languages are English, French, Chinese, Omani Arabic, Gujarati, Konkani, Nubi, and Punjabi. There is also Kenyan Sign Language as recognised by the Constitution, Article 120(2) (Republic of Kenya, 2010). Of the 80 languages, only three are official languages, that is, Kiswahili, English, and Kenyan Sign Language. Kiswahili doubles up as a national language. Despite the official status of Kiswahili, English, and Kenyan Sign Language, the country has a complex language repertoire. Most of the social transactions in rural areas are conducted in languages of the catchment area, with sporadic use of Kiswahili and rare use of English. In urban areas, there is a widespread tendency for speakers of minority languages to shift towards Kiswahili, English, or other dominant native Kenyan languages (Barasa, 2017). English and Kiswahili are the most widespread, both in mainstream media and social media. The active use of most minority languages has been on the decline due to colonisation, globalisation, and language policies.

Rwanda There are six living languages in Rwanda, of which two are endogenous, two are exogenous, and two are unestablished (Eberhard et al., 2021). The principal language is Kinyarwanda, spoken by approximately 99.4% of the population (Rosendal, 2009). Kembo Sure (2020) argues that Rwanda is almost unilingual due to language policies informed by language rationalisation ideologies, that means a ‘program of promoting convergence on a privileged public language (or set of languages) by limiting or denying recognition of other languages in certain spheres of language use’ (Patten, 2001, p. 701). This has been, in fact, a popular model in many African countries, also including other countries in East Africa, such as Tanzania (Kembo Sure, 2020). Many African countries retained a colonial language after independence to ensure ethnic harmony, a sense of unity and nationalism, and to avoid violent ethnic conflicts. However, Rwanda is only one example of this idea being misguided and Kembo Sure (2020, p. 7) suggests convincingly that language ‘is […] being used as a scapegoat for political and economic injustices that cause irritation and disaffection in some groups or regions’. Kinyarwanda is not only used as a language of instruction in early primary schooling but is also used in daily life, in the media and is employed for official public functions. However, with respect to mass literacy, Kinyarwanda has been neglected, as French was retained as a language of prestige and political power after independence (Samuelson 299

Susanne Mohr and David Barasa

& Freedman, 2010). French was also recognised as the official language following the pre-independence language policy. English was elevated to official language status in 1996. According to the 2003 constitution, English, French, and Kinyarwanda are statutory national working languages (Eberhard et al., 2021). Besides the national languages, Kiswahili, Nyankore, and Rundi are spoken in the country (Eberhard et al., 2021). Of these, Kiswahili probably has the fewest users with 4,710 according to the Ethnologue (Eberhard et al., 2021).

Tanzania There are 128 living languages in Tanzania, with Kiswahili functioning as national language and English fulfilling various official functions as de facto national working language (Eberhard et al., 2021). Of these, 118 languages are endogenous, eight are exogenous, one is unestablished, and one is a macrolanguage. The endogenous languages of the country belong to all four major African language phyla: Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan, Afro-Asiatic, and Khoisan. Generally, English has been favoured by language policies (Tibategeza & Du Plessis, 2012), even though it remains a language of the elites and is rather acquired as a foreign than a second language (Bwenge, 2012). During Tanzania’s socialist period after independence, Kiswahili was strongly promoted as language of ‘freedom’, ‘familyhood’, and ‘emancipation’, while English was associated with (neo)colonialism, capitalism, and elitism (Blommaert, 2014; Legère & Rosendal, 2015). These attitudes and associations changed considerably after the end of the socialist period in the 1990s, when a dissociation from the former Swahilization policy was aspired to (Bwenge, 2012). Nevertheless, English remains a language that is mainly associated with socioeconomic gain and opportunities on the job market, rather than being a language of (national) identity (Mohr, 2018). In rural areas of Tanzania, knowledge of the lingua franca Kiswahili has been reported to be limited (Brock-Utne & Qorro, 2015). Generally, the smaller endogenous languages of the country are not promoted and threatened by Kiswahili, however (Petzell, 2012). This goes back to the Swahilization policy of the socialist period. In recent studies on language use and attitudes, the smaller languages have been shown to be used quite frequently in the home though and they also play a role in the individual language ecologies of specific regions (Mohr, 2018; Mohr et al., 2020).

Uganda There are 46 languages in Uganda, of which 43 are endogenous, three are exogenous and one is unestablished (Eberhard et al., 2021). Most endogenous languages belong to the Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan language phyla. Uganda’s language policy has English (since independence) and Kiswahili (from September 2005) as official languages. According to Nakayiza (2012) and Barasa (2016), even though Kiswahili has been accorded official language status, its use is still highly symbolic especially as a result of the formation of the EAC. Further, for many Ugandans the use of Kiswahili is stigmatised because of its association with the military and Idi Amin regime (Ingham, Lyons, Kiwanuka, Semakula, & Kokole, 2021). Overall, English and Luganda are the dominant languages used in social and in public transactions as well as in the media. A majority of speakers who are not ‘native speakers’ of Luganda are either bilingual or multilingual, with their native languages such as Ateso and Lugwere as their first language and either English or Luganda as their second language (Barasa, 2016). Recent research on English in Uganda has also questioned a monolithic label ‘Ugandan English’, or under the umbrella of ‘East African Englishes’ (Schmied, 2012). Thus, first language influence plays a significant role in the formation of different Ugandan 300

English-medium instruction in higher education in East Africa

Englishes, as emphasised by Isingoma and Meierkord (2016), for instance. Nassenstein (2020) also shows that Ugandans use specific pronunciation features in a deliberate way in order to index identities and belonging to rural and urban spaces.

The history of language policies in higher education in East Africa As mentioned earlier, the history of languages of instruction in East Africa is closely linked to the countries’ colonial past, as the colonisers determined language policies during that time and the impact of these policies is still visible today. This is not restricted to British colonialism and does not only include English but also endogenous languages in territories like present-day Tanzania, where the German colonisers strengthened the use of African languages in official spheres. The system of indirect rule through African leaders was also applied under British rule (all over East Africa), giving only a select elite group access to English (Mohr, 2021a). English only started to spread to lower social classes closer to independence. Language (in education) policies upon independence were a matter of debate all over the continent, as they were and remain closely linked to ideological debates and ideas of national unity and the neutrality of languages (Kembo Sure, 2020). Today, language policies are also closely linked to globalisation processes in higher education (Kembo Sure, 2020). However, ‘when [there] is a choice between the sentimental rejection of the past and real-time socioeconomic benefits, the latter always wins’ (Kembo Sure, 2020, p. 4). Policy changes concerning EMI (in higher education and beyond) have been and continue to be frequent, as emphasised by Dearden (2014).

Kenya Kenya has had a number of changes concerning policies on languages of instruction, especially at primary school level. The most recent policy is determined in Kenya’s Constitution which recommends a trilingual system: at primary school level. African languages are to be used in relevant locations where the languages are predominantly spoken (Barasa, 2016; Republic of Kenya, 2010). Kiswahili and English are proposed as MOIs for urban primary schools, while secondary schools and universities use English as the main MOI. It is the only MOI allowed at the universities, except in the teaching of Kiswahili, French, German, and Arabic, where the individual languages are used as MOI. The Kenya Certificate of Primary Education and the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education national examinations are taken in English, except for the Kiswahili subject and other foreign languages. Kiswahili is taught and examined both at primary and secondary school national examinations and it is an optional subject at university level. The recent developments concerning MOIs in Kenya’s schools are in line with the post-colonial commission reports that commended the languages to be used in the education system. The Ominde 1964 and Gachathi’s 1976 commissions recommended the use of English from primary school to university level. The Mackay 1982 commission recommended that Kiswahili become a compulsory and examinable subject in both primary and secondary education (Kibui, 2014). Despite the recognition of Kiswahili, English was retained as MOI in schools, consistent with previous recommendations by commissions set up in post-colonial Kenya. English continues to be used in classroom and other formal settings even in areas where endogenous languages are dominantly spoken. Those who advocate for the use of English view it as a language of science and technology and that which propels one to higher social status, similar to other countries in East Africa (Kamwangamalu & Tovares, 2016). As much as Kiswahili is intended to facilitate East African unity, social interaction and trade, English is also promoted as a means of attracting foreign students at Kenya’s universities. 301

Susanne Mohr and David Barasa

Rwanda Kinyarwanda has been an essential prerequisite for learners in Rwandan primary schools as it has been used as MOI at different levels of education. According to Rwanda’s Education Sector Strategic Plan (Ministry of Education, 2008), Kinyarwanda is supposed to be used as MOI, and English and French are taught as subjects in lower primary school. The new competencebased curriculum which was installed in 2015 made Kinyarwanda the language of learning in pre-primary and lower primary level. Between 1996 and 2008, advanced primary and secondary school learners were able to use English or French as MOI and take Kinyarwanda as a subject (Samuelson & Freedman, 2010). However, the new policy installed in 2008 transitions from the use of French to English as MOI in advanced secondary school level. Secondary school entrance examinations are written in English only, except for the Kinyarwanda and French subjects. Consequently, from secondary school onwards, English is used as the MOI in Rwanda, while Kinyarwanda is taught as a subject. Courses at the university level were previously taught in French, but English instruction was added in the mid-1990s to accommodate the post-war influx of Anglophone returnees from Uganda. English is now generally the only MOI at higher education level, with the aforementioned exceptions.

Tanzania Tanzania is one of nine states that combine a European official language (English) with an African language (Kiswahili) in language policies (Eberhard et al., 2021). Kiswahili plays a significant role in education: It is taught in Teacher Colleges and at universities (which is not necessarily the case in other countries using African MOIs). It is also used in informal education settings and adult education, stemming from the post-colonial language policies in education (Tibategeza & Du Plessis, 2012). After gaining independence in 1961, President Nyerere advocated for Kiswahili as the language of public life and one to be used in government schools (Miguel, 2004). However, English remained an MOI in secondary and in post-secondary school level and was favoured by private institutions. The Presidential Commission on Education appointed by Nyerere in 1982 recommended a switch from English to Kiswahili as MOI in secondary schools. That policy was to be implemented in 1985 (Lwaitama & Rugemalira, 1990). However, in 1984, the Ministry of Education recommended that both English and Kiswahili be used as MOIs. Nyerere supported the recommendation and indicated that English was needed in secondary schools to encourage Tanzanians to learn and value the language (Lwaitama & Rugemalira, 1990). In 2001, a report by the Ministry of Education and Vocational Training listed English as MOI in secondary education (Basic Education Development Committee, 2001). It was not until 2014 that the authorities decided to extend the use of Kiswahili to secondary and tertiary education, although this has not been implemented (Mohr & Ochieng, 2017; Skattum, 2020). English remains the only official MOI from secondary school through higher education.

Uganda Both English and Kiswahili have been integral to Ugandan language policies for a long time. Thus, English has been the language of politics and education in the country since Uganda became a British protectorate (Mohr et al., 2020). It continued to be important after gaining independence, leading to its status as the country’s official language. Today, the National Curriculum developed by the National Curriculum Development Centre determines language policy, also in education

302

English-medium instruction in higher education in East Africa

(Dearden, 2014). Post-colonial Uganda has interestingly seen very few changes in its language policy in education. The influence of the British colonial language in education continues to be felt to date. After gaining independence in 1962, although the intention was to teach children in their native languages during their early years in school, except where circumstances made it impossible, the use of English continued to dominate the education system (Nankindu, 2020). English was recommended as MOI from Primary 5, although it was taught as a subject from Primary 1. From the recommendations of the 1989 Kajubi Education Policy Review Commission, the Government of Uganda issued the 1992 Government White Paper on Education (Ministry of Education and Sports (Uganda), 1992). The relevant element in the policy in relation to the present discussion is that English continues to be the MOI from Primary 5 onwards. Recent language policies propose the use of native languages in education within their catchment areas – at the primary school level. At the university level, English exclusively serves as the MOI.

EMI in higher education in East Africa Generally, ‘imported languages’ serve as MOIs all over Africa (Skattum, 2020). In higher education, this trend also applies to the Eastern part of the continent. However, some differences can be observed in public as compared to private universities. According to a global survey conducted by the British Council in 55 countries worldwide, including Uganda, 78.2% of all public and 90.9% of all private universities have English as the MOI (Dearden, 2014). This difference between the public and the private sector is probably due to the fact that private higher education institutions are not bound by governmental educational policies and specifically private universities choose English as the MOI due to its prestigious image and status as global lingua franca. In many countries covered by the aforementioned survey, ‘respondents reported that English is seen as the way to access modernity and prosperity’ (Dearden, 2014, p. 16). Furthermore, there are practical reasons for choosing English as MOI. Using a global lingua franca spoken by many may attract feepaying international students, which is an economic benefit for universities. For this reason, EMI is often also the only practical choice in higher education, as it is the only international language accessible to all students (Macaro et al., 2018). Interestingly, 51% of the respondents in the British Council survey reported that EMI was controversial in public opinion in their country, indicating a certain discrepancy between governmental and public perspectives (Dearden, 2014, p. 20). A quote from South Sudan, an East African country not covered in detail in this chapter, clearly highlights the potential for conflict concerning EMI in higher education in the country: ‘People have become increasingly aware of the complexities involved in its introduction. There have been some riots as some teachers objected to it.’ (Dearden, 2014, p. 23). In Malawi, another country not covered in detail here, attitudes towards an English-only approach among students and staff are not positive either (Reilly, 2021). Most respondents in Reilly’s extensive study on Malawian higher education, in fact, favoured a multilingual language policy for Malawi (Reilly, 2021, p. 41). Unfortunately, data on EMI in higher education in East Africa is scarce. In their systematic review of EMI in 83 countries, Macaro et al. (2018) could not include a single African country due to lack of data, and, in researching this article, we encountered similar problems. The aforementioned research on Malawi has recently been published and some research is currently being conducted on Tanzania and Zambia in the context of a project funded by the British Academy (Reilly, 2021).1 We draw on previous research on the topic, as well as personal experience with higher education in East Africa in the following.

303

Susanne Mohr and David Barasa

The realities of EMI in higher education in East Africa As Uwezo (2012, p. 11) puts it, ‘the reality is that opportunity to develop skills is highly unequal across East Africa’. Kembo Sure (2020), based on Uwezo (2012), emphasises this by mentioning Kenya as one of the most unequal societies on earth, despite (or because) the fact that English is the official language and medium of instruction in most educational levels. This underscores the importance of language policies in development issues at both the individual and societal levels (Skattum, 2020). Inequality is reinforced by unequal access to (quality) education, which has been shown to be prevalent across different regions and social groups in Tanzania, Kenya, and Uganda. An annual survey of educational performance demonstrates that there are considerable intra- and international discrepancies (Skattum, 2020). One very significant issue in this regard is the fact that English is not the mother tongue of most students in East Africa. This leads to problems, which are outlined in more detail in the following section. At this point, it is noteworthy that most African countries have a language policy stipulating mother tongue education up to a certain point in a pupil’s life and subsequently switching to instruction using a former colonial language. There are differences concerning when this transition takes place, however. Of the 48 African countries considered by Skattum (2020, p. 10), only six practice a ‘late exit’ from mother tongue education, a practice that has been shown to be problematic. Most of the countries in East Africa switch to EMI some time during primary or secondary education and practise ‘early exit’, that means switching to English as MOI after one to four years. The weak input from English outside of school contributes to possible problems among students. This then leads to problems in higher education, where English is used as MOI across the board. The oldest public and private universities in Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda all teach exclusively in English, for instance, with many, such as Makerere University or the National University of Rwanda, stipulating sufficient English knowledge as an admission requirement: ‘Applicants must demonstrate sufficient competence in English to study at a Higher Education level’ (National University of Rwanda, 2018). The prevalence of English is also visible in the self-presentation of universities online, where out of a sample of eight universities in Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda (four public: University of Nairobi, National University of Rwanda, University of Dar es Salaam, Makerere University, and four private: University of Eastern Africa, Adventist University of Central Africa, Zanzibar University, Islamic University in Uganda), only the Tanzanian universities’ homepages feature some content in another language than English, that is Kiswahili. Zanzibar University also displays its name in Arabic (Figure 22.1), possibly because Kiswahili was historically written in Arabic script for an extended period. Similarly, the social media presence of these universities is rather dominated by English, with the exception of the Tanzanian universities: the University of Dar es Salaam and Zanzibar University post both in English and Kiswahili on Twitter (see Figure 22.2a & b). Considering that websites and social media profiles are directed towards external and possibly at international visitors, the widespread use of English as global lingua franca is hardly surprising. However, it is essential to understand the linguistic landscape, including the digital one, is an integral part of ‘lived’ language policies and shapes students’ everyday language experiences, which is why we mention this here. Generally, actual language use in (higher) education in the region is anything but monolingual, as stipulated in English-only language policies. Mohr and Ochieng (2017) and Mohr (2018) demonstrate that most students in their study on Tanzania, use a mix of both English and Kiswahili when talking to their peers, with a minority 19.8% of their respondents using English only. This aligns with what Reilly (2021) describes for Malawi, where translanguaging in higher education 304

English-medium instruction in higher education in East Africa

Figure 22.1  Homepage of Zanzibar University (Zanzibar University, 2023).

Figure 22.2 English and Kiswahili tweets from the University of Dar es Salaam.

305

Susanne Mohr and David Barasa

is the only socially acceptable choice among students (Li, 2018). His results concerning language in the classroom show that drawing on the respondents’ full multilingual repertoire is most common in Malawi too. Similar observations have been made in Kenya and Tanzania. However, it is important to note that English prevails in written communication in Tanzania, for example 67.4% of the participants indicated that they read in English only and 65.2% reported writing their homework (or business letters) exclusively in English (Mohr, 2018, p. 114). This indicates a discrepancy between spoken and written language practices. Responses concerning attitudes towards English in education were generally positive among the Tanzanian participants (Mohr & Ochieng, 2017), showing that it is still favoured over Kiswahili. 73% of the respondents agreed that English keeps science/learning in Tanzania in touch with the world and 56% thought that English as MOI means equal opportunities for all children (Mohr, 2018, pp. 118–119). These results are similar to what Kamwangamalu and Tovares (2016) describe for Kenya. They are not quite the same as Reilly’s (2021) from Malawi, however, where 48% felt that an English-only policy was best, but slightly more (50%) favoured a multilingual policy. Kembo Sure (2020) emphasises that the use of multiple languages and code-switching are the norm in multilingual societies, where monolingual language policies are an oversimplification of linguistic behaviour. Thus, a multilingual language policy as suggested by Reilly’s (2021) participants seems more realistic in Malawi, but also in all other multilingual East African countries covered here.

The effectiveness of EMI in East Africa Language use in the classroom, and attitudes to EMI, as described earlier, determine the effectiveness of English-medium instruction. Unfortunately, some problems, especially with English-only education in higher education in East Africa, transpire. English proficiency in the region is one indication of the effectiveness of EMI in East Africa. Skattum (2020, p. 2) maintains that ‘a majority of Africans do not master their country’s official language’. The Education First English Proficiency Index (EF EPI) (Education First, 2020) provides some detailed information in this regard, albeit to a limited extent with respect to Africa, as only 13 African countries were covered in the most recent edition (Education First, 2020). Of the countries discussed in this chapter, only Kenya and Rwanda are included in the survey. As stated there, significant gaps in proficiency levels across different and within individual countries can be observed (Education First, 2020, p. 34). These differences are often observed between urban and rural areas all over Africa, as illustrated by Mohr and Steigertahl (2020). Mohr et al. (2020) also highlight that there are differences across various regions within Tanzania and Uganda, with distinct language ecologies. These disparities are closely linked to urban and rural distinctions and hence serve as a case in point regarding intranational and international differences in English proficiency across East Africa. In our research on the Zanzibar archipelago, some participants have mentioned a change, which they perceive as a decline, in Zanzibar and mainland Tanzania concerning English proficiency. However, this issue would need further investigation. Abdalla,2 a tour guide and lecturer in Zanzibar, claimed3 that it: ‘is strange with uhm, time of our fathers […] you know colonial time […] because time of our fathers there is no extra classes […] they only go to school […] and they were, they were good in English’. One possible explanation for this decline in English proficiency could be changes in teaching methods and classroom practices. This aligns with Mohr’s (2018) findings that only 55% of the respondents in her Tanzanian study felt that English classes prepared them to speak the language fluently. As a consequence of this, English competence is so low that a vast majority (72%) in the study thought that concepts are easier to understand when explained in Kiswahili (Mohr, 2018, p. 119). Mohr (2021a) also reports that there was a relatively high level of 306

English-medium instruction in higher education in East Africa

foreign language anxiety among her student respondents in Dar es Salaam. Another issue was the proficiency of university teachers, and Abdalla commented that: and is normal then to find someone who has PhD […] and he cannot speak well English […] even find one yeah in this conference […] she is PhD holder she is a lecture uh lecturer in university but yeah her English is like mine maybe less so. This may be a tendency that is more pronounced in Tanzania, due to the strong role of Kiswahili in the country, as compared to the other East African countries discussed here. Based on the second author’s experience, English is fairly well spoken by staff at the universities in Kenya and Uganda. Kenya and Rwanda, the two countries relevant to this chapter that are listed in the EF survey, are ranked 22nd (= high proficiency) and 95th (= very low proficiency), respectively. This emphasises international differences across the region. Rwanda was newly added to the survey given its rather frequent implementation of an English language policy, and therefore, no comparison to previous years can be made. With the exception of Kenya perhaps, the situation outlined here does not indicate a high effectiveness of EMI in East Africa. However, this is not exclusively related to higher education but also extends to previous levels of schooling. This has been discussed in various small and large-scale studies, such as the LOITASA project in the first decade of the millennium (Desai, Qorro, & Brock-Utne, 2010), as well as recent work on the grassroots acquisition of English in Uganda (Isingoma, 2021) and Zanzibar (Mohr, 2021b). In these contexts, shadow educational systems, where speakers learn English in privately paid extracurricular classes, play a decisive role and attest to the many problems with English language teaching and EMI in institutional settings. There are certain challenges to the implementation of EMI worldwide (Dearden, 2014, p. 23), which might play a crucial role regarding the effectiveness of EMI in East Africa as well. These include: (i) a shortage of EMI teachers; (ii) limited resources; (iii) unclear guidelines for teaching; (iv) a lack of clarity about the use of other languages; (v) difficulties in ensuring the English proficiency of EMI teachers; and (vi) policies concerning age at which EMI starts. Two other issues that can be added to the list are: (vii) the question of the use of other languages, and whether the mixing of languages is allowed; and (viii) problems of ensuring the proficiency of EMI teachers. This latter issue is problematic in East Africa, and Reilly (2021) reports great variation concerning EMI in Malawi, as has also been observed by the first author of this chapter in Tanzania. Thus, while official language in education policies might clearly require the use of English only, this is implemented in different ways in different contexts.

Conclusion Dearden (2014) reports that the overwhelming majority of respondents in the global survey on EMI in higher education believe that there will very likely be an increase in EMI provision in the countries covered. This also applies to East Africa, which, in turn, suggests more research required on how to teach through EMI effectively. With respect to East Africa specifically, it means that the challenges mentioned in the previous section, relating to the availability of funding, number of teachers and their education, as well as adequate teaching materials, and guidelines for teaching, need to be addressed. EMI in East Africa must be contextualised with respect to various issues. Relating to developments in higher education all over Africa, Woldegiorgis (2021) discusses the future of the African university and trajectories of progress, and there are several issues that African HE institutions will need to tackle in the future, some of which are relevant in terms of 307

Susanne Mohr and David Barasa

language use. One of these issues is ‘embracing African identity and pluralistic epistemic orientations’ (Woldegiorgis, 2021, p. 11). In order to do so, he suggests that Eurocentric knowledge and hegemonic and colonial languages need to be de-centred and this might, ultimately, mean greater provision of higher education in indigenous languages. At the same time, Woldegiorgis (2021, p. 12) suggests to ‘steer African HE towards international dimensions of HE’, that means to make it fit for global competition in the spirit of internationalisation. In order to be competitive in the global market, East African universities, hence, have to rely on English as global lingua franca, as do universities worldwide. This reflects the tension between efforts of regionalisation and internationalisation that higher education institutions have to face (Ogachi, 2009). Both can only be accounted for by more multilingual language policies, as has been suggested for individual countries of the region (see Kamwangamalu & Tovares, 2016 on Kenya, and Mohr & Ochieng, 2017 on Tanzania). Ideally, this should be implemented with programmes of the ‘enrichment type’ that account for the development and expansion of minority languages besides pupils’ first languages and the respective MOI (Skattum, 2020). A continued challenge will be to introduce English at an appropriate time in a student’s educational development, and to do so with suitable materials and well-trained teachers. The multilingual sociolinguistic context of East Africa hence plays a central role for future language policies. As Kembo Sure (2020, p. 8) puts it, ‘as long as monolingualism is assumed to be the only natural order of things, we shall continue to have unresolved language disputes’. Accounting for this multilingualism in ways in line with African conceptualisations of society and identity, is desirable. As previously mentioned, translanguaging is a very common practice in higher education in East Africa, despite English-only policies (Makalela, 2016; Reilly, 2021). Thus, we suggest language policies for higher education in East Africa which allow for the possibility to draw on the full range of students’ linguistic repertoires, including English. This might ultimately be the solution for reconciling regionalisation and internationalisation, which is important for higher education institutions in East Africa and beyond.

Notes 1 More information can be found here: https://multilingual-learning.com/. 2 The name is a pseudonym. 3 The transcriptions were compiled according to a modified version of the transcription guide (https:// www2.helsinki.fi/sites/default/files/atoms/files/self_transcription_guide.pdf) for the ‘Studying English as a Lingua Franca’ project conducted at the University of Helsinki. The most relevant conventions here are: […] referring to speech not relevant for the analysis and left out here, commas indicating brief pauses (2–3 sec.) and consistent use of lowercase letters, except for abbreviations.

References Barasa, D. (2016). Iteso’s language repertoire and use patterns. In A. Hollington (Ed.), Multilingualism in the Global South and beyond (pp. 6–8). University of Cologne, Global South Studies Center Cologne. Barasa, D. (2017). Ateso grammar: A descriptive account of an Eastern Nilotic language. Lincom GmbH. Basic Education Development Committee. (2001). Education sector development programme: Primary education development plan 2002–2006. Retrieved from https://www.tanzania.go.tz/egov_uploads/ documents/Primary_Education_Development_Plan-PEDP_I_2000-06_sw.pdf Blommaert, J. (2014). State ideology and language in Tanzania. Edinburgh University Press. Blumbach, H. (2017). Ostafrika als Bildungsmarkt: Hochschullandschaft im Aufbruch. Retrieved from https://static.daad.de/media/daad_de/pdfs_nicht_barrierefrei/laenderinformationen/afrika/netzwerkkonferenz_ostafrika_2016.pdf Bretz, S., & Heimlich, S. (2017). Uganda. Daten und Analysen zum Hochschul- und Wissenschaftsstandort 2017. Retrieved from https://www.daad.de/de/ laenderinformationen/afrika/uganda/

308

English-medium instruction in higher education in East Africa Brock-Utne, B., & Qorro, M. A. S. (2015). Multilingualism and language in education in Tanzania. In A. Yiakoumetti (Eds.), Multilingualism and language in education: Sociolinguistic and pedagogical perspectives from Commonwealth countries (pp. 19–31). Cambridge University Press. Bwenge, C. (2012). English in Tanzania: A linguistic cultural perspective. International Journal of Language, Translation and Intercultural Communication, 1(1), 167–182. Clay, D., & Lemarchand, R. (2021) Rwanda. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/place/Rwanda Commission for University Education. (2021). Universities authorized to operate in Kenya. Retrieved from https://www.cue.or.ke/images/phocadownload/Accredited_Universities_ Kenya_June2021.pdf DAAD (2020a). DAAD Datenblatt Kenia 2020. Retrieved from https://www.daad.de/de/ laenderinformationen/ afrika/kenia/ DAAD (2020b). DAAD Datenblatt Ruanda 2020. Retrieved from https://www.daad.de/de/ laenderinformationen/ afrika/ruanda/ DAAD (2020c). DAAD Datenblatt Tansania 2020. Retrieved from https://www.daad.de/de/ laenderinformationen/ afrika/tansania/ DAAD (2020d). DAAD Datenblatt Uganda 2020. Retrieved from https://www.daad.de/de/ laenderinformationen/ afrika/uganda/ Dearden, J. (2014). English as a medium of instruction – A growing global phenomenon. Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.es/sites/default/files/british_council_english_ as_a_medium_of_instruction.pdf Desai, Z., Qorro, M., & Brock-Utne, B. (Eds.). (2010). Educational challenges in multilingual societies. African Minds. Eberhard, D. M., Simons, G. F., & Fennig, C. D. (Eds.). (2021). Ethnologue: Languages of the world. (22nd ed.). SIL International. Retrieved from http://www.ethnologue.com Education First. (2020). EF English proficiency index. Retrieved from https://www.ef-danmark.dk/epi/ Higher Education Council, Republic of Rwanda. (2021). Accredited institutions. Retrieved from https://hec. gov.rw/index.php?id=16 Ingham, K., Lyons, M., Kiwanuka, M., Semakula, M., & Kokole, O. H. (2021). Uganda. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/place/Uganda Ishengoma, J. M. (2010). Tanzania. In P. N. Pillay (Ed.), Higher education financing in East and Southern Africa (pp. 173–193). African Minds Publishers. Isingoma, B. (2017). Languages in East Africa: Policies, practices and perspectives. Sociolinguistic Studies, 10, 433–454. Isingoma, B. (2021). The sociolinguistic profile of English at the grassroots level: A comparison of Northern and Western Uganda. In C. Meierkord & E. W. Schneider (Eds.), World Englishes at the grassroots (pp. 49–69). Edinburgh University Press. Isingoma, B., & Meierkord, C. (2016). Ugandan English – Challenges to, and food for, current theories. In C. Meierkord, B. Isingoma, & S. Namyalo (Eds.), Ugandan English (pp. 1–16). John Benjamins. Kamwangamalu, N. M., & Tovares, A. (2016). English in language ideologies, attitudes and educational practices in Kenya and South Africa. World Englishes, 35, 421–439. Kembo Sure. (2020). Language policy and politics. In R. Vossen & G. J. Dimmendaal (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of African languages (online version, pp. 1–10). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/ 9780199609895.013.81 Kibui, A. (2014). Language policy in Kenya and the new constitution for vision 2030. International Journal of Educational Science and Research, 4(5), 89–98. Kipacha, A. (2012). Launi za Kiswahili sanifu na Kiswahili fasaha kwa Tanzania Bara na Zanzibar. Swahili Forum, 19, 1–22. Legère, K., & Rosendal, T. (2015). National languages, English and social cohesion in East Africa. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Language and social cohesion in the developing world (pp. 75–91). British Council & Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit. Li, W. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics, 39, 9–30. Lwaitama, A. F., & Rugemalira, J. M. (1990). The English language support project in Tanzania. In C. M. Rubagumya (Ed.), Language in education in Africa: A Tanzanian perspective (pp. 36–41). Multilingual Matters. Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J., & Dearden, J. (2018). A systematic review of English medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching, 51, 36–76. Makalela, L. (2016). Ubuntu translanguaging: An alternative framework for complex multilingual encounters. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 34(3), 187–196.

309

Susanne Mohr and David Barasa Meierkord, C., Isingoma, B., & Namyalo, S. (2016). Ugandan English. John Benjamins. Miguel, E. (2004). Tribe or nation? Nation building and public goods in Kenya versus Tanzania. World Politics, 56, 327–362. Ministry of Education. (2008). Education sector strategic plan: 2008–2012. Author. Ministry of Education and Sports (Uganda). (1992). The development of education in Uganda in the last ten years. Retrieved from https://silo.tips/download/this-paper-presents-developments-of-educationin-uganda-in-the-last-ten-years Mohr, S. (2018). The changing dynamics of language use and language attitudes in Tanzania. Language Matters: Studies in the Languages of Africa, 49(3), 105–127. Mohr, S. (2021a). Nominal pluralization and countability in African varieties of English. Routledge. Mohr, S. (2021b). English language learning trajectories among Zanzibaris working in tourism. In C. Meierkord & E. W. Schneider (Eds.), World Englishes at the grassroots (pp. 70–90). Edinburgh University Press. Mohr, S., Lorenz, S., & Ochieng, D. (2020). English, national and local linguae francae in the language ecologies of Uganda and Tanzania. Sociolinguistic Studies, 14, 371–394. Mohr, S., & Ochieng, D. (2017). Language usage in everyday life and in education: Current attitudes towards English in Tanzania. English Today, 33(4), 12–18. Mohr, S., & Steigertahl, H. (2020). African sociolinguistics between urbanity and rurality. Sociolinguistic Studies, 14, 247–256. Musise, N., & Mayega, F. (2010). Uganda. In P. N. Pillay (Ed.), Higher education financing in East and Southern Africa (pp. 195–221). African Minds Publishers. Nakayiza, J. (2012). The sociolinguistics of multilingualism in Uganda (PhD thesis). University of London, UK. Nankindu, P. (2020). The history of educational language policies in Uganda: Lessons from the past. American Journal of Educational Research, 8, 643–652. Nassenstein, N. (2020). Playing with accents: On Ugandan Englishes and indexical signs of urbanity and rurality. Sociolinguistic Studies, 14, 347–369. National University of Rwanda. (2018). Revised general academic regulations for undergraduate programs. Retrieved from https://ur.ac.rw/documents/academics/ Revised%20UR%20General%20Academc%20 Regulations%20for%20Undegraduate%20Studies_November%202018.pdf Ogachi, O. (2009). Internationalization vs regionalization of higher education in East Africa and the challenges of quality assurance and knowledge production. Higher Education Policy, 22, 331–347. Otieno, W. (2010). Kenya. In P. N. Pillay (Ed.), Higher education financing in East and Southern Africa (pp. 29–62). African Minds Publishers. Patten, A. (2001). Political theory and language policy. Political Theory, 29, 691–715. Petzell, M. (2012). The linguistic situation in Tanzania. Moderna Språk, 106(1), 136–144. Reilly, C. (2021). Malawian universities as translanguaging spaces. In B. Paulsrud, Z. Tian, & J. Toth (Eds.), English-medium instruction and translanguaging (pp. 29–42). Multilingual Matters. Republic of Kenya. (2010). The constitution of Kenya. Government Printers. Rosendal, T. (2009). Linguistic markets in Rwanda: Language use in advertisements and on signs. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 30, 19–39. Samuelson, B. L., & Freedman, S. W. (2010). Language policy, multilingual education, and power in Rwanda. Language Policy, 9, 191–215. Schmied, J. (2012). Standards of English in East Africa. In R. Hickey (Ed.), Standards of English (pp. 229– 255). Cambridge University Press. Skattum, I. (2020). Language and education. In R. Vossen & G. J. Dimmendaal (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of African languages (online version, pp. 1–15). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/ oxfordhb/9780199609895.013.81 Tanzania Commission for Universities. (2021). List of approved university institutions in Tanzania as of 30th April, 2021. Retrieved from https://www.tcu.go.tz/sites/default/files/ LIST%20OF%20UNIVERSITY%20INSTITUTIONS%20IN%20TZ%20AS%20OF%2030.04.2021.pdf Tibategeza, E., & Du Plessis, T. (2012). Language-in-education policy development in Tanzania: An overview. Language Matters: Studies in the Languages of Africa, 43(2), 184–201. Uwezo. (2012). Literacy and numeracy across East Africa. Uwezo. Woldegiorgis, T. E. (2021). Configurations of progress and the historical trajectory of the future in African higher education. Educational Philosophy and Theory. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2021.1940955 Zanzibar University. (2023). Retrieved from http://zanvarsity.ac.tz/

310

23 ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN SOUTH AFRICA Susan Coetzee-Van Rooy and Werner Botha

Introduction South Africa is a unique country with a rich multilingual history, marked by the vigorous spread and adoption of English in the country’s education system, particularly in the post-primary school sectors (Wildsmith-Cromarty & Balfour, 2019). It is distinguished from other Southern African countries, including former Anglophone colonies as Botswana, Eswatini (Swaziland), Lesotho, Namibia, Zambia, and Zimbabwe, as well as Lusophone Angola and Mozambique. These other Southern African nations have had their own experiences with English-medium education, as noted by previous research on this topic (Kamwangamalu, 2013). In this chapter, however, we will not be discussing EMI in all these societies, but will instead focus on South Africa, which undoubtedly has the most well-developed system of EMI higher education in the region. The use of African languages and English in South Africa’s higher education institutions has garnered a fair amount of attention in recent years, as language policies and practices continue to evolve according to the socio-demographic changes occurring in the country since the first democratic elections were held in 1994 (Van der Walt & Hibbert, 2014). Not only this, the deep and ongoing history of multilingualism and the prominence of English in the education system holds the potential for a unique expression of EMI in the South African higher education context. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a state-of-the-art report on the status and description of English as a medium of instruction (EMI), with a focus on South African higher education. The chapter begins with a brief overview of EMI-related concepts and terms in the South African context, followed by a discussion of the sociolinguistic dynamics of society, and related language policies. We then provide a case study of EMI and its implementation at a leading university in the country, that is North-West University. The chapter will conclude with a discussion of the challenges, opportunities, and future prospects of EMI in South African higher education.

Contextualising EMI in South African higher education Macaro’s (2018) defines EMI as, ‘The use of English to teach academic subjects (other than English itself) in countries or jurisdictions where the first language of the majority of the population is not English’ (Macaro, 2018, p. 1). South Africa can thus be considered a good example of an EMI

311

DOI: 10.4324/9781003011644-26

Susan Coetzee-Van Rooy and Werner Botha

country, as the English language is used as a second or foreign language by the majority of people, and only used as a first language by a minority of the population. South Africa, like many other countries, has developed its own nomenclature related to language management in its education context. Directly relevant to this current article is the use of the concept ‘language of learning and teaching’ (or LoLT) to generally refer to what is called the ‘medium of instruction’ in other contexts. Van der Walt (2013) explains that in South Africa: The term language of learning and teaching (LoLT) is used rather than the term medium of instruction to focus on the way in which language is used by both students and the lecturer. A language is not a neutral conduit for ideas, as implied in the term medium of instruction. (Van der Walt, 2013, p. 3) The focus on the role of language in learning forms part of the broader educational shift towards learner-centred education expressed in all its education policies and plans since 1994. The emphasis on a learner-centred education system can also be seen as a shift away from a traditionally teacher-centred education system. As explained by Van der Walt above, the concept of instruction highlights the role of the teacher or instructor in the learning and teaching process. Theoretically, the movement towards the use of LoLT is considered better aligned with the concept of a learningcentred education approach. As is clear from Macaro’s (2018) definition of EMI presented earlier, there indeed is an emphasis on teaching in the way that the term is formulated. This emphasis is perhaps unfortunate in a world where the twenty-first-century skills emphasise ‘self-direction and lifelong learning’ (Tight, 2021, p. 161). From a South African educational perspective, English as the language of learning and teaching (or ELoLT) is considered to be a more applicable concept instead of EMI. Keeping twenty-first century educational skills (and its emphasis on learning as a lifelong skill) in mind, it might be time to revise the concept EMI in favour of the South African idea of ELoLT. Therefore, in the rest of the chapter, readers should note that English as a ELoLT is used synonymously with EMI, although, as already mentioned, South African educators would foreground learning and not the teaching aspect reflected in the notion of ‘instruction’ that forms part of EMI. In spite of these considerations, South Africa can rightly be called an EMI context, as there is a long and well-established history of EMI at all levels of education in the country, especially in the post-primary school sectors that include secondary school education as well as higher education. In 2020, there were some 8,096 single-medium schools in South Africa, of which 6,483 (or 80%) were English-medium schools (Business Tech, 2020). English is, therefore, the dominant medium of instruction in South African schools (Probyn, 2009; Uys, Van der Walt, Van den Berg, & Botha, 2007). In addition to the status of English as medium of instruction in South African schools, South African higher education is also often referred to as an ‘English-dominated environment’ (Van der Walt & Hibbert, 2014, p. 207). Despite the undisputed status of English as the dominant medium of instruction in South African education, the linguistic reality in classrooms and lecture halls is often more complex, given the high frequency of code-switching and code-mixing in South African schools and universities (Botha & Coetzee-Van Rooy, 2021; Rose, 2006; Van der Walt, 2009). Studies have shown that teachers use code-switching and -mixing because of their proficiency in their home language (often a home language shared with the majority of the pupils in the classroom); in their attempts to mediate or facilitate deep learning and understanding of the material or assignments or tasks that learners are engaged with (Guðmundsdóttir, 2010; Nomlomo, 2010; Probyn, 2009). Probyn (2009) and Van der Walt (2009) have both argued that code-switching and code-mixing should be 312

English-medium instruction in higher education in South Africa

encouraged in South African education, even for the purposes of English language teaching. South African EMI should, therefore, be understood as taking place within a vast and complex multilingual ecology, which is also reflected in the language-in-education policies discussed later in this chapter. One could, therefore, conceive of South Africa as a case of ‘official EMI’ in a context of ‘unofficial multilingual education’ (Ndlangamandla, 2010).

The sociolinguistics of higher education in South Africa In this section, the social and sociolinguistic dynamics of South Africa are examined with reference to the macro-sociolinguistic situation. After nearly 30 years into its post-1994 democratic era, South Africa still struggles to overcome the legacies of colonialism and apartheid that created a deeply unequal society where the intersections between economic status and race persist stubbornly. The social and racial integration processes that officially started in 1994 have in recent years been considered a site for tensions that are exacerbated by continuous corruption scandals, as seen in the example of the recent Zondo Commission (2018–present), which was set up to investigate allegations of state capture, corruption, fraud, and other allegations in the country’s government sector. The term ‘rainbow nation’ was coined by the late Archbishop Desmond Tutu in 1994, and this term has been promoted widely to describe South Africa’s multilingual and multicultural society, comprising the population groups shown in Table 23.1. Despite the slow social (and racial) integration process in South Africa, multilingualism (or at least some functional bilingualism) is entrenched in the everyday lives of most South Africans, which reflects the nation’s policy of adopting 11 official languages. South Africa is multilingual at the societal level, which is demonstrated by the most recent major census in 2011, where it was reported that 23% of South Africa’s population are isiZulu speakers, 16% isiXhosa, and 14% Afrikaans speakers making up the three biggest home languages. The next biggest set of languages include English (10%), Sepedi (9%), Setswana (8%), and Sesotho (8%), each with around 4 million speakers. Languages such as siSwati (3%), Xitsonga (4%), Tshivenda (2%), and isiNdebele (2%), as well as other minority languages (and sign language) make up the remainder, or 12% of speakers in the country. From the 2011 Census data in Table 23.2, it is important to note that there has been remarkable increase in the use of English as a home language among Black African people in South Africa, especially since 2011, with an increase of nearly 1 million speakers between 2001 and 2011 (Botha, Van Rooy, & Coetzee-Van Rooy, 2021). At an individual level, it has been widely reported that a large proportion of South Africans are multilingual, or at least functionally bilingual (Coetzee-Van Rooy, 2012, 2013; Posel & Zeller, 2019, Slabbert & Finlayson, 2002). Multilingual Table 23.1 The classification of South Africa’s population by population group (StatsSA, 2016) Population groupa

No.

In %

Black African Coloured Indian/Asian White Total:

44,891,603 4,869,526 1,375,834 4,516,691 55,653,654

80.6 8.7 2.4 8.1

Here we use the South African government’s own nomenclature for its description of racial groups.

a 

313

Susan Coetzee-Van Rooy and Werner Botha Table 23.2  2011 Census: Home language by population group (Statistics South Africa, 2011) Self-reported home languages Afrikaans English isiNdebele isiXhosa isiZulu Sepedi Sesotho Setswana Sign language siSwati Tshivenda Xitsonga Other Total

Major population groups Black African 602,166 1,167,913 1,057,781 8,104,752 11,519,234 4,602,459 3,798,915 3,996,951 211,134 1,288,156 1,201,588 2,257,771 604,587 40,413,407

Coloured 3,442,164 945,847 8,225 25,340 23,797 5,642 23,230 40,351 11,891 4,056 2,847 2,268 5,702 4,541,360

Indian/Asian 58,700 1,094,317 9,815 5,342 16,699 2,943 5,269 4,917 3,360 1,217 810 2,506 65,261 1,271,156

White

Other

2,710,461 1,603,575 8,611 13,641 16,458 5,917 17,491 18,358 7,604 2,299 2,889 3,987 50,118 4,461,409

41,591 80,971 5,791 5,182 11,186 1,616 4,657 6,671 666 1,320 1,254 10,616 102,590 274,111

Total 6,855,082 4,892,623 1,090,223 8,154,257 11,587,374 4,618,577 3 849 562 4 067 248 234 655 1 297 048 1 209 388 2 277 148 828 258 50 961 443

language-in-education policies are, therefore, continuously attempting to align with the sociolinguistic reality of South African society and the realities of individuals in this context. At the time of writing, the latest census report containing information about languages was that of 2011, and as summarised in Table 23.2. From the census type data presented in this section, it is clear that the diversity in South Africa would call for language policy dispensations that respect and actively use diversity as a resource. This context, therefore, shapes how EMI is positioned locally at all levels of education.

South African EMI and its multilingual language policy frameworks In this section, the national legal frameworks for language policies in South Africa are briefly discussed, with an emphasis on the higher education landscape. After that, a brief description of the current language policy of the North-West University is presented, with a view to consider the status of EMI in this context. As mentioned earlier, EMI in South African education refers more specifically to English used as a Language of Learning and Teaching (or ELoLT), and this latter term is used interchangeably with EMI in the following discussion.

Multilingual policy frameworks and challenges for education in South Africa The legal frameworks for languages in South Africa have been formulated to support multilingualism. The language dispensation entailed in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996) is captured in two sections. The official languages of the country are listed in Chapter 1 as part of the ‘Founding Provisions’ (§6.1), and are listed as ‘Sepedi, Sesotho, Setswana, siSwati, Tshivenda, Xitsonga, Afrikaans, English, isiNdebele, isiXhosa and isiZulu’. In addition to the declaration of 11 official languages and directives that would ensure the ‘parity of esteem’ of all official languages in Chapter 1 (§6), Chapter 2 includes a ‘Bill of Rights’. In section 29(2) of Chapter 2, it is stated that, ‘Everyone has the right to receive education in the official language or languages of their choice in public educational institutions where that education is reasonably 314

English-medium instruction in higher education in South Africa

practicable’. Language-in-education policies in South Africa are embedded within these constitutional provisions. This is evident in the Language-in-Education Policy (LiEP) for schools (1997) and the most recent Language Policy framework for Public Higher Education institutions (LPHE, 2020). English is declared one of the 11 official languages of South Africa in the Constitution; and in the Language in Education Policy and Language Policy framework for Public Higher Education institutions, multilingualism is foregrounded. The important status of English in higher education is noted in the Language Policy framework for Public Higher Education institutions (2020, p. 17) as follows: ‘Recognising the de facto status of English as the language of learning and teaching across South African higher education institutions’, while the main thrust of the policy is to foster a future multilingual higher education system. South African higher education institutions have been called upon to address: the challenge of ensuring the development of a multilingual environment in which all official South African languages, particularly those which have been historically marginalised, are afforded space to develop as languages of scholarship, research as well as teaching and learning. (Language Policy framework for Public Higher Education institutions, 2020, p. 11) There is an ongoing body of scholarship that documents the failure of the implementation of multilingual language policies in South African education. Coetzee-Van Rooy (2018, p. 21) describes the following main themes that have emerged in the literature as explanations for the failure of language-in-education policy implementation in South Africa: (a) the inability to transcend the linguistic influences of colonialism and apartheid; (b) the dominance of English which could prevent the development of African languages in various high status domains; (c) a lack of political will to implement multilingual language-in-education policies; and (d) a lack of specific implementation roadmap, which prevents the implementation of multilingual language-in-education policies. Several scholars have also argued that South Africa has struggled to overcome its colonial and apartheid histories (Bamgbose, 2011; Brand, 2004, 2011; Kamwangamalu, 2009; Ngwenya, 2012; Plüddemann, 2015; Probyn, 2009). Therefore, it remains to be seen if the recent Language Policy framework for Public Higher Education institutions will result in the increased use of African languages as languages of learning and teaching in practical ways. The LPHE does include an annual monitoring and evaluation component that should in theory support the implementation of the multilingual policies declared by higher education institutions in South Africa (see Sections 41–45 of the Language Policy framework for Public Higher Education institutions). At the most recent conference of the South African Linguistics and Applied Linguistics Society (SALALS, 27–30 June 2022) held at the North-West University’s Potchefstroom campus, nearly half of papers (44% or 35/79) focussed on language matters at schools (18/79) and higher education institutions (17/79) in the country. Of the papers concerned with higher education, the majority of papers were on the use of English in higher education or academic literacy in English or Afrikaans in higher education (11/17). The papers that focussed on the use of indigenous African languages in higher education (3/17) or multilingualism in higher education (3/17) were about topics such as the teaching of Sesotho as additional language, using Sesotho in subtitles for university lectures, the intellectualisation of African languages for use in higher education, multilingual glossary development, multilingual pedagogies and multilingual language management policies. It is promising to see some papers concerned with the use of indigenous African languages and multilingualism in higher education, however, the prominence of academic papers that focus on English in higher education confirms the de facto importance of English (and therefore ELoLT) in 315

Susan Coetzee-Van Rooy and Werner Botha

South Africa. The position of EMI in South African higher education is, therefore, unique because of the multilingual sociolinguistic situation and existing policy frameworks. Understanding the position of EMI in multilingual higher education in South Africa could provide insights for EMI implementation in similarly complex multilingual education contexts globally. Understanding the South African case could support traditionally more monolingual higher education institutions across the world to address the linguistic effects related to multilingualism in higher education within the ambits of internationalisation and globalisation in higher education worldwide.

South African higher education South Africa has 26 public universities, and over 50 higher education training colleges (technical vocational education training institutes). Elling (2017) notes that some 1 million students were studying at university in 2017, with around 700,000 studying at higher education training colleges, and a further 90,000 were studying at various private institutions. Despite the rapid increase in the number of students in South African higher education, this number, in relation to the size of its population (55 million), is still far too low compared to other middle-income developing countries. Elling (2017) further states that the government plans to increase university enrolment to 1.5 million students by 2030. From Table 23.3, it can be seen that the South African government has made some progress with regards to the number of persons who attained different educational levels between 1996 and 2016, with those that attained at least a Bachelor’s degree increasing significantly between 1996 and 2016 (by 67%, or 824,564 students). Regarding the prestige of South African universities, the 2020 QS university rankings feature 10 of South Africa’s leading universities. This list include the country’s best-ranked university, the University of Cape Town, which is positioned at 22 among BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, see Table 23.4). It is important to note that the institutions listed in Table 23.4 are predominantly located in either Gauteng Province, which includes the University of Witwatersrand, University of Pretoria, University of Johannesburg, and the Vanderbijlpark campus of the North-West University, or in Western Cape Province, which includes the University of Cape Town, University of Stellenbosch, and the University of Western Cape. Each of these leading institutions also has separate histories relating to language policies and practices that have evolved somewhat independently since the nation’s democratisation (as well as before then). Table 23.5 presents a summary of the past and present language policy positions of the institutions listed in Table 23.4. As mentioned earlier, all higher education institutions in South Africa are mandated to develop strategies, policies, and implementation plans for promoting multilingualism. This requires each institution to identify at least two official South African languages, other than the medium of instruction or language of learning and teaching, which they intend to develop for scholarly discourse as well as official Table 23.3 By-Census 2016 distribution of the population aged 25 years and older by educational attainment (StatsSA, 2016)

Census 1996 Census 2001 Census 2011 By-Census 2016

No schooling

Primary education

Secondary education

Bachelor’s degree

3,714,068 4,240,193 2,564,209 2,269,421

10,048,472 12,987,084 19,580,037 22,465,086

3,575,171 5,636,626 9,999,537 11,886,912

410,686 697,225 1,184,310 1,235,250

316

English-medium instruction in higher education in South Africa Table 23.4  QS BRICS university rankings for South Africa’s leading universities (QS, 2020) Institution

BRICS ranking

South African ranking

 22  40  45  51  61  85 124 139 170 180

 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10

University of Cape Town University of Witwatersrand University of Pretoria University of Stellenbosch University of Johannesburg University of KwaZulu-Natal Rhodes University University of the Western Cape North-West University University of the Free State

Table 23.5 Language policy histories and current language policies of the 10 leading universities in South Africa Institution

Past language policy

Current language policya

University of Cape Town University of Witwatersrand

English English

University of Pretoria Stellenbosch University University of Johannesburg

Afrikaans1 Afrikaans Afrikaans

University of KwaZulu-Natal Rhodes University University of the Western Cape North-West University

English English, & English Afrikaans & English Afrikaans

University of the Free State

Afrikaans

English, isiXhosa, Afrikaans English, isiZulu, Sesotho, SA Sign Language English, Sepedi, Afrikaans Afrikaans, English, isiXhosa Sesotho sa Leboa, English, isiZulu, Afrikaans English, isiZulu English, isiXhosa, Afrikaans English, Afrikaans, isiXhosa Afrikaans, English, Setswana, Sesotho English, Afrikaans, Sesotho, isiZulu

From: UCT (2013); Wits (2014); UP (2021); SUN (2021); UJ (2014); Turner & WildsmithCromarty (2014); RU (2019); UWC (2003); NWU (2022); UFS (2016).

a  

communication in higher education. The implementation of these policies is subject to annual monitoring by the Department of Higher Education and Training. University Management at each of the institutions bears responsibility for the annual reporting to the Department of Higher Education and Training, based on a full report. Furthermore, there is a growing body of research on pedagogy implementation and multilingualism at higher education institutions in South Africa (Antia & Dyers, 2016; Hibbert & Van der Walt, 2014; Madiba, 2013; Parmegiani & Wildsmith-Cromarty, 2022; Turner & Wildsmith-Cromarty, 2014).

Multilingual language policy implementation: The case of North-West University The aim of this section is to contextualise the role of English within the typical multilingual language policy of a South African university, specifically North-West University, to further illustrate

317

Susan Coetzee-Van Rooy and Werner Botha

the complex meaning of EMI in South African higher education. Therefore, this section contains a brief overview of: (i) The history of North-West University with special reference to its language policy developments; (ii) the current multilingual language policy; (iii) examples of the multilingual practices at the institution; and (iv) a reflection on the role of English as a medium of instruction at the institution.

A brief history of North-West University The North-West University was formed on January 1, 2004, as the result of a merger between the former University of North-West, the former Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education and the former Sebokeng Campus of Vista University (Pretorius, 2017, p. 28). This section briefly discusses the origins of the bigger constituents of the merging institutions (the University of the North-West at Mahikeng and the Potchefstroom campus of the former Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education) as well as its language arrangements. The former University of North-West (which appointed its first Vice-Chancellor in 1979 and admitted its first students in 1980) was built with the contribution of funds from local residents in the Mahikeng region during the 1960s and 1970s (Pretorius, 2017). The university was formed with the express vision of being an independent university aimed at fostering values of non-discrimination where apartheid could be demolished (Pretorius, 2017). This was a university that aimed to be ‘more than a replica of the Western-type universities in South Africa’ (Pretorius, 2017, p. 63). Furthermore, the University of North-West had a distinctly cosmopolitan character due to its appointment of international staff from the start, and was generally considered ‘an English-speaking university’ (Pretorius, 2017, p. 82). The former Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education started as a theological seminary in 1869 and was known for its deep religious roots and its dedication to the development and use of Afrikaans as medium of instruction in higher education, in opposition to Dutch, and was also distinctly anti-English in its early years (Pretorius, 2017, p. 40). In the 1990s, the former Potchefstroom University ‘embodied a comprehensive set of Christian, Afrikaans and nationalist values’ (Pretorius, 2017, p. 40).

The current multilingual language policy of North-West University In terms of language-in-education policy, the newly merged North-West University, therefore, had to reconcile distinctly English and Afrikaans language policies and this was a major point of discussion during the merging process. Generally, the historically Afrikaans-medium universities in South Africa developed more flexible language policies in the post-1994 context and dealt better initially with adding English as a second medium of instruction than English-medium universities (Du Plessis, 2006, p. 87). As illustrated by North-West University, one of the reasons for its language practices is the university’s adoption of a ‘flexible language policy’ that espoused functional multilingualism from the beginning (Pretorius, 2017, p. 269). More recently, in June 2022, North-West University’s multilingual language policy was approved, which declares that ‘within the parameters of the principle of functional multilingualism [the NWU] employ[s] English, Setswana, Sesotho and Afrikaans as the University’s languages of choice’ (NWU Language Policy, 2022, Policy statement item 5.3). North-West University’s current language policy also states that ‘without diminishment of the use of English and Afrikaans, [the institution should] develop Setswana and Sesotho as languages of communication, engagements and teaching and learning’ (NWU Language Policy, 2022, Policy statement item 5.4). At NorthWest University, each faculty and support department has been developing and implementing the 318

English-medium instruction in higher education in South Africa

multilingual language policy of the institution, and this process is overseen by the university’s management committee and senate (especially the Senate Committee for Language Planning and Advisory Services) via language plans. A set of detailed language principles has also been developed for the domains of learning and teaching and assessment, for administration, work and the linguistic landscape, research and development, student life, and the managers of language use by front-line employees. The language policy also outlines principles for a language ombudsperson for language plans, providing a reporting point for students and employees concerning language matters. North-West University’s most recent language policy is a continuation and refinement of its functional multilingual policy since the merger in 2004. The policy is overtly multilingual and additive, as it aims to contribute to the addition and development of more South African languages for use at the university level. All versions of the North-West University’s language policies have been informed by Language Audit Surveys, which are analysed quantitively and qualitatively.

Examples of multilingual practices at North-West University At North-West University, the framework within which the multilingual language policy is implemented is first of all encompassed within the language plans of individual faculties, allowing for some variation among the academic faculties. However, all faculties at North-West University compile very specific language plans to implement multilingualism in their context. The second element in the implementation framework includes the principles stated in the language policy for each language domain. For example, in the learning and teaching domain, faculties follow the principle for the provision of ‘translanguaging’ as a pedagogy in teaching-learning (NWU, 2022, item 9.6). Interestingly, the notion of translanguaging is interpreted and defined by the institution in terms of multilingualism, as follows: Translanguaging means that in the teaching and learning situation, various languages are used to explore key concepts with a view to making this clear and understandable [in] their own languages, as well as learning new insights arising from the interpretation of the concept in the university’s languages of choice. (NWU, 2022, item 2, p. 1) This implies that as part of each academic unit’s language plans, modules, and/or lecturers are identified to apply translanguaging principles in teaching and learning as part of the broader multilingual pedagogy implemented at the North-West University. The identified lecturers attend a course in multilingual pedagogies and they are also supported by the North-West University’s language directorate to develop sufficient multilingual learning and teaching materials that would foster a conducive environment for the implementation of translanguaging. Likewise, identified multilingual student facilitators employed in North-West University’s vast student academic support and development systems are also trained to use multiple languages in facilitation sessions to deepen understanding in the learning process. The annual report by North-West University’s language directorate has delivered a comprehensive description of all elements of the language policy as it is applied in the various faculties. This report has indicated the depth of insight that faculties have in understanding the potential of the multilingual language policy to further deepen and refine the quality of learning and teaching at the institution. One of the projects that could serve as an example is the concept videos made 319

Susan Coetzee-Van Rooy and Werner Botha

by the School of Accounting Sciences in the Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences (NWU, 2020). The school developed 97 concept videos that are short videos created by lecturers to explain the most prominent and complex concepts in modules. These concept videos have been developed in English and Afrikaans, and a process has started to translate the videos into Setswana and Sesotho. The translation of the initial concept videos was carried out by lecturers who were ‘native speakers’ of Sesotho or Setswana and these lecturers then used the same presentation material to explain the concepts in their mother tongue. In this way, over a period of time, a set of videos about important concepts in the subject is being developed and made available in several of the university’s official languages. In 2020, five concept videos were translated into Setswana and two into Sesotho. Student’s views about the use of concept videos in general, and specifically in Setswana and Sesotho were tested in preparation for the annual report of the faculty about the implementation of the functional multilingual language policy. As part of the survey, examples of the Setswana and Sesotho concept videos were put online and students who were interested were asked to watch the videos and then answer the following question: ‘Please answer the remaining questions only after having watched the sample Setswana and/or Sesotho videos on Google Drive. On a scale of 1 to 5, how useful would concept videos in Setswana and Sesotho be for learning?’. A total of 74 students responded to the question (and therefore we assume they watched the relevant videos). The majority (49, or 66.3%) of the 74 respondents, commented that the videos in Setswana and Sesotho were ‘useful’ or ‘very useful’ for learning; 16 (or 21.6%) said that they did not think the videos were useful; and 9 (or 12.1%) were neutral about the idea. From these results, it was clear that there was support among students for the use of concept videos in Setswana and Sesotho. However, much work remains in terms of developing terminology that is understood by modern South African students in Setswana and Sesotho. It also remains to be seen to what extent such initiatives improve students’ learning in their respective subjects, and which initiatives can be replicated and reasonably maintained in the long run.

Conclusion Based on our discussion in this chapter of the status of EMI in South African higher education in South Africa, we can identify a number of challenges as well as opportunities in this context. First, from the responses in the case study from the North-West University presented earlier, it is evident that the academic English proficiency of the participants should be developed further. The academic literacy courses in English and Afrikaans academic literacy offered at the institution is one way to address this issue, and we would argue that such courses should be given a more prominent role across higher education institutions in the country. A second challenge is one mentioned by the participating students in the North-West University case study: Setswana and Sesotho (and African languages more generally) are in a development phase for use in higher education. The development of terminology and an appropriate academic register to use in indigenous languages within multilingual academic literacy pedagogies need drastic further attention. A third challenge relates to adequately researching multilingual higher education and the best practices for informing policy at the institutional level. The case study reported at North-West University, from the plethora of activities performed at the institution to implement the multilingual language policy of the university, indicates that multilingual policy implementation needs more time to mature. We believe that effective language management practices should be brought to the fore and replicated where possible (across programmes, faculties, or institutions where relevant). We would also argue that a regular country-wide forum, 320

English-medium instruction in higher education in South Africa

perhaps in collaboration between Department of Higher Education and the South African Linguistics and Applied Linguistics Society (SALALS), could to be established to present and showcase best practices in this area. Further opportunities that arise from a consideration of EMI (or ELoLT) in South African higher education include the deepening of knowledge and insight by students taught with appropriate multilingual pedagogies. The primary aim of using all the languages in the multilingual repertoires of students is to deepen learning, and if this can be successfully achieved, then multilingualism could be used to unlock the potential of South African students at the individual, social, and economic development levels. If appropriate multilingual pedagogies could be employed to develop cognitive academic language proficiencies in English and indigenous languages, South Africa could provide information that is useful to other similar multilingual environments. The opportunity to continue raising awareness of the potential benefits of multilingual pedagogies remains. We believe that academic literacy is critical for students’ success in their educational lives and future careers. Much more research should be conducted to foster awareness of the potential advantages of multilingualism at the cognitive and societal levels; as well as to position academic literacy in English within the multilingual context of South African students. In South African society today, English remains a highly valuable language in education as well as in the broader socio-economic setting.

Acknowledgement The School of Accounting in the Faculty of Economics and Management Sciences, as well as the Language Directorate at the NWU are thanked for reporting the information about the reception of the multilingual concept videos by students in the NWUs 2020 Language Directorate report (NWU, 2020) that is available in the public domain (see details in the list of references).

Notes 1 Du Plessis (2006, p. 88) documents the list of historically Afrikaans-medium universities. Note that some of these institutions developed from English institutions into Afrikaans-medium universities. North-West University and the University of Johannesburg developed as Afrikaans/Dutch-medium universities from the start.

References Antia, B. E., & Dyers, C. (2016). Epistemological access through lecture materials in multiple modes and language varieties: The role of ideologies and multilingual literacy practices in student evaluations of such materials at a South African University. Language Policy, 15, 525–545. Bamgbose, A. (2011). African languages today: The challenge and prospects for empowerment under globalization. In E. G. Bokamba, R. K. Shosted, & B. T. Ayalew (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 40th annual conference on African linguistics: African languages and linguistics today (pp. 1–14). Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Botha, W., & Coetzee-Van Rooy, S. (2021). Language mixing in the social network of a South African student. World Englishes, 40, 63–83. Botha, W., Van Rooy, B., & Coetzee-Van Rooy, S. (2021). Researching South African English. World Englishes, 40, 2–11. Brand, G. (2004). ‘English only’? Creating linguistic space for African indigenous knowledge systems in higher education. South African Journal of Higher Education, 18, 27–39. Brand, G. (2011). African Philosophy and the Politics of Language in Africa. Language Matters, 42, 173–189. Business Tech. (2020). New language changes planned for South African schools. Retrieved from https:// businesstech.co.za/news/government/400673/new-language-changes-planned-for-south-african-schools

321

Susan Coetzee-Van Rooy and Werner Botha Coetzee-Van Rooy, A. S. (2012). Flourishing functional multilingualism: Evidence from language repertoires in the Vaal Triangle region. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 218, 87–119. Coetzee-Van Rooy, S. (2013). Afrikaans in contact with English: Endangered language or case of exceptional bilingualism? International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 224, 179–207. Coetzee-Van Rooy, S. (2018). Dominant language constellations in multilingual repertoires: Implications for language-in-education policy and practices in South Africa. Language Matters, 49(3), 19–46. Constitution of the Republic of SouthAfrica. (1996, December 10). The constitution of the republic of South Africa. Retrieved from https://www.gov.za/documents/constitution/ constitution-republic-south-africa-1996-1 Du Plessis, T. (2006). The development of a multilingual language policy at the SABC since 1994. Acta Academica Supplementum, 2006(2), 45–75. Elling, N.T. (2017). Crisis at South Africa’s universities. Chr. Michelsen Institute, 16(3), 1–4. Guðmundsdóttir, G. B. (2010). The use of ICT in South African classrooms and the double literacy trap. In Z. Desai, M. Qorro, & B. Brock-Utne (Eds.), Educational challenges in multilingual societies (pp. 147–172). African Minds. Hibbert, L., & Van der Walt, C. (2014). Biliteracy and translanguaging pedagogy in South Africa: An overview. In L. Hibbert & C. Van der Walt (Eds.), Multilingual universities in South Africa: Reflecting society in higher education (pp. 3–14). Multilingual Matters. Kamwangamalu, N. (2009). Reflections on the language policy balance sheet in Africa. Language Matters, 40(2), 133–144. Kamwangamalu, N. M. (2013). Effects of policy on English-medium instruction in Africa. World Englishes, 32, 325–337. Language Policy Framework for Public Higher Education Institutions. (2020). Language Policy Framework for Public Higher Education institutions (LPHE). Retrieved from https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/ gcis_document/202011/43860gon1160.pdf Macaro, E. (2018). English medium instruction: Content and language in policy and practice. Oxford University Press. Madiba, M. (2013). Multilingual education in South African universities: Policies, pedagogy and practicality. Linguistics and Education, 24, 385–395. Ndlangamandla, S. C. (2010). (Unofficial) Multilingualism in desegregated schools: Learners’ use of and views towards African languages. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 28, 61–73. Ngwenya, T. (2012). The North-West University language policy: A glimmer of hope and flashes of red lights. Language Matters, 43, 221–239. Nomlomo, V. (2010). Turn-allocation and learner participation in Grade 4 Science lessons in isiXhosa and English. In Z. Desai, M. Qorro, & B. Brock-Utne (Eds.), Educational challenges in multilingual societies (pp. 129–146). African Minds. North-West University (NWU). (2020). NWU Language Directorate annual report 2020. North-West University. Retrieved from https://news.nwu.ac.za/sites/news. nwu.ac.za/files/files/Robert.Balfour/2020.LDAnnual-Report.pdf NWU. (2022). Policy statement. Retrieved from https://www.nwu.ac.za/gov_man/policy/ index.html Parmegiani, A., & Wildsmith-Cromarty, R. (2022). Linguistic inequality and access to education: Curricular strategies from South Africa and the United States. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 35, 235–239. Plüddemann, P. (2015). Unlocking the grid: Language-in-education policy realisation in post- apartheid South Africa. Language and Education, 29, 186–199. Posel, D., & Zeller, J. (2019). Language use and language shift in post-apartheid South Africa. In R. Hickey (Ed.), English in multilingual South Africa: The linguistics of contact and change (pp. 288–309). Cambridge University Press. Pretorius, C. (2017). Forging the story of North-West University’s first 10 years. North-West University Probyn, M. (2009). ‘Smuggling the vernacular into the classroom’: Conflicts and tensions in classroom codeswitching in township/rural schools in South Africa. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12, 123–136. QS World University Rankings. (2020). BRICS rankings. Retrieved from https://www.topuniversities.com/ university-rankings/brics-rankings/2019 Rose, S. (2006). The functions of codeswitching in a multicultural and multilingual high school (Master’s dissertation). University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa. RU. (2019). Rhodes University: Language policy. Retrieved from https://www.ru.ac.za/media/rhodesuniversity/content/institutionalplanning/documents/Language_Policy_2019.pdf

322

English-medium instruction in higher education in South Africa Slabbert, S., & Finlayson, R. (2002). Code-switching in South African townships. In R. Mesthrie (Ed.), Language in South Africa (pp. 235–257). Cambridge University Press. Statistics South Africa. (2011). Census in brief. Retrieved from http://www.statssa.gov.za/ census/census_2011/census_products/Census_2011_Census_in_brief.pdf StatsSA. (2016). The classification of South Africa’s population by population group. http://cs2016.statssa. gov.za/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/NT-30-06-2016-RELEASE-for-CS-2016-_Statistical-releas_1July-2016.pdf SUN. (2021). Language policy of Stellenbosch University. Retrieved from http://www.sun.ac.za/english/ Documents/Language/English%20Language%20Policy_final_2Dec2021.pdf Tight, M. (2021). Twenty-first century skills: Meaning, usage and value. European Journal of Higher Education, 11, 160–174. Turner, N., & Wildsmith-Cromarty, R. (2014). Challenges to the implementation of bilingual/multilingual language policies at tertiary institutions in South Africa (1995–2012). Language Matters, 45(3), 295–312. UCT. (2013). University of Cape Town language policy. Retrieved from https://www.uct.ac.za/sites/default/ files/image_tool/images/328/about/policies/Language_Policy_19-June-2013_Final.pdf UFS. (2016). University of the Free State: Language policy. Retrieved from https://www.ufs.ac.za/docs/default-source/policy-institutional-documents/language-policy.pdf?sfvrsn=ea4dc321_0 UJ. (2014). University of Johannesburg language policy. Retrieved from https://www.uj.ac.za/wp-content/ uploads/2021/10/language-policy-2014.pdf UP. (2021). University of Pretoria: Language policy. Retrieved from https://www.up.ac.za/media/shared/1/ Webcenter%20Content/r36_21-language-policy.zp209077.pdf UWC. (2003). University of Western Cape: Language policy. Retrieved from https://n2r6x9i3.stackpathcdn. com/files/files/Language_Policy_C2003-3.pdf Uys, M. J., van der Walt, R., van den Berg, S., & Botha, S. (2007). English medium of instruction: A situation analysis. South African Journal of Education, 27, 69–82. Van der Walt, C. (2009). The functions of code switching in English language learning classes. Per Linguam, 25, 30–43. Van der Walt, C. (2013). Multilingual higher education: Beyond English medium orientations. Multilingual Matters. Van der Walt, C., & Hibbert, L. (2014). African languages in higher education: Lessons from practice and prospects for the future. In L. Hibbert & C. van der Walt (Eds.), Multilingual universities in South Africa: Reflecting society in higher education (pp. 202–219). Multilingual Matters. Wildsmith-Cromarty, R., & Balfour, R. J. (2019). Language learning and teaching in South African primary schools. Language Teaching, 52, 296–317. Wits. (2014). University policies: Language policy. Retrieved from https://www.wits.ac.za/about-wits/ governance/university-policies/

323

24 ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN WEST AFRICA Alexandra Esimaje, Charles Marfo, and Dunlop Ochieng

Introduction English is unarguably the most-used official language and the medium of instruction among all languages in the world today (Eapen, 2007; Kurtz, 2007). It acquired this hegemonic position coincidentally and due to the economic and technological leadership of its ‘native speakers’. Britain and the British Empires incidentally led other countries in the agricultural and industrial revolutions between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries (Reynolds, 2019). This made it the most powerful nation globally by the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century. This power enabled the kingdom to dominate its immediate neighbouring kingdoms of Scotland, Ireland, and Wales and to acquire several colonies far away from home, including a number of West African countries (Graddol, 2006), which this chapter focusses on. This expansion of the British Empire, among other things, instituted the English language as the medium of education in schools they established to serve colonial administrative needs. The hegemonic position of English was cemented by the rise of the United States after World War II as the world’s economic and military superpower, whose influence was increased culturally and economically throughout the world. Their military and economic power increased their influence around the world culturally and economically (British Broadcasting Cooperation, 2021; Stein, 1984). Currently, the revolution of telecommunications technologies and the globalisation spearheaded by English-speaking countries, such as the United Kingdom and the United States, have fuelled the spread and dominance of English even in countries that were not colonised by the English people such as Gabon, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Senegal and Mali (Eapen, 2007). The Internet and its attendant applications, such as WhatsApp, Google, Yahoo and so forth, mostly originating from the United States, also reinforce the dominance and the spread of English worldwide. Despite UNESCO’s acknowledgement of the benefits of using mother tongue in education (UNESCO, 2001), English has remained the popular medium of instruction in most countries where English is not a first language of a country’s speakers. According to Collins (2010), the number of English Taught Programmes (ETPs) in universities has increased even in Expanding Circle countries such as Germany and Italy. ‘In the Lusophone (Portuguese speaking) and Francophone (French-speaking) countries and Ethiopia – none of which were the British colonies – the status of English is also very high’ (Negash, 2011, p. 4). English has even replaced DOI: 10.4324/9781003011644-27 324

English-medium instruction in higher education in West Africa

French as the language of education in Rwanda and Gabon. Language policies in Africa have made English the official language, the national language, the language of instruction, the language of science and trade, the language of the law, to mention a few, in the presence of over 1500 African languages. Coleman (2006) puts it that the spiral of English spread is unheard of (except in biblical discussions) and is certainly a ‘new phenomenon’. Interestingly, English has made these gains amidst competing languages, strong criticisms, and endoglossic language policies. First, English-medium instruction (EMI) is considered the perpetuation of imperialism and marginalisation of African languages (Ngugi wa Thiong’o, 1986; Phillipson, 1992). It is alleged that EMI impedes Africans’ development, creativity, academic performance, and confidence of non-English learners (Batibo, 2007; Graddol, 2006; Guerin & Maier, 1983; RoyCampbell & Qorro, 1997). It is also claimed that the abrupt switch from ethnic community languages to English normally interferes with the thinking pattern of non-native users (Collins, 2010), and deprive speakers of other languages of their identity and worldview (Fairclough, 1986). English is also considered an oppressive and segregating tool due to its unequal access and use as a screening criterion in publications, education, and jobs (Ochieng, 2015). Likewise, the teaching of English is considered problematic in many Outer Circle countries due to low funding for education, inadequate resources, and untrained teachers, to mention a few (Tanga & Maphosa, 2018). In the context where English defies all the odds and challenges, this chapter sets out to critically examine EMI in higher education institutions in West Africa, policy issues around its use, rising status amidst scarce information about its nature and complexity, challenges and what the future holds for EMI in the West African higher education. The chapter systematically and critically presents overviews of EMI in higher education in West Africa. In so doing, the chapter advances the frontier of knowledge on EMI in West Africa and serves as the baseline for education and language policies and planning of languages in Africa and beyond. It is worth noting that the rationale for EMI is three-fold: English is a world language and the language of knowledge production and transmission; it is profitable for institutions all over the world to internationalise their faculty for prominence (globalisation) and economic gains through the attraction of international students (Shimauchi, 2018); and it enables the acquisition of proficiency in the language, which is critical for the acquisition of other bodies of knowledge (Shuib, 2019).

Overview of EMI in West Africa Western Africa consists of 17 countries, each identifying themselves with exoglossic languages they use as the official or primary medium of instruction. For instance, Ghana, The Gambia, Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Saint Helena Island are known as Anglophone. Guinea Bissau is a Lusophone country, given that it uses Portuguese as the official language and medium of instruction. Equatorial Guinea is also Hispanophone because it uses Spanish as the official language and medium of instruction. The Francophone countries are Benin, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Mali, Niger, Senegal, and Cape Verde. Cameroon is an interesting case because it uses French as the official language and medium of instruction in most parts of the country and English as the official language and medium of instruction in the North-West and South-West regions of the country. Irrespective of these linguistic groupings, English is increasingly used in these countries in education and other sectors. As Plonski, Teferra, and Brady (2013) report, ‘the use of English is also growing in universities located in lusophone African countries’, while Apia (2010) notes that English is the first compulsory foreign language taught in secondary schools in the former French colonies of the Ivory Coast, Mali and Senegal. It is also informally taught in all non-English countries in West 325

Alexandra Esimaje et al.

Africa because of its instrumental role in the world. For instance, in Mauritania, where Arabic is the official and national language and the medium of instruction, the quest for English acquisition has caused the Ministry of Higher Education of the country to offer licences to more than 20 institutes to teach English to people who need it’ (Yacoub, 2015). The use of English in the informal domain is also increasing in countries such as Cabo Verde, and Mali, where French is the official and language of instruction. The use of English in West African countries is anchored in colonial history, the complexity of the linguistic landscape, and the instrumental values of English in the twenty-first century. Africans perceived that the mother tongue policy was designed to impoverish Africa, hence, they demanded to be educated on the same standards as the colonialists, including the language of instruction (Mchazime, 2010). English is also a practical tool for facilitating communication among diverse ethnicities, cultures, and linguistic backgrounds (Collins, 2010; Negash, 2011). Likewise, English is an ideal lingua franca in a region where countries are clustered around ex-colonial languages: hispaphone, Francophone, Lusophone, Anglophone, and Arabic. As has already been alluded to, contemporarily, English is also gaining impetus from its position as the practical language of commerce, media, entertainment, diplomacy, tourism, and integration with the rest of the world, such as in migration events or studying abroad (Mokaya, 2014; Negash, 2011). As noted earlier, the focus of this chapter is on EMI in higher education in West African countries, specifically Cameroon, Ghana, Liberia, Nigeria, Senegal, and Sierra Leone.

EMI in Cameroon English is an official language in Cameroon, with French being the second official language. Like Nigeria, Cameroon has a history of contact with the British explorers since the beginning of the 1800s (Bouchaud, 1952). Missionaries soon followed the explorers and helped spread the English language further. By the turn of the twentieth century, Cameroon English had become a stable and fairly homogeneous variety due to the relatively small Anglophone population (Simo Bobda, 1994, 2008; Todd, 1982). In Yaro’s (2020) account of EMI in Cameroon, it is noted that the country is a multilingual and multicultural society with at least 250 ethnic groups and approximately 279 indigenous languages. The 1996 Constitution of Cameroon states that the official languages of the Republic of Cameroon shall be English and French, and that both languages will have the same status (Yaro, 2020, pp. 29–31). It further stipulates that the state shall guarantee the promotion of bilingualism throughout the country and shall endeavour to protect and promote national languages. The amended constitution of 2002 directs the provincial inspectors to be responsible for the national languages. As in other African contexts, the role of the national languages is two-fold: for cultural transmission and psycho-pedagogical access to knowledge – given that it is believed that learning is most effective if teaching is done in a language the learner knows best, the language of his/her immediate environment.

EMI in Ghana English is the official and the major language of instruction in Ghana. This role emanates from the colonisation of Ghana by the British from the early nineteenth century until independence in 1957. The English language was first taught in order to train interpreters to assist the British colonists in trade, and some of these were even sent to Britain to receive such training (Sackey, 1997). In addition, Sey (1973) notes that ‘English in (Ghana) has from the very beginning been associated with Christianity’ (Sey, 1973, p. 5). Ghana has gone through many policy changes regarding education 326

English-medium instruction in higher education in West Africa

in general and the medium of instruction. Recounting some of them, the ‘Ordinance for the Promotion and Assistance of Education in the Gold Coast Colony’ came into effect in 1882 and required English teaching. Reversing this ordinance was the 1925 Guggisberg Ordinance, which decreed the use of native languages (for example, Akan, Ga and Ewe) as the medium of instruction in the first three years, after which they were replaced by English and taught as subjects (Andoh-Kumi, 2002, p. 28). When Ghana gained independence in 1957, the government of Kwame Nkrumah, who became the first president of the country, more or less revisited the ordinance and made English the language of instruction from the first year of primary education (Andoh-Kumi, 2002). However, the government also encouraged the development of all-important national or indigenous languages. Accordingly, nine languages – Akuapem Twi, Asante Twi, Dagbani, Dangbe, Ewe, Fanti, Ga, Kasem, and Nzima – were chosen in 1962 to be taught in schools alongside English and French. Although Ghana had no background in French colonisation, the learning of French was particularly encouraged because French-speaking countries surround Ghana, and, for that matter, it was deemed important to learn it to communicate and understand neighbours. In the very recent past, the indigenous language prevalent in a particular local area was often used as the medium of instruction in the first three years, with English being taught as a subject. English would then take over after the third year. However, the policy was changed to English only in 2002 (OwuEwie, 2006). Interestingly, Ghana is back to using indigenous languages in the early years of the child’s education. Adika (2012) and Davis and Agbenyega (2012), among others, have, however, observed that the implementation of mother-tongue education policies has hardly been successful because the L1 (first language) of most Ghanaian children is often not included in the 11 Ghanaian languages that the government selected to be used as the languages of instruction. Owu-Ewie (2017) also notes that the lack of textbooks in the L1 and inadequate teachers who are proficient enough in the use of the L1 cause teachers to switch to the use of EMI.

EMI in Liberia In Liberia, as in Nigeria, English is the official language. The history of English in the country began with the arrival of English ships on the coast in the sixteenth century, similar to the case of Nigeria (Singler, 1981). This occured after the first contact with the Portuguese traders, led by Pedro DeCintra and his crew in 1461. As in other West African countries, the communication between the sailors and locals led to the development of a form of pidgin with local interpreters acting as middlemen. Due to the arrival of ex-slaves, mainly from America to Liberia in the nineteenth century, there was a marked influence of (African) American English on Liberian English (Singler, 1998, 2008), in contrast to the situation in Nigeria and Ghana, where British English has had predominant influence. Subsequently, African Americans (the returnees) began to settle on the Liberia coast and soon formed the majority of the Liberian elite, dominating the government and constituting an English-speaking class. According to a USAID (2021) report on the Language of Instruction Policy in Liberia, the Education Reform Act of 2011 declared English as the primary language of instruction (LOI) for all grades and allowed for a local language to be used as the LOI at the basic education level (Grades 1–9). The choice of a local language is based on that region’s languages (MOE, 2011). However, the report notes that the Act does not specify in which grades a local language can be used as the LOI, and whether a local language is to be used alongside English or in place of English. The report further states that, in 2019, the Liberia Ministry of Education (MOE) revised the national curriculum for all grades, shifted to a competency-based approach, but did not include local language instruction. 327

Alexandra Esimaje et al.

EMI in Nigeria Nigeria is an extremely complex, highly multilingual and pluralistic country, with an estimated population of 200 million (200,000,000) inhabitants who speak over 500 languages (Eberhard, Simons, & Fennig, 2020; Grimes & Grimes, 2000; World Bank, 2020). As in many African countries, the advent of English in Nigeria is due to the major factors of trade, Christianity, and colonialism. There was the trans-Atlantic slave trade and later the legitimate trade, during which many Nigerians learnt English (Jowitt, 2019), and many returnee slaves freely used the English they had acquired abroad (Awonusi, 2004). When the missionaries built their first stations in Badagry in 1842 and Calabar in 1846, their primary interest was the spread of Christianity (Gut, 2013). To reach the population easily, the LOI was usually the native language of the people. English began to be formally taught in Nigeria from the mid-nineteenth century as missionaries reached people and established schools where English was the basic subject (Adetugbo, 1979). The amalgamation of Northern and Southern Nigeria in 1914 marked the beginning of the colonial interest in standard education in Nigeria. The education policy in this period facilitated the development and promotion of indigenous languages, as many books were published in the local languages, and schools also taught indigenous languages. However, the use of indigenous languages for educational purposes was restricted to elementary and secondary schools (Adeniran, 1979). Later, in the 1946 constitution, English was recommended as the official language in the west and east, but Hausa remained the official language in the north until 1967. After gaining independence, there was a strong debate on the need for English to be replaced as an official language by one of Nigerian’s indigenous languages. Subsequently, in 1977, the Federal government promulgated the national policy on education, which made the teaching of indigenous languages at the various levels of the educational system compulsory (Federal Republic of Nigeria, 2004). The policy also stated that: the medium of instruction in the primary school shall be the language of the environment for the first three years and that, during this period, English shall be taught as a subject. Then from the fourth year, English shall progressively be used as a medium of instruction, and the language of the immediate environment shall be taught as subjects. (p. 16)

EMI in Senegal French is the only official language in Senegal recognised by the constitution. French is also the primary medium of instruction in the public education system. This hegemonic status of the French in Senegal stems from Senegal’s colonisation by France until 1960. The independence suggestively marked the country’s independence from the obligatory use of French as the medium of instruction. This is partly evidenced by the 1971 Presidential Decree (No. 71566 of 21 May 1971), which elevated six languages – Wolof, Peul, Serer, Diola, Malinke, and Soninke – to the rank of ‘national languages’. The 1981–1984 National Commission for Education Reform concurred, and indeed affirmed, that indigenous languages should be used in the first years of primary (Etats Généraux Annexe IIE). Contrarily, no action was taken at that time (Albaugh, 2005). Another attempt to use indigenous languages in the official domain was called the Decennial Plan of Education and Training (PDEF). In executing this plan, experiments were launched in 155 schools using six languages in 2002. The number of schools was later increased to 300. Regarding the Status of English in Senegal, Diallo (2014) observes that despite its allegiance to French, language-in-education 328

English-medium instruction in higher education in West Africa

planning in Senegal has given top priority to English in its education system in an attempt to eliminate education based on memorisation, repetition, and drills, which is also a relic of the former colonial education. Specifically, English in education policymakers officially replaced the CLAD (Centre de Linguistique Appliquée de Dakar) teaching methods with those of the CLT (that is, ‘Communicative Language Teaching’), which has its own challenges in the context of Senegal.

EMI in Sierra Leone The official language of Sierra Leone is English. However, French is taught as a subject at all levels of the formal education system. As in several African countries, the emergence of English usage in Sierra Leone is due to several factors, including trade, colonialism, evangelism, and the Second World War (Jenkins, 2003). According to Sengova (1987), there is no serious threat from any Sierra Leonean indigenous language to English status. According to Armstrong (1968), Sierra Leone did not have a stated language policy before and even after gaining independence in 1961. Of what could be described as a mother-tongue education policy, that is, one that favours the use of indigenous languages in teaching, in 1979 and 1994, pilot projects began using four local languages (Mende, Temne, Limba, and Krio) in 36 schools (Fyle, 1994). Each of these languages was used in specific geographical areas. As Sengova (1987) notes, this decision was inspired by the recommendations of the 1981 UNESCO report. He notes, however, that this pilot programme has not received much support. Indeed, Fyle (1994) also observes that it has not gone beyond the pilot stage because of the lack of finance. With what seems to be the maintenance of the status quo, the 1996 Basic Education Program for Primary and Secondary Education also stipulated that indigenous languages were to be used for teaching classes 1–3 in primary school (Banya & Elu, 1997). In secondary school, these languages become subjects of study. The 2004 Education Act, on the other hand, is unclear on whether these community languages have the status of taught subjects or are used as teaching mediums in primary school. Specifically, as Albaugh (2005, p. 43) notes, Part II, Paragraph 2 (2) of the 2004 Education Act stipulates that the system shall be designed to ‘introduce into the curriculum new subjects such as indigenous languages and Sierra Leone Studies which shall give and enhance a proper and positive understanding of Sierra Leone’. Leclerc (2003) says that most instruction is in English and, if languages are taught at all, it is only Mende and Temne as subjects.

Survey data on English in education in West Africa To understand the nature, status, and challenges of EMI in West Africa from the local perspectives, we carried out an online survey involving 84 respondents from three West African countries: Cameroon (23), Ghana (27), and Nigeria (31). A few Senegal and Sierra Leone respondents also participated in the survey, but we excluded their data because it was too little to be meaningful. Therefore, it is worth noting that the selection of and focus on data from Cameroon, Ghana, and Nigeria is not borne out of any bias but for the fact that we managed to get a good number of respondents from these countries. The survey focused on issues concerning the competition between English and other languages in the official domain, attitudes towards English, the negative effects of EMI, challenges facing EMI, and the proposed solutions to the challenges. Participants in this survey were university lecturers and postgraduate students from different fields of study including the humanities and STEM. Out of the 84 participants, 34 were students and the universities were both public and private. The result of this survey is presented in Table 24.1 and subsequently discussed. 329

Alexandra Esimaje et al. Table 24.1  A summary of survey data on EMI in selected West African countries Questions asked

% tallies

EMI landscape in West Africa

Yes

No

  1 Is English the language of higher education in your country?   2 Is there any language that contests the hegemonic position of English as the language of instruction in your country?   3 If your answer to Que 2 is ‘Yes’, is this language used as the medium of instruction in higher education alongside English?

96.4 43.4

3.6 56.6

40.1

59.9

76.8

23.2

92.3 9.7 75

7.7 90.3 25

69.6 32.9 62

30.4 67.1 38

81.7

18.3

86.1 84.9 82.2 90 86.4

13.9 15.1 17.8 10 13.6

11 Which of these are major complaints regarding English as the medium of instruction (EMI) in higher education in your country? a  Linguistically mixed classroom contexts b  The lack of infrastructures such as trained teachers and teaching materials c  The lack of political will on the part of the government to implement policies d  The short time for teaching and learning English e  The difficulty of teaching new concepts in English f  The lack of shared MT between teachers and learners g  Students’ attitudes and motivations for EMI h  Students’ low level of English language proficiency i  Lecturers’ low level of English language proficiency j  Inadequate institutional support for EMI

Yes

No

66.3 74.1 86.4 78.2 59.5 64.9 75 88.9 58.8 68.4

33.7 25.9 13.6 21.8 40.5 35.1 25 11.1 41.2 31.6

Proposed solutions to challenges facing EMI in West Africa

Yes

No

12 Regarding the use of English in higher education in your country, what would you advise? a  To use EMI along with a local language b  To continue with EMI but tackle the challenges facing it

66.7 92.2

33.3 7.8

Attitudes towards EMI in West Africa   4 Do you think proficiency in English in your country is high enough for use as the language of instruction? a  To continue the use of EMI b  To discontinue the use of EMI   5 Is there any discourse about the correlation between the English proficiency someone has and their academic success during studies and achievements after the study?   6 If your answer to Que 5 is ‘Yes’, is the correlation found to be positive?   7 Do parents prefer the use of indigenous languages in school to English?   8 Is English the most preferred medium of instruction by private schools in your country?   9 Does English competency discriminate between people in your country? 10 If your answer to Que 9 is ‘Yes’, identify ways in which it does so. a  In career progression b  In university admission c  In status assignment d  In employment opportunities e  In other ways Perceived bottlenecks of EMI in West Africa

N = 84 respondents.

330

English-medium instruction in higher education in West Africa

As the survey data indicate (see responses to Questions 2 and 3), English is the dominant language in higher education in the studied countries and does not face stiff competition from indigenous languages as in East Africa, where Swahili is challenging the hegemony of English (Mukuthuria, 2006; Mulokozi, 2010; Yahya-Othman & Batibo, 1996). English does not appear to face competition even from its derivatives, such as pidgin English. Considering Question 2 in particular, the data also indicates that other languages are used in education in West Africa. However, the responses here were skewed to Cameroon, where both French and English are the languages of education. In this regard, we note that endoglossic languages are still alienated from the official domain in the studied West African countries. Further analysis suggests a bright future for English in West Africa considering that the respondents thought that the proficiency in English in their countries is high enough for using the language in education as a response to Question 4 indicates. This is a sharp digression from observation in East Africa that the level of English of users is very low (Roy-Campbell & Qorro, 1997). Furthermore, as is the case in the Far East, Southern Africa and East Africa, parents prefer EMI over other mediums because they consider it an added advantage in securing employment, scholarship, respect, and prestige (see the responses to Questions 9 and 10). As a result, private schools choose EMI over other languages in their context, which is no different from the trend in Southern and East Africa (Ochieng, 2015). Despite its general acceptance, as the responses to Questions under 11 reveal, as a medium of instruction, English faces pedagogical, infrastructural, and institutional challenges, which are very typical characteristics of the African context where in most cases, serious and consistent policy direction is hardly available and, where it is available, it is hardly followed. There is also a problem of weak motivation towards learning English among some students, and, at a policy level, the lack of political will to invest in the teaching and learning of English or any other language.

Conclusion This chapter has examined English-medium instruction (EMI) in higher education institutions in West Africa with data from five countries, namely Cameroon, Ghana, Nigeria, Senegal, and Sierra Leone. Among other things, English remains popular as a medium of instruction and the baseline for education and language policies. It also continues as a practical tool for facilitating communication among diverse ethnicities, cultures, and linguistic backgrounds. Along with overviews of EMI in higher education in these selected countries, the rising status of EMI amidst scarce information about its nature, challenges, and what the future holds for EMI in West African higher education were explored to advance the frontier of knowledge on EMI in West Africa. Our discussion suggests that the practice of EMI is faced with numerous challenges across these countries, particularly in relation to the multilingual and multicultural nature of such societies. Such problems include linguistically mixed classroom contexts; the lack of infrastructure, such as trained teachers and teaching materials; poor policies; student attitudes and motivation for EMI; students’ and teachers’ levels of English language proficiency; and institutional support for EMI. It is recommended that these issues and challenges be fully addressed in order to ensure best practices for EMI in West Africa.

References Adeniran, A. (1979). Personalities and policies in the establishment of English in Northern Nigeria (1900– 1943). International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 22, 57–77. Adetugbo, A. (1979). Appropriateness and Nigerian English. In E. Ubahakwe (Ed.), Varieties and functions of English in Nigeria (pp. 167–183). African Universities Press.

331

Alexandra Esimaje et al. Adika, G. S. K. (2012). English in Ghana: Growth, tensions, and trends. International Journal of Language, Translation and Intercultural Communication, 1, 151–166. Albaugh, E. (2005). The colonial image reversed: Advocates of multilingual education in Africa (PhD thesis). Duke University. Andoh-Kumi, K. (2002). Language of instruction in Ghana: Theory, research, and practice. Language Centre, University of Ghana. Apia, K. D. (2010). Contribution to ‘ambitions for English in francophone West Africa’ project. Prepared for heads of English meeting organised by British Council Sénégal, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 1–2 October 2010. Armstrong, R. G. (1968). Language policies and language practices in West Africa. In J. Fishman, C. A. Ferguson, & J. Das Gupta (Eds.), Language problems of developing nations (pp. 227–236). John Wiley & Sons. Awonusi, V. O. (2004). RP and the sociolinguistic realities of non-native English accents. In K. Owolabi & A. Dasylva (Eds.), Forms and functions of English and indigenous languages in Nigeria (pp. 55–63). Group Publication. Banya, K., & Elu, J. (1997). Implementing basic education: An African experience. International Review of Education, 43, 481–496. Batibo, H. M. (2007). Language use optimisation as a strategy for national development. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Language and development in Africa and beyond: Proceedings of the 7th International Language and Development Conference (pp. 15–26). British Council. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com/ scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0% 2C5&q=Language+use+optimization+as+a+strategy+for+national+develop ment&btnG= Bouchaud, J. (1952). La Côte du Cameroun dans l’histoire et la cartographie: Des origines a l’annexion allemande: 1884. Institut français d’Afrique noire. British Broadcasting Cooperation (BBC). (2021). The USA’s international influence. Retrieved from https:// www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z6frqp3/revision/2 Coleman, J. A. (2006). English-medium teaching in European higher education. Language Teaching, 39, 1–14. Collins, A. B. (2010). English-medium higher education: Dilemma and problems. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 10(39), 97–110. Davis, E., & Agbenyega, J. S. (2012). Language policy and instructional practice dichotomy: The case of primary schools in Ghana. International Journal of Educational Research, 53, 341–347. Diallo, I. (2011). ‘To understand lessons, think through your own languages’: An analysis of narratives in support of the introduction of indigenous languages in the education system in Senegal. Language Matters: Studies in the Languages of Africa, 42, 207–230. Diallo, I. (2014). English in education policy shift in Senegal: From traditional pedagogies to communicative language teaching. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 9, 142–151. Eapen, L. (2007). English next (review). ELT Journal, 61, 81–83. Eberhard, D. M., Simons, G. F., & Fennig, C. D. (Eds.). (2020). Ethnologue: Languages of the world (23rd ed.). SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com Fairclough, N. (1986). Language and power. Longman. Federal Republic of Nigeria. (2004). National policy on education. NERDC Press. Fyle, C. M. (1994). Official and unofficial attitudes and policy towards Krio as the main lingua franca in Sierra Leone. In R. Fardon & G. Furniss (Eds.), African languages, development and the state (pp. 44–54). Routledge. Graddol, D. (2006). English next: Why global English may mean the end of ‘English as a foreign language’. The British Council. Grimes, B., & Grimes, J. (2000). Ethnologue: Languages of the world: Volume 1. SIL International. Guerin, G. R., & Maier, A. S. (1983). Informal assessment in education. Mayfield Publishers. Gut, U. (2013). English in West Africa. In M. Filppula, J. Klemola, & D. Sharma (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of world Englishes (pp. 491–507). Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. (2003). World Englishes. Routledge. Jowitt, D. (2019). Nigerian English. Mouton de Gruyter. Kurtz, J. (2007). Debating the language of African literature: Ethiopian contributions. Journal of African Cultural Studies, 19, 187–205.

332

English-medium instruction in higher education in West Africa Leclerc, J. (2003, June 8). L’Aménagement linguistique dans le monde. Retrieved from http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/afrique/ghana.htm Mchazime, H. S. (2010). Effects of English as the medium of instruction on pupils’ academic achievement in social studies in primary schools in Malawi (PhD thesis). University of South Africa, South Africa. McLaughlin, F. (2008). Senegal: The emergence of a national lingua franca. Language and National Identity in Africa, 7, 79–97. Ministry of Education. (2011). Education Reform Act of 2011. Republic of Liberia. Retrieved from http:// planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/sites/planipolis/files/ ressources/liberia_ education_reform_act_2011.pdf Mokaya, N. (2014). The language debate in African literature. Retrieved from https://www.academia. edu/8015888/THE_LANGUAGE_DEBATE_IN_AFRICAN_LITERATURE Mukuthuria, M. (2006). Kiswahili and its expanding roles of development in East African cooperation: A case of Uganda. Nordic Journal of African Studies, 15, 154–165. Mulokozi, M. M. (2010). Kiswahili as a national and international language. Institute of Kiswahili Research. Retrieved from http://www.abibitumikasa.com/yabb/Attachments/kiswahili.pdf Negash, N. (2011). English language in Africa: An impediment or a contributor to development. Perceptions of English, Paper 8. Ngugi wa Thiong’o, J. (1986). The language of African literature: In decolonising the mind: The politics of language in African literature. James. Ochieng, D. (2015). The revival of the status of English in Tanzania: What future does the status of the English language have in Tanzania? English Today, 31(2), 25–31. Owu-Ewie, C. (2006). The language policy of education in Ghana: A critical look at the English-only policy of education. Selected Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of African Linguistics. Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Owu-Ewie, C. (2017). Language, education and linguistic human rights in Ghana. Legon Journal of the Humanities, 28, 151–172. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford University Press. Plonski, P., Teferra, A., & Brady, R. (2013, November 23). Why are more African countries adopting English as an official language? [Paper presentation]. African Studies Association Annual Conference, Baltimore. Retrieved from https://www.booksforafrica.org/assets/documents/2013-ASA-Conference--EnglishLanguage-in-Africa-PAPER.pdf Reynolds, D. (2019). Why Britain punched above its weight. BBC History Magazine. Retrieved from https:// www.historyextra.com/period/victorian/why-how-britain-became-global-superpower-empire-industrialrevolution/ Roy-Campbell, Z. M., & Qorro, M. A. (1997). Language crisis in Tanzania: The myth of English versus education. Mkuki na Nyota. Sackey, J. A. (1997). The English language in Ghana: A historical perspective. In M. E. K. Dakubu (Ed.), English in Ghana (pp. 126–139). Black Mask Publishers. Sengova, J. M. (1987). The national languages of Sierra Leone: A decade of policy experimentation. In M. Last & P. Richards (Eds.), Sierra Leone 1787–1987: Two centuries of intellectual life (pp. 519–529). Manchester University Press. Sey, K. A. (1973). Ghanaian English. Macmillan. Shimauchi, S. (2018). English-medium instruction in the internationalisation of higher education in Japan: Rationales and issues. Educational Studies in Japan: International Yearbook, 12(March 2018), 77–90. Shuib, M. (2019). English as a medium of instruction in higher education. Retrieved from https://medium. com/@munirshuib08/english-as-a-medium-of-instruction-in-higher-education-f701940b07b6 Simo Bobda, A. (1994). Lexical innovation processes in Cameroon English. World Englishes, 13, 245–260. Simo Bobda, A. (2008). Cameroon English: Phonology. In R. Mesthrie (Ed.), Varieties of English: Africa, South and Southeast Asia (Vol. 4, pp. 115–132). Mouton de Gruyter. Singler, J. V. (1981). An introduction to Liberian English. African Studies Centre, Michigan State University. Singler, J. V. (1998). The African-American diaspora: Who were the dispersed? Paper presented at the NWAVE 28, University of Georgia. Singler, J. V. (2008). Liberian Settler English: Phonology. In B. Kortmann & E. W. Schneider (Eds.), A handbook of varieties of English: A multimedia reference tool. Volume 1: Phonology (pp. 874–884). De Gruyter Mouton. Stein, A. A. (1984). The hegemon’s dilemma: Great Britain, the United States, and the international economic order. International Organization, 38, 355–386.

333

Alexandra Esimaje et al. Tanga, M., & Maphosa, C. (2018). Academic hurdles facing undergraduate students at one South African University. Research in Higher Education Journal, 35, 1–15. Todd, L. (1982). English in Cameroon: Education in a multilingual society. In J. B. Pride (Ed.), New Englishes (pp. 119–137). Newbury House. UNESCO. (2001). International Conference on Education 46th session: Final report. USAID. (2021). Language of instruction country profile: Liberia. Dexis Consulting Group. Retrieved from https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00XH28.pdf World Bank. (2020). Nigeria. Retrieved from https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/nigeria Yacoub, D. (2015). English is all the rage in Mauritania. Retrieved from https://www.al-fanarmedia.org/ 2015/08/english-is-all-the-rage-in-mauritania/#:~:text=In%20Mauritania% t2C%20teaching%20English% 20is%20a%20new%20business%2C,French%20is%20taught%20beginning%20in%20the%20sixth%20 grade Yahya-Othman, S., & Batibo, H. (1996). The swinging pendulum of English in Tanzania. In A. J. Fisherman, W. A. Conrad, & A. Rubal-Lopez (Eds.), Post-Imperial English: Status change in former British and American colonies, 1940–1990 (pp. 373–400). Mouton de Gruyter. Yaro, L. (2020). Multilingualism as curriculum policy in Cameroon education system. Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science, 33(6), 26–35.

334

PART IV

English-medium instruction in higher education in Asia

25 ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION ACROSS THE ASIAN REGION Kingsley Bolton, John Bacon-Shone, Werner Botha, Benedict Lin, and Isabel Pefianco Martin Introduction The use of the English language has been spreading extensively throughout the Asian region, driven by dynamics related to internationalism, modernity, and higher education (Bolton, Botha, & Kirkpatrick, 2020). This article discusses the general background of EMI in Asia and analyses data from five case studies in Cambodia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore, and South Korea to identify the background and varying forms of EMI in higher education. A number of book-length studies of EMI in the Asian region have been published in recent years, including Toh (2016), Bradford and Brown (2017), Fenton-Smith, Humphreys, and Walkinshaw (2017), Barnard and Hasim (2018), Zhao and Dixon (2018), Kojima (2021), Ruegg (2021), Su, Cheung and Wu (2021), Tsou and Baker (2021), Han (2022), Pham and Barnett (2022), and Thi, Hing, and Chen (2022). (See Introduction to this volume.) English-medium instruction (EMI) in Asian universities has been implemented in diverse sociolinguistic contexts (Bolton, 1992; Bolton & Botha, 2020). Many Asian countries were previously colonised and only began to prioritise their national languages as they gained independence after World War Two, leading to the promotion of Khmer in Cambodia, Bahasa Indonesia in Indonesia, Bahasa Malaysia in Malaysia, Filipino in the Philippines, and Vietnamese in Vietnam. Similarly, countries like China and Thailand, which were not formally colonised, also promoted their national languages, such as Putonghua and Thai, during the same period. In the post-independence era, English was strongly promoted in many Asian school systems, as in Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Singapore, where English is taught from Primary 1 onwards. In this context, it is also important to note that the Asian region is characterised by immense linguistic diversity multilingualism, and is home to several language families, including Austronesian, Austro-Asiatic, Dravidian, Indo-Aryan, Sino-Tibetan, and Tai-Kadai languages. Throughout the region, however, EMI in Asian societies has often been seen as problematic, as noted in various research studies (Kirkpatrick & Liddicoat, 2019).

337

DOI: 10.4324/9781003011644-29

Kingsley Bolton et al.

EMI in higher education in Outer Circle and Expanding Circle contexts One important feature of the sociolinguistics of English in the Asian region is the Kachruvian distinction between Outer and Expanding Circles. Here, the term ‘Outer Circle’ refers to the status and functions of English in former Anglophone colonies, where English continues to enjoy a measure of official recognition in such domains as government, law, and education. The term ‘Expanding Circle’ essentially refers to those Asian societies which were not colonised by English speakers, and where English has the societal status of a foreign language rather than a second language.

EMI in Outer Circle Asian universities As noted, Asian Outer Circle societies were previously colonies of Anglophone powers, usually Britain, with the notable exception of the Philippines which was a US colony from 1989 to 1946. In these societies, in the post-colonial period, English was typically retained for official purposes, in the domains of government, law, and education. Outer Circle societies include countries in South Asia, such as Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka; in Southeast Asia such as Brunei, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, and Singapore; and in East Asia, the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong. The use of English in higher education varies greatly in these countries, as a result of the rather different sociohistorical backgrounds and sociolinguistic realities that exist in each of these contexts. Table 25.1 (adapted from Bolton and Botha, 2020, pp. 154–157) summarises the status and functions of English-medium instruction (EMI) in higher education in Outer Circle Asian societies. Table 25.1  Current status and functions of EMI in higher education in Outer Circle Asian societies Country

Current status of EMI in higher education

Bangladesh

Government policy strongly favours the promotion of Bangla (the national language) in public institutions.  In public universities, Bangla is the dominant language in the humanities and social sciences, while English is used more widely in STEM subjects.  The leading university of the nation, the University of Brunei Darussalam (UBD) is a bilingual university, with both a Malay and an English stream.  At present, Englishmedium courses are predominantly favoured by students, although all Brunei students are functionally bilingual, and also take at least one Malay-medium compulsory course. EMI is still the norm at most publicly-funded universities, more than 25  years after the resumption of Chinese sovereignty, although one of the eight public universities is officially bilingual (the Chinese University of Hong Kong) and one trilingual (the Education University of Hong Kong). English is the dominant medium of instruction in higher education throughout most universities, and is particularly strong in STEM subjects at the nation’s leading universities, while Indian languages are also used within the humanities and social sciences in many tertiary institutions. Since independence in 1957, government language policy has promoted the national language, Bahasa Malaysia (Bahasa Melayu).  Many of the private universities use English, and, in recent decades, the government has permitted the increased use of EMI at the country’s leading public universities.

Brunei

Hong Kong

India

Malaysia

(Continued)

338

EMI in higher education across the Asian region Table 25.1 (Continued) Country

Current status of EMI in higher education

Myanmar

After the era of military rule from 1962  to 2011, the civilian government began to revitalise university education, and to re-introducing English as a teaching medium.  However, in 2020, the military government regained power, and currently the future of higher education is highly uncertain. Reports indicate that a ‘mixed-mode’ of language instruction tends to be the norm at most universities, with English-language textbooks, together with spoken instruction in Nepali and other languages. Most universities in Pakistan use English as the main medium of instruction, although this policy has been widely challenged in recent decades.  There have been mixed official messages concerning language policies, although the government currently recognises the utility of English in higher education.  English is largely unchallenged as the dominant medium of instruction for engineering, science, and professional subjects, although Filipino and other Philippine languages are used in some of the humanities and social science subjects.  Otherwise, code-mixing and code-switching are also widely practised throughout tertiary institutions. English is the official medium of instruction for higher education in all tertiary institutions, and this EMI policy is consistently enforced in higher education, as well as throughout primary and secondary education. After the independence of Ceylon in 1948, the government strongly supported Sinhala as a national language, although Tamil was recognised as an official language in 1978.  Today, English is also widely used at Sri Lankan universities, particularly for the teaching of such subjects as engineering, law, medicine, and science. 

Nepal Pakistan

Philippines

Singapore Sri Lanka

Adapted from Bolton and Botha (2020, pp. 154–155).

EMI in Expanding Circle Asian universities Expanding Circle countries are typically those where English is considered a foreign language rather than a second language, and, generally, the use of English in these universities tends to be less widespread than in Outer Circle contexts. Despite this, the extent of EMI and the realities of its implementation vary greatly depending on the particular context (as can be seen from the various contributions in the Asian section of this volume). Expanding Circle Asian countries include Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Macau, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. Three of these societies, Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam, were formerly French colonies but are now members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), as are Indonesia (formerly a colony of the Netherlands) and Thailand. Since 2009, ASEAN has used English as its official working language (Kirkpatrick, 2012).

The dynamics of EMI in Asian universities As illustrated in Tables 25.1 and 25.2, the status and functions of EMI in higher education vary considerably throughout the Asian region. At a regional level, the drivers of EMI in Asian universities include at least five major factors, (i) the predominance of English as the international language of science and technology; (ii) the importance of English in the world’s research journals; (iii) the reputation of US, UK, Canadian, and Australasian universities, and the prestige of EMI universities elsewhere (as in Singapore); (iv) the importance of English as the lingua franca of the 339

Kingsley Bolton et al. Table 25.2  Current status and functions of EMI in higher education in Expanding Circle Asian societies Country

Current status of EMI in higher education

Cambodia

In recent decades, English has become recognised as a ‘first foreign language’, and has largely displaced French as a language of wider communication in Cambodian universities.  EMI education has now been established for a range of subjects at leading universities in the country.  Putonghua is the default language of instruction at all public universities in China, but, since the early 2000s, various Chinese universities have established English-medium programmes.  One motivation for these has been to attract foreign students to study subjects such as business, engineering, and medicine in China.  Currently, a number of private universities in the country are running English-medium programmes, although the official policy of the government has been to maintain and promote the use of Bahasa Indonesia as the main language of instruction in all public universities.  Despite a number of government initiatives to promote English-medium education in Japan, a number of studies have reported on wide-ranging problems associated with the adoption of EMI courses.  Many EMI programmes are reportedly aimed at attracting foreign students, rather than providing an international education for Japanese students. At present, EMI education has not gained a major foothold in the Lao PDR, where the language policy of the government is largely focussed on the promotion of the Lao language.  English is taught as a foreign language at the National University of Laos.  The two leading universities in Macau both claim to teach through English, although recent research has shown that in at least one of these institutions, a great deal of Chinese is used instead of English.  In recent decades, the government has encouraged EMI programmes at South Korean universities, which are now well-established at a number of leading universities.  In part, this has been driven by the desire of Korean universities to excel in international rankings, but the implementation of such programmes has been problematised by various studies in recent years. For a number of years, the Taiwan government encouraged universities to recruit more international students.  More recently, the government is also actively promoting EMI for Taiwanese students, in order to promote Chinese-English bilingualism in the society. A number of leading Thai universities are now offering ‘international’ English-medium programmes, aimed mainly at Thai students wishing to gain an international education, and to increase their opportunities in the employment market.  In recent years, there have been various schemes to promote English-medium education in various institutions, and for Vietnamese universities to form joint ventures with foreign universities.  However, the results of these initiatives have often been seen as problematic.

China

Indonesia

Japan

Laos Macau South Korea

Taiwan Thailand Vietnam

Adapted from Bolton and Botha (2020, pp. 156–157).

international business world, and of such organisations as the ASEAN, UN, and UNESCO; and (v) university ranking systems, including the Times Higher Education (THE) and Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) rankings. The impact of such ranking systems may often be somewhat exaggerated, but in the context of Asian EMI, it is useful to note the difference between those universities enjoying an elite position in international rankings compared to those who do not. In this context, it is useful to examine the latest rankings for the ‘top twenty’ Asian universities listed in the THE and QS ranking tables, which are presented in Table 25.3. 340

EMI in higher education across the Asian region Table 25.3  The ‘top twenty’ Asian universities: THE versus QS Asian university rankings compared University

THE 2022

QS 2022a

Country

Tsinghua University Peking University National University of Singapore The University of Hong Kong Nanyang Technological University, Singapore The University of Tokyo Chinese University of Hong Kong Seoul National University Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Fudan University Zhejiang University Kyoto University Shanghai Jiao Tong University Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) Hong Kong Polytechnic University University of Science and Technology of China Nanjing University Sungkyunkwan University (SKKU) Southern University of Science and Technology (SUSTech) Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST) Universiti Malaya Korea University Yonsei University National Taiwan University (NTU) Tokyo Institute of Technology (TIOT)

 1  2  3  4  5

 3  1  2  4  5

China China Singapore Hong Kong Singapore

 6  7  8  9

11 12= 17 14

Japan Hong Kong South Korea Hong Kong

10 11 12 13 14

 6=  6= 16 10  8

China China Japan China South Korea

15 16

– –

Hong Kong China

17 18 19

– 18 –

China South Korea China

20

–

South Korea

– – – – –

 9 15 12= 19 20

Malaysia South Korea South Korea Taiwan Japan

The = symbol indicates a tied ranking.

a

With reference to the data from the five case studies discussed later in this chapter (from Cambodia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore, and South Korea), it is useful to note that two of the six universities in the Singapore case study are listed in Table 25.3 (three and five in THE), as are all four of the South Korean universities (8 and 14 in THE, 12 = and 15 in QS). The picture for the other three contexts, Cambodia, Indonesia, and the Philippines, is more complex. For Cambodia, no universities are currently ranked, but the Royal University of Phnom Penh (RUPP) is generally recognised as one of the top universities in Cambodia (Kunneth, 2019). In the case of the Philippines, Ateneo de Manila University is currently not listed among the leading 100 Asian universities by both systems cited in Table 25.3, but it has recently been recognised as the best university in the Philippines by THE (Mendoza, 2022). Similarly, with reference to Indonesia, BINUS is not recognised by the THE and QS as one of the top universities in Asia, but, has nevertheless been 341

Kingsley Bolton et al.

recognised by another ranking organisation as the top private university, not only in Indonesia, but in the whole of the ASEAN region (BINUS, 2023). Thus, while the Singaporean and South Korean universities all have high international rankings, those from Cambodia, Indonesia, and the Philippines do not have the same international recognition, but, despite this, enjoy high prestige within the domestic context in each of these three countries.

Comparative data from five case studies Here, we present data from case studies dealing with EMI in higher education in five very different contexts. Four of these studies have been discussed previously in earlier articles on this topic, including Lin, Bolton, Bacon-Shone, and Khan (2023) dealing with Cambodia; Bolton, Hill, Bacon-Shone, and Peyronnin (2023) on Indonesia; Botha, Bolton, and Bacon-Shone (2023) on Singapore; and Bolton, Ahn, Botha, and Bacon-Shone (2023) on South Korea. The fifth study contributing data here is that of Bolton and Martin (2024) on EMI at Ateneo de Manila University in the Philippines. The comparisons that we present are based on the systematic analysis of quantitative surveys (using very similar questionnaires) of undergraduate students in these five countries, where a total of 4,135 students responded in these surveys. In the case of Cambodia, Indonesia, and the Philippines, empirical data was collected from only one university in each context: the Royal University of Phnom Penh (RUPP), BINUS University in Jakarta, and Ateneo de Manila University in the Philippines. In Singapore, data were collected from the six major universities, while in South Korea, data were compiled from four leading universities, as previously mentioned. The results presented thus cite composite data from Singapore and South Korea. In these results, we compared data on EMI in higher education in Cambodia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore and South Korea, with reference to 11 variables. These are: (1) The number of languages spoken at home; (2) whether students spoke English at home; (3) the proportion of lectures that were given to students in English; (4) how often students wrote academic essays in English; (5) whether students asked professors questions outside the classroom in English; (6) whether students used English to discuss with other students; (7) how often students used English when they socialised with other people; (8) whether students mixed languages when talking to professors; (9) the perceived proficiency of students’ English; (10) students’ stated need to improve their English; and (11) students’ identification of the language skill needing most improvement.1 Figure 25.1 depicts the results on the number of languages spoken at home by undergraduates, with results that clearly reflect the extent of multilingualism in the five societies, with the highest rates of multilingualism in Singapore, Indonesia and the Philippines, and rather limited multilingualism in the home domain in South Korea. Figure 25.2 presents the results for English spoken at home, where, remarkably, 81% of the Philippine students and 71% of the Singapore students reported the use of English in the home domain, with much smaller totals for Indonesia, Cambodia, and Korea. Figure 25.3 illustrates the results for self-rating of proficiency. The Singapore students rated themselves highest, closely followed by students from the Philippines, with lower totals for Indonesia, South Korea, and Cambodia. Figure 25.4 presents results related to the proportion of lectures delivered in English in the five settings, with Singapore showing close to universal English use, high rates for South Korea, the Philippines, and Indonesia, and only about half for Cambodia. Note that the results presented in Figure 25.4, and for all figures in this chapter, are from students enrolled in English-medium programmes in their respective universities. While all courses in Singapore (apart from a few designated language courses) are de jure and de facto English medium, 342

EMI in higher education across the Asian region

100%

Number of languages spoken at home

98%

82%

80%

57%

60% 40%

30% 17%

20% 0%

48%

2% 0% South Korea

46%

39%

34% 20%

13%

12% 1%

Cambodia

Indonesia 1

2

Singapore

Philippines

3 and more

Figure 25.1  Number of languages spoken at home.

English spoken at home 100% 80%

71%

81%

60% 40%

27% 16%

20% 2% 0%

South Korea

Cambodia

Indonesia

Singapore

Philippines

Figure 25.2  English spoken at home.

Self-rated proficiency in English ('Very well/Well') 100% 80%

86%

87%

Philippines

Singapore

67%

60% 37%

40% 22% 20% 0%

Cambodia

South Korea

Indonesia

Figure 25.3  Self-rated proficiency in English.

343

Kingsley Bolton et al. Proportion of lectures in English 100%

99%

87%

88%

89%

Philippines

Indonesia

South Korea

80% 60%

53%

40% 20% 0%

Cambodia

Singapore

Figure 25.4  Proportion of undergraduate lectures in English.2

and English is overwhelmingly dominant at the Philippine university, the students from Cambodia, Indonesia, and South Korea were from that subset of students who were enrolled in EMI courses. Thus, for those latter three countries, the percentages in Figure 25.4 refer specifically to the subsets of EMI students in the three settings, not to the undergraduate body as a whole. Figure 25.5 illustrates the extent to which whether students are required to write academic essays, with more than half of Indonesian EMI, Philippine, and Singapore students reporting they write essays in English ‘very often’, with less than a third in Cambodia, and South Korea. Figure 25.6 charts the responses of students to the question of using English to ask professors questions outside the classroom, which was most frequent in the Indonesian, Philippine, and Singaporean context, less common in South Korea and rare in Cambodia. Figure 25.7 presents the results to the question which asked students how often they used English to discuss matters with other students. Here, it is evident that Philippine and Singapore students were much more likely to use English when talking to classmates or other students with around half reporting that they used English very often, but less than a quarter reporting this in the other countries. Figure 25.8 shows that more than half of the Philippine and Singaporean students used English ‘Very often’ when socialising with other students, compared to a quarter of the Indonesian students surveyed, and very few Cambodian or South Korean students. Figure 25.9 illustrates the results for language mixing in conversation with professors. The question asked the respondents ‘How often do other students mix languages when they are communicating with the professors?’. Here, it is very evident that in South Korea there is a relatively high frequency of language mixing, followed by somewhat lower totals for the Philippines, Indonesia, Cambodia, and Singapore. Interestingly, given the characteristics of the various undergraduate populations at these universities, one would infer that different motivations might apply at each of these universities explaining levels of language mixing. For example, in South Korea, language mixing may well be motivated by the needs of students for whom English is essentially a foreign language, whereas at Ateneo de Manila University in the Philippines, where many students claim English as a mother tongue, language mixing (typically in the form of ‘Taglish’, English mixed with Tagalog) may be the expression of a balanced command of both languages, or even the reflection of bilingual dominance in English (Bolton & Martin, 2024).

344

EMI in higher education across the Asian region Writing academic essays in English (‘Very of ten’) 100%

87%

80% 56%

60% 40%

26%

63%

33%

20% 0%

South Korea

Cambodia

Singapore

Indonesia

Philippines

Figure 25.5  Writing academic essays in English (‘Very often’).

Asking professors questions in English outside the classroom ('Very often') 60%

51%

50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

20%

22%

Singapore

Indonesia

13% 5% Cambodia

South Korea

Philippines

Figure 25.6  Using English to ask professors questions outside the classroom.

Discussing in English with other students ('Very of ten') 60%

55% 48%

50% 40% 30% 20%

22% 12%

16%

10% 0%

Cambodia

South Korea

Indonesia

Singapore

Figure 25.7  Discussing in English with other students inside the classroom.

345

Philippines

Kingsley Bolton et al.

South Korea

4% 5%

Cambodia

11%

9%

48%

25%

19%

Indonesia

32%

28%

Philippines

22%

Singapore

10% 20% 30% 40% Very oen About half the me

14%

18%

32%

59% 0%

24%

28%

50%

7%

24% 50% 60% 70% 80% Somemes Rarely Never NA

2%

3%2%

14%

4%0% 0%

13%

4% 1%

90%

100%

Figure 25.8  Socialising in English with other students.

Other students mixing languages with the professors ('Always'/'Very often') 60% 50%

50% 40%

34%

30% 20%

15%

19%

20%

Cambodia

Indonesia

10% 0%

Singapore

Philippines

South Korea

Figure 25.9  Other students mixing languages with the professors.

Figure 25.10 outlines the results for students’ rating of the proficiency of other students in their institutions, with the Philippines ranking highest in terms of both spoken and written English, followed by Singapore, Indonesia, South Korea, and Cambodia. Figure 25.11 concerns students’ perceived needs for English improvement, with Cambodian and South Korean students expressing the greatest need, followed by Indonesia, the Philippines, and Singapore. Figure 25.12 presents results concerning specifically which skill is believed to need the most improvement in the five countries. About a third of Singaporean and Indonesian students state that they need most help with writing, and about a third to half of students in all five countries report needing most help with speaking. Whether the results in Figure 25.12 can be generalised to the wider academic communities in each location may be debatable given the particular characteristics of the students’ surveyed in these five different contexts (Bolton, Ahn, et al., 2023; Bolton, Hill et al., 2023; Bolton & Martin, 2024; Botha, Bolton, & Bacon-Shone, 2023; Lin et al., 2023).

346

EMI in higher education across the Asian region

Perceived proficiency in English of other students ('Very good'/'Good') 100%

91% 80%

80%

83%

61% 62%

60% 40%

77%

48% 50% 33%

29%

20% 0%

Cambodia

South Korea

Indonesia Spoken

Singapore

Philippines

Wrien

Figure 25.10  Perceived proficiency of other students’ English.

Self-perceived need to improve English ('Very much'/'A lot') 80%

69% 58%

60% 40% 20% 0%

32% 16%

17%

Singapore

Philippines

Indonesia

South Korea

Cambodia

Figure 25.11  Students’ self-perceived need to improve English.

Students in four of the countries were asked about their attitudes to EMI in higher education, and whether English should be used as the medium of instruction. This question was not put to students in Singapore for the reason that, since the early 1980s, English has been strictly enforced as the sole medium of education at all levels of education. The results outlined in Figure 25.13 indicate varying levels of agreement, with a sizeable majority of Philippine, Indonesian, and Cambodian students expressing clear approval of the adoption of EMI within their institutions, compared with a smaller majority of students from the four South Korean universities. Students in the three countries were also asked whether or not they enjoyed studying through the medium of English, and the results for this are compiled in Figure 25.14. The results illustrated in Figure 25.14 are somewhat similar to those of Figure 25.13 in terms of the rank ordering of responses. An overwhelming majority of students in the Philippines and Indonesia expressed high levels of enjoyment, compared with much smaller totals for Cambodia and South Korea.

347

Kingsley Bolton et al.

Philippines

7%

17%

Singapore

8%

16%

Indonesia

8%

51%

39%

10%

South Korea

10%

28%

12%

30% 0%

37%

54%

27%

Cambodia

26%

48%

16% 20%

30% Listening

13%

31%

40%

50%

Reading

60%

Speaking

23% 70%

80%

90%

Writing

Figure 25.12  Language skill that need the most improvement.

Attitudes of students towards EMI ('Strongly agree'/'Agree') 100%

89%

80% 60%

77%

71% 55%

40% 20% 0%

South Korea

Cambodia

Indonesia

Philippines

Figure 25.13  Attitudes of students towards EMI.

Level of enjoyment studying through English ('Very much'/'Quite a lot') 100%

85% 72%

80% 56%

60% 40%

35%

20% 0%

South Korea

Cambodia

Indonesia

Figure 25.14  Level of enjoyment studying through English.

348

Philippines

100%

EMI in higher education across the Asian region

Conclusion This chapter has attempted to achieve two main objectives, first, by providing an overview of the background to EMI across the whole of the Asian region, and second, by presenting a number of comparisons between findings on EMI in higher education in Cambodia, Indonesia, the Phillipines, Singapore, and South Korea. With reference to the first issue, the article has highlighted the differences between EMI in Outer Circle versus Expanding Circle Asian societies. In the first category of Outer Circle universities, one includes such contexts as Bangladesh, Brunei, Hong Kong, India, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, and Sri Lanka. The second category of Expanding Circle universities includes Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Macau, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. Given that Outer Circle countries are those which were previously Anglophone, it is generally true that, in such contexts, EMI has had a stronger historical presence, and is more widely established than in Expanding Circle countries, where English has traditionally been regarded as a foreign language. With reference to the second aim, which was to present comparative data from five Asian case studies, a number of such results have been discussed in this chapter, in relation to students’ use of English in the context of EMI education. These have included questions about the linguistic background of students, the proportion of lectures delivered in English, writing in English, the use of English to interact with professors and other students, socialising in English, mixing languages, their perceptions of their own linguistic proficiency, and their general attitudes to EMI at their universities. As noted earlier, EMI across the Asian region can take a number of very different forms. In the Singapore context, EMI education is strictly enforced by government edict at all levels of education. Elsewhere, some Asian universities adopt bilingual/multilingual approaches, where English dominates in lectures, and other languages are used for seminars and workshops, as evidenced in Cambodia and Korea. There are also settings where, in ‘parallel language’ fashion, English is the language of textbooks, but the national language, or a mixed variety dominates at the spoken level, as in Cambodia, and language mixing and switching (or ‘translanguaging’) practices are prominent in virtually all Asian higher education contexts. In addition to such educational and pedagogical issues, it is also important to be aware of the complex sociohistorical and sociolinguistic backgrounds to each of these Asian societies, the complexities of which are only revealed by a close reading and understanding of the history, sociology, and linguistic ecology of the region and individual societies, as evidenced by the chapters on EMI across Asia in this Handbook (dealing with Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Macau, Malaysia, Nepal, Singapore, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, and Vietnam). One conclusion that emerges from a close reading of such studies is that a deeper understanding of EMI in these contexts is only accessible through a detailed understanding of their sociolinguistic histories. For example, the dominance of English in Philippine universities can only be fully understood with reference to the nation’s complex colonial and post-colonial history and linguistic ecology; while understanding the Singapore case requires knowledge of how higher education was shaped by the guiding hand of its post-independence leader, Lee Kuan Yew. In Cambodia, enthusiasm for EMI developed in the post-Khmer Rouge era, when the country opened to the international world, while, in Indonesia, the government’s current EMI policies might be best understood as a balancing act in a highly-multilingual developing society and the world’s fourthmost populous nation. In contrast, South Korea’s adoption of EMI has been motivated by its development as an engineering and manufacturing powerhouse. The relationship between the various sociohistorical backgrounds of Asian societies and their diverse linguistic ecologies adds to the multilayered complexity of the sociolinguistics of the region. Thus, the dynamics of EMI in Asia, 349

Kingsley Bolton et al.

one would argue, are very different from those in most European (Expanding Circle) countries, where English is a foreign language, and mother tongue ideologies are dominant to a far higher degree than in an Asian region where complex patterns of multilingualism, language contact, and language hybridity have long been the sociolinguistic norm.

Notes 1 The total number of undergraduates surveyed in each country was as follows: Cambodia 799, Indonesia 459, Philippines 961, Singapore 1037, and South Korea 879. 2 Note that in the case of the Philippines, the questionnaire did not differentiate between ‘lectures’, ‘seminars’, and other forms of instruction, but simply referred to ‘classes’.

References Barnard, R., & Hasim, Z. (Eds.). (2018). English medium instruction programmes: Perspectives from South East Asian universities. Routledge. BINUS. (2023). BINUS University ranked #1 private university in ASEAN+ for 2023. Retrieved from https:// io.binus.ac.id/2023/02/23/binus-university-ranked-1-private-university-in-asean-for-2023-a-testamentof-commitment-to-excellence-in-higher-education/ Bolton, K. (1992). Sociolinguistics today: Asia and the West. In K. Bolton & H. Kwok (Eds.), Sociolinguistics today: International perspectives (pp. 5–66). Routledge. Bolton, K., Ahn, H., Botha, W., & Bacon-Shone, W. (2023). EMI (English-medium instruction) in South Korean elite universities. World Englishes, 42, 465–486. Bolton, K., Bacon-Shone, J., & Botha, W. (2023). EMI (English-medium instruction) across the Asian region. World Englishes, 42, 392–404. Bolton, K., & Botha, W. (2020). English in Asian universities. In K. Bolton, W. Botha, & A. Kirkpatrick (Eds.), The handbook of Asian Englishes (pp. 133–168). Wiley-Blackwell. Bolton, K., Botha, W., & Kirkpatrick, A. (Eds.). (2020). The handbook of Asian Englishes. Wiley-Blackwell. Bolton, K., Hill, C., Bacon-Shone, K., & Peyronnin, K. (2023). EMI (English-medium instruction) in Indonesian higher education. World Englishes, 42, 424–446. Bolton, K., & Martin, I. P. (2024). English-medium instruction at an elite Philippine university. Forthcoming. Botha, W., Bolton, K., & Bacon-Shone, J. (2023). EMI (English-medium instruction) in Singapore’s major universities. World Englishes, 42, 447–464. Bradford, A., & Brown, H. (Eds.). (2017). English-medium instruction in Japanese higher education: Policy, challenges and outcomes. Multilingual Matters. Fenton-Smith, B., Humphreys, P., & Walkinshaw, I. (Eds.). (2017). English medium instruction in higher education in Asia-Pacific. Springer. Han, J. (2022). English medium instruction as a local practice: Language, culture and pedagogy. Springer. Kirkpatrick, A. (2012). English in ASEAN: Implications for regional multilingualism. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33, 331–344. Kirkpatrick, A. K., & Liddicoat, A. J. (Eds.). (2019). The Routledge international handbook of language education policy in Asia. Routledge. Kojima, N. (2021). Student motivation in English-medium instruction: Empirical studies in a Japanese university. Routledge. Kunneth, S. (2019, February 8). RUPP, NIDIR sign partnership for diplomacy training. Khmer Times. Retrieved from https://www.khmertimeskh.com/50575992/rupp-nidir-sign-partnership-for-diplomacy-training/ Lin, B., Bolton, K., Bacon-Shone, J., & Khan, B. (2023). EMI (English-medium instruction) in Cambodian higher education. World Englishes. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12621 Macaro, E. (2018). English medium instruction: Content and language in policy and practice. Oxford University Press. Mendoza, J. E. (2022). Ateneo is top PH University in world ranking. Inquirer.net. Retrieved from https:// globalnation.inquirer.net/207736/ateneo-is-top-ph-university-in-world-ranking Pham, M., & Barnett, J. (Eds.). (2022). English medium instruction practices in Vietnamese universities: Institutional, practitioner and student perspectives. Springer.

350

EMI in higher education across the Asian region Quacquarelli Symonds (QS). (2022). QS Asia university rankings 2022. Retrieved from https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/asian-university-rankings/2022 Ruegg, R. (2021). Supporting EMI students outside of the classroom: Evidence from Japan. Routledge. Su, L. I.-w., Cheung, H., & Wu, J. R. W. (Eds.). (2021). Rethinking EMI: Multidisciplinary perspectives from Chinese-speaking regions. Routledge. Thi Quynh Huong, L., Hing, H. W. S., & Chen, S. (2022). Cultural interactions of English-medium instruction at Vietnamese universities: The western proposition by the eastern implementation. Springer. Times Higher Education (THE). (2022). Asia university rankings 2022. Retrieved from https://www. timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2022/regional-ranking Toh, G. (2016). English as medium of instruction in Japanese higher education: Presumption, mirage or bluff? Palgrave Macmillan. Tsou, W., & Baker, W. (Eds.). (2021). English-medium instruction translanguaging practices in Asia: Theories, framework and implementation in higher education. Springer. Zhao, J., & Dixon, L. Q. (Eds.). (2018). English-medium instruction in Chinese universities. Routledge.

351

26 ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN BANGLADESH M. Obaidul Hamid and Shaila Sultana

Introduction The development of English-medium instruction (EMI) in Bangladeshi higher education (HE) has reflected the global growth of EMI, which is influenced by globalisation, neoliberalism, and the internationalisation of education (Dang, Bonar, & Yao, 2023; Dearden, 2014; Macaro, 2021; Richards & Pun, 2023). Adopted during British colonial rule, EMI was subjected to postcolonial scrutiny resulting from linguistic nationalism in the early days of the nation’s independence. However, the postcolonial critique seems to have dissipated in today’s era of globalisation, when English has emerged as the international language of knowledge, science and technology, trade, commerce, and diplomacy globally. The current dominance of English in Bangladeshi higher education reflects the neoliberal principles of privatisation, commodification, and economisation of education (Ali & Hamid, 2021; Hamid & Rahman, 2019; Kabir & Chowdhury, 2021). In this neoliberal environment, EMI can be associated with questions of access, academic achievement, and future employment prospects for different groups of students (Al Amin & Hamid, 2023). Our aim in this chapter is to provide a critical overview of the policy and practice of EMI in higher education in Bangladesh from historical, social, sociolinguistic, and educational perspectives.

The sociolinguistic profile of Bangladesh The current sociolinguistic profile of Bangladesh is the outcome of a long period of political and socio-educational developments and struggles (Hamid & Hasan, 2020; Sultana & Roshid, 2021). Before the region came into contact with exogenous languages, local people mainly spoke different dialects of what was later established as ‘Standard Bangla’. The local linguistic ecology was first exposed exogenously to Arabic brought by Arab traders and Islamic preachers from the Arab world (Hamid & Ali, 2021). After the establishment of Muslim rule in the thirteenth century, Persian emerged as the official language (Eaton, 2019). European traders including the British East India Company later brought their own languages, which included English, Portuguese, and French. The East India Company took over the region from the Mughal rulers through the 1757 Battle of Plassey and established British colonial rule, hence entrenching the English language. At decolonisation in 1947 and the division of the colony into India and Pakistan, the current territory

DOI: 10.4324/9781003011644-30 352

English-medium instruction in higher education in Bangladesh

of Bangladesh became part of Pakistan and formed its eastern wing known as East Pakistan. Urdu was selected as a nation-building tool, and was expected to unite the provinces speaking different languages. Although the provinces in western Pakistan accepted Urdu in the lingua franca role, the people of East Pakistan demanded recognition for Bangla as well. Inspired by Bangla-centric nationalism, they broke away from Pakistan in 1971 and formed independent Bangladesh (Hamid & Hasan, 2020; Sultana & Roshid, 2021). Independence solidified the national and official status of Bangla, which was believed to have been subjected to discrimination during Pakistani rule. Not many people in Bangladesh spoke Urdu, and it came to be labelled ‘an enemy language’ (Hossen, 2021). The pursuit of a chauvinistic linguistic nationalism following independence also halted the spread of English in society, although it remained the main medium of higher education (Alam, 2011). Most notably, over three dozen minority communities were denied their own languages and identities, and were invited to assimilate into Bangla and Bengali identity (Rahman, 2010; Sultana, 2023a). Contemporary policies have recognised the linguistic diversity on the ground, although they still fall short of doing justice to different languages and communities. Much policy attention has been given to Bangla and English. Nonetheless, there are tensions between the two languages due to an imbalance in their functional distribution across domains. The languages of the minority communities have been officially recognised, with five of them accommodated in pre-primary and primary education. However, this inclusive gesture may be restricted to policy, without much practical significance. Arabic is recognised as a liturgical language, which is also taught as a subject and used as a co-medium of instruction for the religious stream known as madrasa education. However, the functional and instrumental potential of Arabic remains underutilised (Hamid & Ali, 2021).

The emergence of EMI in the Subcontinent and Bangladesh The starting point for any discussion of the medium of instruction policies in Bangladesh is essentially British colonial rule. Once India was established as a colony, the British rulers concentrated on the question of education for the natives as a way of consolidating their domination. What kind of education would be suitable for Indians emerged as a political, ideological, as well as practical question, giving rise to long debates between the Anglicists and the Orientalists. The Anglicists were in favour of English and western knowledge, as they believed that this education would contribute to the life and wellbeing of the natives. The Orientalists, on the other hand, argued for local knowledge through local languages, as they believed it was morally inappropriate for the colonisers to interfere into the life and culture of the Indians. However, with the acceptance of Macaulay’s 1835 Minute, which made a strong plea for English education, the debates came to an end, and victory for the Anglicist camp declared. The first university established in the current territory of Bangladesh during colonial rule was the University of Dhaka in 1921. It was officially an exclusively English-medium institution. Schools established by Christian missionaries also made a significant contribution to English language teaching and English-medium education (Alam, 2011). Primary education was available in local languages, although English was taught as a school subject. During the era when Bangladesh was part of Pakistan, tensions arose between the two wings of Pakistan about the deployment of Urdu as the state language, as previously noted. However, the role of English remained unquestioned (Alam, 2011; Husain, 1961). For example, following the University of Dhaka as a model, all three public universities established in East Pakistan (Rajshahi University in 1953; Bangladesh Agricultural University in 1961; and the University of Chittagong

353

M. Obaidul Hamid and Shaila Sultana

in 1966) adopted English as the sole official medium of instruction. After gaining independence in 1971, although English was retained in education on historical grounds, Bangla was set to replace English in all walks of life including higher education. Thus, at the policy level, Bangla was accommodated as a medium of instruction as an expression of linguistic nationalism. However, this status enhancement of Bangla might not have done much to dethrone English from its dominant position. Therefore, a new law called Compulsory Bengali Introduction Act, 1987 was introduced during Bangladesh’s period of the military rule (1982–1990) to reinforce the use of Bangla in all sectors (Hamid & Rahman, 2019). The return to democracy in the early 1990s brought some significant policy reforms, which reinstated English. The first step was the introduction of English as a compulsory subject from the first grade of the national curriculum. The Government also introduced the Private University Act, 1992 that paved the way for establishing private universities. This landmark policy has changed the higher education landscape in the past three decades. The number of such universities has grown exponentially over the years and has now exceeded the number of public universities (110 against 48). There are more students now attending private universities than public universities. Although private universities are neoliberal entities, the argument for privatising higher education also exploited educational as well as nationalist arguments (Hamid & Baldauf, 2014; Hamid & Rahman, 2019; Kabir & Chowdhury, 2021). Educationally, opening the market was presented as an imperative to meet the growing demand for higher education in the face of the limited capacity of public institutions. In terms of national interest, it was asserted that the opportunity for private higher education would stop the outbound flow of students to neighbouring countries, which would also stop the outflow of capital (Salahuddin, Akbar, Hamid, & Islam, 2009). Considering the exponential growth of the sector in the past three decades, it can be concluded that some of these goals may have been achieved, at least to some extent.

Official policies on EMI in higher education Although the Private University Act did not stipulate any language as a medium of instruction for private universities, all of them have selected English as the only official medium for teaching and learning. Some universities have even introduced English as the campus language (Hamid, Jahan, & Islam, 2013; Rahman, Singh, & Karim, 2020). Although establishing a private university can be seen as a micro-level initiative by edu-entrepreneurs, the choice of EMI across the board reflects what is called the ‘macro-isation’ of micro-level policy (Hamid & Baldauf, 2014). This suggests the influence of neoliberal capital, as English is widely believed to ensure a higher level of capital for all parties, including students (Khan & Sultana, 2021). The unambiguous choice of English in the private sector needs to be contrasted with the more complex medium of instruction (MOI) policy in the public sector. Although the 1987 Bengali Introduction Law tried to ensure the use of Bangla everywhere, it was unclear whether education also fell within the scope of the law. In the absence of policy clarity, public sector universities have followed mixed practices, which nonetheless have exhibited some patterns. Both English and Bangla are available for teaching and learning, although the extent of the use of the two languages depends on the university, discipline, and academics’ own language strengths (see the next section for details). This flexible MOI for public universities was endorsed by the 2010 national education policy, which spelt out that both English and Bangla would be used as the medium of instruction (Ministry of Education, 2010). The absence of further details on the policy leaves many questions unanswered, which are probably to be addressed by individual universities.

354

English-medium instruction in higher education in Bangladesh

EMI across higher education institutions Generating EMI data from higher education institutions is challenging given the diversity of institutions across public and private sectors, the nature of policy, and policy-practice gaps. All private universities (110) are officially English medium, as previously noted, and therefore their academic programmes are expected to be conducted in English. Although teachers and students may rely on Bangla for some activities, these should be seen as exceptions to the general rule. EMI data for public universities (48) are even more difficult to generate. Officially, public higher education institutions are allowed to use both Bangla and English for teaching and learning purposes. The patterns that have been reported in previous studies suggest that specialist universities such as medical, engineering, and technology mainly operate through English, although Bangla may be also used, where appropriate (Hamid & Al Amin, 2022). The dominance of English in these universities may be explained by the unavailability of academic resources in Bangla. For non-specialist universities, there is an MOI divide between disciplines. For example, hard sciences and business disciplines rely mainly on English, while humanities and social sciences have been found to use Bangla as well as English. Medical and dental education is provided by five medical universities, 115 medical colleges, and 35 dental colleges in the public and private sectors. English is expected to be the primary language of their academic activity, although there may be greater use of Bangla in the institutions located outside the capital city. Textile and fashion-design education has a high demand in the country given that Bangladesh is one of the largest exporters of readymade garments (Roshid, 2014). There is one textile university, 11 textile colleges, and eight technical institutes, which are located in different parts of the country. Although English is the main medium of education in these institutions, the use of Bangla may be more notable here than in medical and dental colleges given that graduates are expected to work in the local garment industry. Similar patterns of English and Bangla use can be noted in agricultural colleges. Teacher education colleges, on other hand, are Bangla-dominant. Tertiary institutions in the madrasa sector mainly use Bangla and Arabic, although English is taught as a compulsory subject for the madrasa equivalent of the Year 1–12 national curricula. Table 26.1 provides a summary of MOI across tertiary institutions in the public and private sectors. Motivations for the use of EMI vary across public and private sectors. In the former, EMI bears the colonial legacy. If EMI was introduced based on the Anglicist view that oriental knowledge, including languages, was unworthy of academic study, the continuation of EMI in the postcolonial era may reflect the perceived inadequacy of learning through Bangla. EMI in the private sector can be considered a neoliberal intervention with instrumentalist rather than nationalist arguments. As opposed to the top-down nature of MOI in the public sector, EMI in private higher education is a local entrepreneurial initiative, which is expected to facilitate the internationalisation of education and boost the ranking of universities. Learning through the global academic lingua franca is expected to enable students to enhance English language proficiency and prepare for local and global employment. Given the widely perceived relationship between English and human capital (Ali & Hamid, 2021), it is believed that graduates can be better prepared through EMI for the world of work. English is also expected to ensure global mobility of students, as they can transfer to higher education institutions overseas. Finally, English serves as a key marketing strategy for private universities, as they compete with public universities for local students. Like the varying motivations for EMI, stakeholders’ attitudes are also varied and mixed. In the public sector, there are prevailing perceptions that EMI undermines the potential of Bangla, although such perceptions may not necessarily deny the value of English (Karim, Kabilan, Ahmed,

355

M. Obaidul Hamid and Shaila Sultana Table 26.1  Medium of instruction across higher education institutions in public and private sectors Type of tertiary institutions

Public

Private

MOI (EMI and BMI)

General universities

15

96

Medical university and colleges Dental colleges Science and technology universities Engineering university Textile university, college, and institute

5 (universities), 37 (colleges) 9 14

78 (colleges)

EMI/BMI (public); EMI (private) EMIa

26 11

EMI EMI

– 4 (colleges)

EMI EMI

– –

EMIb EMIc

3 108

EMI Not available

1,237d (Fazil and Kamil madrasas)

BMI and AMIe

Maritime university Agriculture university and colleges International university Tertiary teacher education colleagues Tertiary institutions in the religious education sector

5 1 (university), 7 (colleges), 8 (institutes) 1 6 15 3

https://bsmmu.edu.bd/storage/app/public/MD%20Curriculum%20Phase-A&B/MD%20Pathology%20curriculum%20Phase-A.pdf. b  Role of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Maritime University | The Daily Star. c  https://www.bau.edu.bd/public/images/tender_event/faculty/Undergraduate_Ordinance1.pdf. d  https://banbeis.portal.gov.bd/sites/default/files/files/banbeis.portal.gov.bd/page/5041a53f_6265_ 42cf_ a92d_b6 33516ac9e0/LIST%20OF%20MADRSHA.pdf. e  Bangla and Arabic as a medium of instruction, respectively.

a

Reshmin, & Rahman, 2021). These perceptions may not exist in the private sector where EMI seems to have gained social legitimacy. Students’ experiences of learning through English have received little research attention in the public sector probably because they are allowed to utilise their linguistic ability in Bangla as well. Officially, no public university in Bangladesh is English medium, even if all academic activities are conducted mainly in English. This means that public universities cannot demand specific levels of English proficiency from students at the time of admission. However, students must sit the entrance test to qualify for a place. The test usually includes content related to the field of study and English (as well as Bangla for non-specialist universities). Secondly, Bangla is not excluded even if teaching and learning may be conducted mainly in English. However, the nature and the extent of the use of English and Bangla in public universities is unpredictable, as it is mediated by individual academics, students and specific departments within the university. By contrast, universities in the private sector provide a less complex picture, as EMI has given uniformity to the whole sector. Students’ English language proficiency is a critical factor for admission to private universities (Al Amin & Hamid, 2023). This is assessed by an admission test taken by incoming students, who are not required to submit language proficiency

356

English-medium instruction in higher education in Bangladesh

certificates for any global tests of English. Undergraduate students in both types of universities receive English language support during their studies. However, the support is more systematic and comprehensive in private universities, compared to public universities. For example, it is common for students in private universities to receive skills training with an emphasis on speaking and presentation, academic reading, and writing. Language support in public universities is more general in nature, without explicit links to the language demand of their fields of study or professions.

Official policy versus practice in EMI The divergence between official EMI policies and practices is unsurprising both within and across the public and private sectors. The Government’s policy statement about MOI was included in the national education policy no earlier than 2010 (Ministry of Education, 2010) and lacks details in terms of guidelines for its implementation. For private universities, EMI emerged from individual institutions, as previously noted, rather than from national policy. Therefore, EMI in both sectors can be considered practice-heavy and policy-thin. Neither policies nor practices of EMI make any reference to specific models of EMI such as the pre-programme selection model, the concurrent institutional support model, the preparatory year model, or the multilingual model in relation to language support for EMI students (Macaro, 2021). However, the concurrent institutional support model may underpin practices in many universities. One notable feature of EMI in Bangladeshi higher education is the absence of parallel programmes in English and Bangla, which can be found in many other higher education systems (Nguyen, Hamid, & Moni, 2016). Private higher education is unambiguous about EMI, as the policy is reflected in the university mission statements, prospectuses of programmes, statements in the graduation scroll as well as their language programmes, compulsory foundational English courses, admission requirements, textbooks, exam papers, teachers’ recruitment advertisements, and language use policy on campus (Rahman, Singh, Johan, & Ahmed, 2020; Sultana, 2023b). By contrast, public higher education institutions seem to express ambiguity about EMI, arguably under the influence of nationalism and nationalistic discourses (Hamid & Rahman, 2019). The University Grants Commission (UGC), the apex body overseeing higher education in Bangladesh, seems least concerned with the question of the MOI. For example, Mannan (2020), the former UGC Chairman, observed that the MOI should be a matter for pre-tertiary education, which should develop students’ competence in both Bangla and English. He also noted that the UGC had introduced two compulsory subjects for all universities, namely Bangla Language and Literature and Bangladesh Studies, with a specific focus on the history of Bangladesh. This topdown policy intervention suggests that the UGC was more concerned about students’ knowledge of the Bangla language and literature, and the history of the nation, eschewing any responsibility for EMI. Azam (2020) referred to the 20-year UGC strategic plan, which, he argues, tactfully omitted the question of the MOI in higher education. For him, the omission was an implicit endorsement of English. It is to be noted that language use on the ground seems to differ from policy prescriptions and expectations. Even though all private universities direct students to use English everywhere on campus, including even in the lift and cafeteria, they usually do not speak English with their peers or administrative staff. Complex concepts in many subject areas often require explanations in Bangla, which can facilitate comprehension and learning for Bangla-medium students. Some students write their class-notes in Bangla to make sense of key terms and concepts and translate

357

M. Obaidul Hamid and Shaila Sultana

them into English later (Sultana, 2023b). Teachers are also not entirely reliant on EMI. As Rahman, Singh, Johan et al. (2020, p. 74) noted, ‘EMI in practice has been largely abandoned due to linguistic challenges that the students and, to a lesser degree, the teachers have been facing’. This suggests that EMI may not be practised to the extent it is expected by university authorities.

The effectiveness of EMI in higher education Based on our experience of teaching and findings from available research, EMI practices generally fall short of realising the goals in relation to academic content, construction of knowledge, and language learning. If English proficiency of students and academics is a catalyst for positive EMI outcomes (Dang et al., 2023), it may be difficult to be optimistic about EMI and the associated opportunity cost. On the same grounds, how effective EMI is may depend on students’ previous schooling – whether they went to English-medium or Bangla-medium schools (Al Amin & Hamid, 2023; Sultana, 2014). Students from Bangla-medium schools are reported to experience stress and anxiety and to be spatially peripheralised, as they are suddenly introduced to EMI in the urbanised environment of private higher education after 12 years of education in Bangla. Their psychological and spatial segregation is augmented by other social dynamics, such as educational, social, economic, and cultural constraints (Sultana, 2018, 2021). EMI seems to produce undesirable social and socio-cultural outcomes. For example, it plays a significant role in social stratification (Al Amin & Hamid, 2023), recreating the social hierarchies that have prevailed in society since the colonial era. Students from English-medium schools are reported to become more attached to English and western culture; they tend to approximate western lifestyles and become somewhat disrespectful of local languages and culture (Jahan & Hamid, 2019; Sultana, 2021). The division between the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ (Sultana, 2019), ‘civilized’ and ‘uncivilized’ (Sultana, 2016), and khaet/‘hick’ and fast (Sultana, 2021) based on English language competence is often perpetuated through EMI education. Thus, the EMI classroom often becomes a breeding space for class conflicts and social and psychological segregation (Sultana, 2020). Students have been found to struggle with linguistic difficulties as they are required to learn and construct knowledge in English. They neither develop full competence in English; nor do they excel in academic knowledge. Similar to students reported in other contexts (Dang et al., 2023), students often do not understand lectures or course readings in English. They also find assignment writing and doing presentations in English extremely challenging, as they have no experience of this kind of assessment in schools. Teachers need to translate the content into Bangla from different English textbooks to ensure students’ cognitive engagement with the content. Sometimes teachers themselves struggle in the process, as they are not familiar with equivalent Bangla terms and vocabulary. As a result, students may not develop discipline-specific language abilities. Therefore, EMI cuts students both ways (Sultana, 2023b), creating ‘double losses’ in place of ‘double gains’ (Hamid, Jahan et al., 2013). It can be suggested that EMI encourages students to use ineffective learning strategies that hinder the development of their cognitive and critical abilities. Since students do not optimally comprehend lectures in English and English textbooks, they depend on rote memorisation. In addition, students use PowerPoint slides or rudimentary notes as the main sources of reference for their study. Sultana (2023b) reports that some students may manage to graduate from universities without studying any textbook in their entire undergraduate programme. The consequence can be seen as alarming for both students and higher education. Students may consider securing grades as the only purpose of higher education, without regard for acquiring essential knowledge of the

358

English-medium instruction in higher education in Bangladesh

specific discipline. Consequently, they may not be able to use the knowledge purposively in their life (Bhattacharja, 2020; Rahman, Singh, Johan et al., 2020; Sultana, 2023b). Bhattacharja (2020) is of the view that EMI fails to turn Bangladeshi students into bilinguals; they become ordhobhashee (‘semi-linguals’) instead. With their ‘semi-lingual’ ability, they remain incapable of developing knowledge and eventually become ordhoshikhhito (‘half-educated’). They suffer from a sense of deprivation and lack inventiveness and creativity. Many EMI teachers themselves struggle to contribute to academia, as they do not have the academic or linguistic capabilities required (Alam, 2020). Many of them are incapable of writing books and journal articles in Bangla (Khan, 2020). Khan (2020) concurs with Bhattacharja (2020) in noting that preoccupation with English does not enable students and teachers to develop competence either in English or in Bangla. Similar EMI consequences have been noted in other Asian nations including Pakistan (Mahboob, 2017), China (Flowerdew, Miller, & Di, 2000), and Nepal (Sah, 2020).

The limitations of EMI Perhaps the most notable limitation of EMI in Bangladesh, as elsewhere, is the exclusive focus on English and linguistic inflexibility. From one point of view, EMI may appear ridiculous as it demands suspension of students’ dominant language, forcing them to operate in a language in which different students may have different levels of functional ability. EMI is also a case of policy without planning, which means it is unclear how the dual goals of content learning and language proficiency enhancement can be achieved without credible language management work (Jones, 2014). Underlying EMI is a questionable assumption that mere exposure to a so-called English language environment will support students’ language proficiency development which, in turn, will be the basis for content learning. Such in-built weaknesses of EMI are manifested in the local setting, affecting its effectiveness previously discussed. The implementation of EMI seems to be affected by distinctly polarised values, beliefs, and ideologies in public and private higher education, which may impact students differently. Rahman, Singh, and Karim (2020) observed that EMI was implemented differently in public and private higher education in Bangladesh (Rahman & Singh, 2020). Many teachers in public higher education are inspired by the ethos of nationalism and consider Bangla-medium instruction as a way to show respect to the language martyrs and freedom fighters of the 1971 liberation war. They also believe that subjects in social sciences require students’ critical engagement for them to become informed citizens. By contrast, many teachers in private higher education show preferences for EMI. They believe that EMI prepares students with adequate communicative ability for the local and global job market. They do not see any conflicts between English as the academic lingua franca and Bangla as the national language. Under the influence of neoliberalism, EMI in Bangladesh has subscribed to a commodified view of education and language, which is expected to transform students into human capital. English is considered a language of ‘profit’, a resource necessary to access the market (Duchêne & Heller, 2012). This excessive emphasis on linguistic instrumentalism may affect the teaching and learning of English as well as EMI, as it may not invite students’ genuine commitment to English or learning through English. Providing language support to students in the first year of their academic studies may be a way of addressing students’ English proficiency needs. Although the private universities offer multiple foundational English courses to prepare students for EMI, the effectiveness of these courses in meeting the goal has not been verified. However, the purpose of the English courses may seem self-defeating in that while they attempt to make students linguistically competent, they are also expected to be technically skilled ‘human capital’. This is an 359

M. Obaidul Hamid and Shaila Sultana

implicit expression of a curricular ambition that is hard to meet given the nature and context of teaching, which may utilise limited theoretical, pedagogical, and environmental support. The language development goal of EMI in Bangladesh can be said to be assigned to the English language immersion created in the EMI class taught by content teachers. While students are indeed exposed to content input in English, the extent to which this exposure is sufficient for language learning needs substantiation. Much depends on the role of the teacher and the extent to which they incorporate the language focus into the instructional material and classroom interaction. Research from other EMI contexts suggests that content teachers are reluctant to enact the ‘surrogate’ English teacher role in pursuing the content agenda in their teaching (Toh, 2014).

Conclusion There has been a growing demand for EMI in non-English-speaking countries across the world, including Asia. Although EMI outcomes in Bangladesh appear mixed at best, its popularity is unlikely to decline in the near future. The collective linguistic ideologies that institutions and individuals share about the instrumental value of English as an international language, the economic promises of learning English, and its significance as a lingua academia are expected to be reinforced by neoliberal agendas. EMI may also further divide the nation because of the clear MOI divide between the private and public sectors. It is also likely that normative monolingual ideologies and biases will prevail for years to come. Rahman, Singh, Johan et al. (2020), hence, have raised concerns about the consequences of EMI practices. In order to minimise the influence of monolingual ideologies, it is important to explore various issues in relation to EMI including admission requirements, teacher qualifications and professional development, curriculum content, pedagogic practices, teaching methods, and programme evaluation (Rahman, Singh, Johan et al.,2020). The first step should be to effect changes in language-ineducation policies with specific attention being given to the quality of language education (Bangla, English, and other indigenous languages), language and literacy support for both students and teachers, and infrastructural support at the primary and secondary levels of education. Students at school need to be prepared for higher education with advanced literacy in English and their mother tongues, so that they can use various forms of linguistic and cultural resources to enhance their learning. By changing the policy mindset, constructive steps must be taken to de-eliticise English (Khan, 2020; Khan & Sultana, 2021). English, Bangla, and other languages should be made complementary to each other in language-in-education policies. This complementarity can only be achieved by the promotion of Bangla as a lingua academia in higher education, and the inclusion of other foreign languages, such as Japanese, Korean, and Chinese in higher education. In order to take advantage of students’ native language, the Government should take constructive steps to make Bangla a viable option for higher education. Azam (2020) suggested that English books need to be translated into Bangla in a variety of disciplines. Bangla Academy, the national language academy, may be invited to identify ways to support higher education. Azam (2020) also recommended bilingual education for higher education before a complete transition to Banglamedium education. While Azam (2020) suggested EMI only as a transitional option, Rahman, Singh, and Karim (2018) called for more feasible and contextualised education policies that would embrace an inclusive form of EMI. Acknowledging diversity (race, religion, and class) and cultural-lingual pluralism (inclusivity of diverse languages and cultures), needs analyses should be conducted. Based on the findings, higher education may offer an adequate number of intensive English language courses and equip students with linguistic competence. Teachers must be provided with both intensive and extensive training, so that they can develop adequate 360

English-medium instruction in higher education in Bangladesh

language proficiency for EMI and gain confidence in teaching specific subjects in English. In addition, they should be encouraged to conduct research and publish in Bangla as well as English (Azam, 2020). In place of the restrictive use of only English for teaching and learning, there is now a growing call for ‘translanguaging’ in higher education, recognising the role of code-switching and code-mixing in such contexts. Promoting critical awareness about translanguaging and its role in students’ learning and identity in EMI contexts may encourage policymakers and other stakeholders to question their own monolingual biases and the consequences of their collective fantasies and fetishisation of English (Rafi & Morgan, 2023). Scholars have argued that translanguaging is a natural phenomenon, and that English language educators can employ translanguaging strategies, such as integrating academic discourse with everyday discourse, linking verbal and other semiotic resources, students’ first language and establishing a territory of ‘translanguaging space’ in EMI classrooms (Yuan & Yang, 2023). Wang and Curdt-Christiansen (2019) identified four categories of translanguaging, such as bilingual label quest, simultaneous code-mixing, crosslanguage recapping, and dual-language substantiation that can be applied in EMI teaching. Fang and Liu (2020) have provided evidence for the effectiveness of translanguaging for content learning, deeper understanding of content, class rapport, and better learning experiences for students with lower English proficiency. Sah and Li (2022) also indicated that translanguaging can create a flexible space for teaching/learning content knowledge. Huang (2021) noted that the use of different resources from different languages reflected students’ agency and established an encouraging environment for students. Most importantly, fostering ‘translingual disposition’ ‘dismantle[s] the symbolic and material infrastructures of unequal Englishes’ and ‘surfaces conflicted conditions and ideologies which may progressively lead to addressing linguistic inequalities’ (Tupas, 2021, p. 222). However, despite its manifold benefits, translanguaging seems to be fighting an uphill battle against the normative monolingual ideologies and biases associated with English. Therefore, the ethos of translanguaging needs to be brought to the fore along with linguistic diversity, differences, and plurality. More constructive conversations between policymakers and academics and researchers are needed in academia and public forums.

References Al Amin, M., & Hamid, M. O. (2023). English as a medium of instruction and inequality: Exploring private sector higher education in Bangladesh. In P. Sah & F. Fang (Eds.), Policies, politics, and ideologies of English-medium instruction in Asian universities: Unsettling critical edges. (pp. 167–183). Routledge. Alam, F. (2011). The commodification of English studies in Bangladesh. In H. Lahiri (Ed.), Literary transactions in a globalized context: Multi-ethnicity, gender and marketplace (pp. 250–274). Worldview Publications. Alam, F. (2020). English, but how? In S. Bhattacharja (Ed.), Shikkhyar maddhom ki hobe: Bangla, ingrezi, and both? [What should be the medium of education: Bangla, English, or both?] (pp. 47–60). Pankowri Prokashon. Ali, M. M., & Hamid, M. O. (2021). English and human capital development. In S. Sultana, M. M. Roshid, Md. Z. Haider, M. Md. N. Kabir, & M. H. Khan (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English language education in Bangladesh (pp. 369–381). Routledge. Azam, M. (2020). Muloto Bangla, shathe ingreji [Mainly Bangla, along with English]. In S. Bhattacharja (Ed.), Shikkhyar maddhom ki hobe: Bangla, ingrezi, and both? [What should be the medium of education: Bangla, English, or both?] (pp. 111–122). Pankowri Prokashon. Bhattacharja, S. (2020) Obosshoi Bangla! Kano, kibhabe [It must be Bangla! Why, how?]. In S. Bhattacharja (Ed.), Shikkhyar maddhom ki hobe: Bangla, ingrezi, and both? [What should be the medium of education: Bangla, English, or both?] (pp. 61–77). Pankowri Prokashon.

361

M. Obaidul Hamid and Shaila Sultana Dang, T. K. A., Bonar, G., & Yao, J. (2023). Professional learning for educators teaching in English-mediuminstruction in higher education: A systematic review. Teaching in Higher Education, 28, 840–858. Dearden, J. (2014). English as a medium of instruction – A growing global phenomenon: Phase 1 interim report. British Council. Duchêne, A., & Heller, M. (Eds.). (2012). Language in late capitalism: Pride and profit. Routledge. Eaton, R. M. (2019). India in the Persianate age: 1000–1765. Penguin. Fang, F., & Liu, Y. (2020). ‘Using all English is not always meaningful’: Stakeholders’ perspectives on the use of and attitudes towards translanguaging at a Chinese university. Lingua, 247, 1–18. Flowerdew, J., Miller, L. & Li, D. C. S. (2000). Chinese lecturers’ perceptions, problems and strategies in lecturing in English to Chinese-speaking students. RELC Journal, 31, 116–138. Hamid, M. O., & Al Amin, M. (2022). English as a medium of instruction in Bangladeshi higher education: A policy perspective. In J. McKinley & N. Galloway (Eds.), English-medium instruction practices in higher education (pp. 13-24). Bloomsbury. Hamid, M. O., & Ali, M. M. (2021). Arabic as an early language learning provision in Bangladesh: Policy perspectives. In S. Zein & M. Coady (Eds.), Early language learning policy in the 21st century: An international perspective (pp. 131–149). Springer. Hamid, M. O., & Baldauf, R. B. Jr. (2014). Public-private domain distinction as an aspect of LPP frameworks: A case study of Bangladesh. Language Problems & Language Planning, 39, 192–210. Hamid, M. O., & Hasan, M. M. (2020). Bangladeshi English. In K. Bolton, W. Botha, & A. Kirkpatrick (Eds.), The handbook of Asian Englishes (pp. 297–315). Wiley-Blackwell. Hamid, M. O., Jahan, I., & Islam, M. M. (2013). Medium of instruction policies and language practices, ideologies and institutional divides: Voices of teachers and students in a private university in Bangladesh. Current Issues in Language Planning, 14, 144–163. Hamid, M. O., & Rahman, A. (2019). Language in education policy in Bangladesh: A neoliberal turn? In A. Kirkpatrick & A. J. Liddicoat (Eds.), Handbook of language in education policy in Asia (pp. 382–398). Routledge. Hossen, M. S. (2021). Ethnolinguistic vitality of Urdu in Bangladesh (Master’s dissertation). The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. Huang, Y. P. (2021). Translanguaging in EMI higher education in Taiwan: Learner perception and agency. In W. Tsou & W. Baker (Eds.), English-medium instruction translanguaging practices in Asia (pp. 163–180). Springer. Husain, S. S. (1961). The literature of Pakistan. In A. L. McLeod (Ed.), The Commonwealth Pen: An introduction to the literature of the British Commonwealth (pp. 142–166). Cornell University Press. Jahan, I., & Hamid, M. O. (2019). English as a medium of instruction and the discursive construction of elite identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 23, 386–408. Jones, J. M. (2014). The “ideal” vs. the “reality”: Medium of instruction policy and implementation in different class levels in a western Kenyan school. Current Issues in Language Planning, 15, 22–38. Kabir, A. H., & Chowdhury, R. (2021). The privatisation of higher education in postcolonial Bangladesh: The politics of intervention and control. Routledge. Karim, A., Kabilan, M. K., Ahmed, Z., Reshmin, L., & Rahman, M. M. (2021). The medium of instruction in Bangladeshi higher education institutions: Bangla, English, or both? Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2020.1871353 Khan, M. H., & Sultana, S. (2021). A critical exploration of private university students’ approach toward English as a medium of instruction in Bangladesh. In S. Sultana, M. M. Roshid, Md. Z. Haider, M. Md. N. Kabir, & M. H. Khan (Eds). The Routledge handbook of English language education in Bangladesh (pp. 284–297). Routledge. Khan, S. (2020). Rather English, why? In S. Bhattacharja (Ed.), Shikkhyar maddhom ki hobe: Bangla. ingrezi, and both? [What should be the medium of education: Bangla, English, or both?] (pp. 101–110). Pankowri Prokashon. Macaro, E. (2021). The increasing use of English medium instruction in higher education. In A. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of world Englishes (pp. 508–522). Routledge. Mahboob, A. (2017). English medium instruction in higher education in Pakistan: Policies, perceptions, problems, and possibilities. In B. Fenton-Smith, P. Humphreys, & I. Walkinshaw (Eds.), English medium instruction in higher education in Asia-Pacific: From policy to pedagogy (pp. 71–91). Springer.

362

English-medium instruction in higher education in Bangladesh Mannan, A. (2020). Shikkhyar maddhom hobe oboshhoi Bangla [Bangla must be the medium of education]. In S. Bhattacharja (Ed.), Shikkhyar maddhom ki hobe: Bangla, ingrezi, and both? [What should be the medium of education: Bangla, English, or both?] (pp. 2935–110). Pankowri Prokashon. Ministry of Education. (2010). National education policy 2010. Ministry of Education, Government of Bangladesh. Nguyen, H. T., Hamid, M. O., & Moni, K. (2016). English-medium instruction and self-governance in higher education: The journey of a Vietnamese university through the institutional autonomy regime. Higher Education, 72, 669–683. Rafi, A. S. M., & Morgan, A.-M. (2023). Translanguaging and power in academic writing discourse: The case of a Bangladeshi university. Classroom Discourse, 14, 192–214. Rahman, M. M., & Singh, M. K. M. (2020). Language ideology of English-medium instruction in higher education: A case study from Bangladesh. English Today, 36(4), 40–46. Rahman, M. M., Singh, M. K. M., Johan, M., & Ahmed, Z. (2020). English medium instruction ideology, management and practices: A case study of Bangladeshi private university. English Teaching & Learning, 44, 61–79. Rahman, M. M., Singh, M. K. M., & Karim, A. (2018). English medium instruction innovation in higher education: Evidence from Asian contexts. Journal of Asia TEFL, 15, 1156–1164. Rahman, M. M., Singh, M. K. M., & Karim, A. (2020). Distinctive medium of instruction ideologies in public and private universities in Bangladesh. Asian Englishes, 22(2), 125–142. Rahman, T. (2010). A multilingual language-in-education policy for indigenous minorities in Bangladesh: Challenges and possibilities. Current Issues in Language Planning, 11, 341–359. Richards, J. C., & Pun, J. (2023). A typology of English-medium instruction. RELC Journal, 54, 216–240. Roshid, M. M. (2014). English communication skills in the ready-made garments industry in Bangladesh: A case study (PhD thesis). Monash University, Melbourne. Sah, P. K. (2020). Reproduction of nationalist and neoliberal ideologies in Nepal’s language and literacy policies. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 41, 238–252. Sah, P. K., & Li, G. (2022). Translanguaging or unequal languaging? Unfolding the plurilingual discourse of English medium instruction policy in Nepal’s public schools. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25, 2075–2094. Salahuddin, M., Akbar, D., Hamid, M. O., & Islam, R. (2009). Institutional, economic and technical dimensions of choosing private tertiary education in Bangladesh: Lessons for Australian universities. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology, Churchill, Victoria. Sultana, S. (2014). English as a medium of instruction in Bangladesh’s higher education: Empowering or disadvantaging students? Asian EFL Journal, 16, 11–52. Sultana, S. (2016). Construction of others and negotiation of identification. Journal of Institute of Modern Languages, 27, 1–46. Sultana, S. (2018). Language practices and performances of identity of young adults within spaces of a private university in Bangladesh. Bangladesh English Language Teachers Association (BELTA) Journal, 1(2), 1–28. Sultana, S. (2019). Language crossing of young adults in Bangladesh. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 14, 352–372. Sultana, S. (2020). English segregating and marginalizing student: Voices from the classroom. In S. Bhattacharja (Ed.), Shikkhyar maddhom ki hobe: Bangla, ingrezi, and both? [What should be the medium of education: Bangla, English, or both?] (pp. 37–99). Pankowri Prokashon. Sultana, S. (2021). “Khaet” (Hick) vs. “fast” and the construction of others: Educational background and identification of university students in Bangladesh. In S. Sultana, M. M. Roshid, Md. Z. Haider, M. Md. N. Kabir, & M. H. Khan (Eds). The Routledge handbook of English language education in Bangladesh (pp. 255–270). Routledge. Sultana, S. (2023a). Indigenous ethnic languages in Bangladesh: Paradoxes of the multilingual ecology. ­Ethnicities, 23, 680–705. Sultana, S. (2023b). EMI in higher education of Bangladesh: Disintegrated pedagogic practices and students’ unequal learning opportunities. In F. Fang & P. K. Sah (Eds.), Pedagogies of English medium instruction programs in Asian universities (pp. 83–103). Routledge. Sultana, S., & Roshid, M. M. (2021). Introduction: English language and English language education in the multilingual ecology of Bangladesh: Past, present, and future. In S. Sultana, M. M. Roshid, Md. Z. Haider,

363

M. Obaidul Hamid and Shaila Sultana M. Md. N. Kabir, & M. H. Khan (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English language education in Bangladesh (pp. 1–14). Routledge. Toh, G. (2014). English for content instruction in a Japanese higher education setting: Examining challenges, contradictions and anomalies. Language and Education, 28, 299–318. Tupas, R. (2021). Fostering translingual dispositions against unequal Englishes. English in Education, 55, 222–238. Wang, W., & Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2019). Translanguaging in a Chinese–English bilingual education programme: A university-classroom ethnography. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22, 322–337. Yuan, R., & Yang, M. (2023). Towards an understanding of translanguaging in EMI teacher education classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 27, 884–906.

364

27 ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN INDIA AND SRI LANKA Ravinder Gargesh Introduction There are still many regions of Asia and Africa where the status of English-medium instruction (EMI) is yet to be fully explored due to paucity of data and gaps between policy planning and ground realities, which often involve administrative hurdles. Today, in multilingual South Asia, English is perceived as the language of power and upward social mobility (Baumgardner, 1996). It also serves as a common language between groups that do not share the same language. However, political efforts to replace it in South Asia by projecting a dominant local language on the linguistic landscape are always on the horizon given the socio-economic inequalities that the presence of English has caused in the society (Rukmini, 2019). While countries like Sri Lanka and Bangladesh had made Sinhala and Bangla their sole official languages in 1956 and 1987, respectively, India continues with Hindi, and Pakistan with Urdu, as their official languages alongside English. Nonetheless, in the case of higher education, English remains the most important medium of instruction in South Asia. Anyhow, the extent of use of English at universities in India and Sri Lanka varies, and the similarities and differences can be better understood in the light of their respective demographic and sociolinguistic profiles, and their histories of educational policies and planning.

The demographic and sociolinguistic profile of India Geographically, India covers an area of 3,287,240 sq. km and is home to a population of slightly more than 1.2 billion people (Census of India, 2011, p. vii; Index Mundi, 2022a). Its main ethnic groups consist broadly of Indo-Aryans (72%), Dravidians (25%), and Mongloids and others (3%). Regarding the religious affiliations, Hindus make up the majority at 79.8%, followed by Muslims at 14.2%, Christians at 2.3%, Sikhs at 1.7%, Buddhists at 0.7%, and Jains at 0.4%. In 2021, India’s GDP reached 3.17 trillion US dollars (The World Bank, 2021a). According to The Economic Times (2023, February 26), ‘India is on track to become the world’s third-largest economy in under a decade from now’. Additionally,, as reported by Johny and Ritu Maria in the Hindustan Times dated January 30, 2023, the latest projections on world economic growth released by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in late January 2023 indicate that India remains the fastest-growing

365

DOI: 10.4324/9781003011644-31

Ravinder Gargesh

economy in the world in 2023 with the current estimates of 6.1% growth, surpassing the growth in emerging and developing Asia, as well as projections on China’s economy, which is expected to grow at a rate of 5.2%. Hindi and English are the country’s two official languages and major lingua francas. Additionally, the Constitution of India recognises 22 scheduled languages, and there are a total of 19569 mother tongues (Census of India, 2011, p. vii). A table of ‘First, Second, and Third languages by number of speakers in India (2011 Census)’ in Wikipedia1 reveals that Hindi mother-tongue speakers comprise 528,347,193 or 43.63% of the total population, while English mother-tongue speakers comprise 2,59,678 or 0.02%. However, English has the largest number of second (83,125,221) and third language (46,000,000) speakers, the approximate total 129,000,000 comprising 10.6% of the population, next only to Hindi with 57.1% speakers. This reflects the importance of English in the fields of work and education. It is widely agreed that the teaching of English has led to the increase in bilingualism and trilingualism with English in the country (Gargesh & Dev, 2017). English also plays an important role in the mass media, which has an immense outreach in the country. In 2021, in the print media, English ranked second with 34.93 million publications, second only to Hindi with 189.39 million publications (Audit Bureau of Circulations, 2019). On the Internet, the number of users of English-language websites increased from 68 million in 2011 to 175 million in 2016, and is expected to be around 199 million in 2021 (Statista, 2022). Overall, on social websites like Facebook, WhatsApp, and Twitter, English is the dominant medium in India according to a study sponsored by Meta (Mihindukulasuriya, 2021).

The history of language education policy in India India inherited its modern system of education from its British colonial masters, who replaced the traditional system of learning through the Sanskrit, Persian, and Arabic languages with their own western system, conducting instruction in the English language. The first English-medium schools were, in fact, established by Christian missionaries, and by the nineteenth century, the demand for modern education through the English medium had increased immensely. On February 2, 1835, the now well-known Minutes of Lord T.B. Macaulay recommended to the colonial government in India the teaching of western modern knowledge through the medium of the English language (Aggarwal, 1993, pp. 2–12). On acceptance by the Governor General Lord Bentinck in March 1835, this became a reality in high schools and colleges under the control of the government. Although the Woods Education Despatch in 1853 revived the study of Indian languages, it also continued to favour the teaching of western literature, philosophy, and science through the English medium. Importantly, it also recommended the establishment of British-style universities in India. The first university in India, based on the British model, was established in Calcutta in 1857. Thereafter, universities were also established in Bombay and Madras, and later in the Punjab in 1882. Gradually, the system expanded with the opening of many schools and colleges in the country. By the 1920s, English had become the language of political discourse for eminent leaders such as B. G. Tilak, M. A. Jinnah, J. L. Nehru, and C. Rajagopalachari. At the time of independence in 1947, English was the dominant language for education, administration, the judiciary, and the Indian media. By 1949, 25 universities had also been established (Government of India, 1962, pp. 26–27). With independence came issues concerning medium of instruction (MOI) that have remained politically controversial to this day. In response to post-independence nationalist sentiments

366

EMI in higher education in India and Sri Lanka

against the dominance of English, the first University Education Commissions (1948) recommended that ‘the medium of instruction for higher education English be replaced as early as practicable by an Indian language (IL) which cannot be Sanskrit on account of vital difficulties’. However, in recognition of the continued utility of English for knowledge acquisition, it also recommended that the ‘pupils at the higher secondary and University stages be made conversant, with three languages – the regional language, the Federal language (probably Hindi) and English (the last one in order to acquire the ability to read books in English)’ and again reiterated in another recommendation that ‘English be studied in high schools and in the Universities in order that we may keep in touch with the living stream of ever-growing knowledge’ (Government of India, 1962, p. 285). The three languages recommended later took the form of the ‘three language formula’. The issue of the MOI in higher education was once again raised before the English Review Committee (1955), established by the University Grants Commission (UGC) under the chairmanship of H. N. Kunzru. In its report, the Committee noted that in all States, the ‘regional language is the medium of instruction’ up to the secondary stage, and at the undergraduate stage, it is either English or an Indian language, and ‘an option is given to students to write their answers at examinations in either English or the regional language’ (University Grants Commission, 1965, p. 2). The Committee made the following recommendations: (a) The transition from English to an Indian language as the medium of instruction at the university stage should not be hastened; (b) In the event of a shift in the medium of instruction, English should continue to be studied by all university students; (c) In cases where English is not the medium of instruction at any university, it is necessary to adopt special methods to secure an adequate knowledge of English as a second language (University Grants Commission, 1965, p. 39). The issue of the MOI was considered by the Education Commission (1964– 1966), also known as the Kothari Commission, which recommended the ‘three-language formula’ for school education. It made the following recommendations regarding the medium of instruction at the university level: (a) To keep pace with knowledge generated in the world, especially in the fields of science and technology, the study of English deserves to be specially strengthened (Ministry of Education, 1966, p. xiv); (b) A single medium of education is recommended at the university stage – English for the time being, to be ultimately replaced by Hindi (Ministry of Education, 1966, p. 20); (c) The introduction of the regional languages as media of education should not be interpreted to mean underrating the importance of English in the university (Ministry of Education, 1966, p. 22); (d) For a successful completion of the first degree course, a student should possess an adequate command over English, be able to express himself in it with reasonable ease and felicity, understand lectures in it and avail himself of its literature (Ministry of Education, 1966, p. 22); (e) English should be the most useful ‘library language’ in higher education and ‘our most significant window on the world’ (Ministry of Education, 1966, p. 22); and (f) All-India institutions should continue to use English as the medium of education for the time being. The eventual adoption of Hindi should, however, be considered in due course, subject to certain safeguards (Ministry of Education, 1966, p. 34). Despite these early recommendations to replace English as the medium of instruction, after a span of 20 years, the National Policy on Education 1986 lamented that Indian languages had not been suitably developed as a medium of instruction in higher education, though they were in use at the primary and secondary stages. As a result, EMI remained as the only viable medium of instruction (Ramamurti, 1990, p. 250). The significance of EMI was highlighted by the Chairman of the National Knowledge Commission (2008) in his letter to the Prime Minister of India, which stated: ‘We came to the conclusion that an understanding of, and a command over the English language,

367

Ravinder Gargesh

is perhaps the most important determinant of access to higher education, employment possibilities and social opportunities’. However, the letter also highlighted that the lack of dissemination of English has led to exclusiveness, and in order to have an inclusive society: the National Knowledge Commission believes that the time has come for us to teach our people, ordinary people, English as a language in schools. And we are convinced that action in this sphere, starting now, would help us build an inclusive society and transform India into a knowledge society. The Commission also expressed the belief that with concerted effort, the goal could be reached in just 12 years, and that ‘it would provide our school leavers with far more equal access to higher education and, three to five years thereafter, much more equal access to employment opportunities’ (National Knowledge Commission, 2008). More recently, the National Education Policy formulated in 2020 (NEP, 2020) has proposed the use of mother tongues or local languages as MOIs in more higher educational institutions (HEIs). The NEP 2020 favours continuing with the ‘three-language formula’ (p. 12), with the provision that two out of the three languages should be native to India. This leaves scope for English to continue to be the third language, as is the situation at present. The NEP 2020 provides the States with flexibility to decide on the MOI and encourages them ‘to conduct more academic programmes in Indian languages or mother-tongue’ (Government of India, 2020, p. 35). In the case of State institutions offering law education, it recommends ‘bilingual education for future lawyers and judges – in English and in the language of the State’ where the programme is situated (p. 43). Despite the NEP 2020’s push for other languages to be used throughout higher education, it is clear that EMI remains of key importance in MOI policies in India. In addition to the proposals of the NEP 2020, one key goal of the government is the internationalisation of HEIs through the adoption of internationally-relevant curricula, the establishment of campuses in other countries, and the promotion of India as a ‘global study destination’ and as a Viswa Guru (‘World Teacher’) that provides premium education at affordable costs (Government of India, 2020, p. 37). One of the reasons that the Ministry of Education mentions in its ‘Study in India’ programme, for attracting students from abroad, is ‘the fact that English is used as primary language for teaching’ and it is an option available at all levels of higher education (Government of India, 2018). In addition, EMI remains prestigious since highly prestigious professional courses in sciences and management are conducted through the English language (Gargesh & Dev, 2017). In this context, one interesting recent development took place in the south Indian state of Andhra Pradesh (AP). In November 2019, the government of AP issued an order making English medium compulsory in all government schools from the academic session 2020–2021. This order was struck down by the AP High Court, and the case is currently being contested by the State government in the Supreme Court of India. After the declaration of NEP 2020, the AP government made Englishmedium education compulsory across all degree colleges in the state from the academic session 2021–2022 onwards. Its argument for this policy was that this would enhance the career prospects of students at the international level. Another argument was that in the previous year, out of the 262,000 students who had taken admission in degree colleges only 65,981 had opted for the Telugu medium, while the remaining students (about 75%) all opted for the English medium (Hindustan Times, 2021). This, the AP government argued, showed the great demand for Englishmedium education in AP. The same, perhaps, is true in other states of the country as well, although it needs to be seen whether they follow the example of AP or not.

368

EMI in higher education in India and Sri Lanka

The sociolinguistic profile of Sri Lanka The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, formerly known as Ceylon, an island in the Indian Ocean, is about 28 kilometres off the coast of Tamil Nadu in the south east tip of India. According to Index Mundi (2022b), geographically, it has a maximum length of 432 km and a maximum width of 224 km, and a population of about 21,919,000. The main ethnic groups consist of Sinhalese (74.9%), Sri Lankan Tamils (11.2%), Sri Lankan Moors (9.2%), Indian Tamils (4.2%), and others (0.5%), which include Burghers (Eurasians of European and Sri Lankan descent), Malays, Veddas, Chinese, and Indians. The major religious groups comprise Buddhists (70.2%), Hindus (12.6%), Muslims (9.7%), and Christians (7.4%). Its GDP in 2021 was 84.52 billion US dollars (The World Bank, 2021b). However, throughout 2022, Sri Lanka went through its worst economic crisis in decades. According to the World Bank, ‘Sri Lanka’s real GDP is expected to fall by 9.2 percent in 2022 and a further 4.2 percent in 2023’ (The World Bank, 2022). This has affected all domains, including higher education in Sri Lanka. The country is currently being helped by various friendly countries. Sinhala and Tamil, both official and national languages, are spoken by 87% and 28.5% of the population, respectively. English is commonly used in government and is referred to as the ‘link language’ in the constitution and is believed to be spoken by about 23.8% of the population (Index Mundi, 2022b).

The history of language in education policy in Sri Lanka Before the onset of western colonialism in Sri Lanka, education was imparted by the Buddhist temples. Buddhist clergy provided practical learning along with religious, philosophical, and cultural instruction in the Pali language for the male members of the society (Wickramasinghe, 2018). Colonisation brought about changes to this. The first European colonisers were the Portuguese, the earliest of whom arrived in 1505 but who took control of a substantial part of the country only in 1597. Around 1656, they were driven out by the Dutch, who controlled nearly the whole island before transferring power to the British in 1796. Under the Treaty of Amiens, the Dutch vacated Sri Lanka and it became a British Crown colony in 1802. It was under the British that Sri Lanka’s modern education system was introduced to provide the British administration with ‘employees for the Ceylon Civil Service’ who would interpret to the people in their mother tongue the aims of the British rulers (Lim, 2013, p. 63). During the early British colonial period, Christian missionaries were largely responsible for religious and educational activities (Dharmadasa, 1992). Gradually, a British system of education was established for the whole country through some constitutional changes following the proposals of the Colebrooke-Cameron Commission (1832–1833) for the centralisation of administration and for the use of English for all official work. Colebrooke also recommended that the government vernacular schools should be abolished, and attention be given to teaching of English, and to adopt ‘English as the medium of instruction’ (Coperahewa, 2011, p. 40). This led to the establishment of new English-medium schools in Colombo, Kandy, and Galle, which became models for other secondary schools and for universities as well. By the 1830s, English had become the official language for all government activities and the MOI for education (Herath, 2015). The Englishmedium schools, by then, were patterned after British schools for their curricula and materials, with a complete absence of local cultural elements (Golding, 2018). This resulted in an educational divide in the country: The Burghers had the advantage in English education and literacy, and the Tamils also gained advantage since there were many schools in Tamil-dominated areas in northern Sri Lanka (Coperahewa, 2011, p. 43; Lim, 2013). Most Sinhala and Tamil children by

369

Ravinder Gargesh

and large found it difficult to cope with the English language. A sub-committee was formed in 1865 to address the issue, and its report, known as the Morgan Committee Report, recommended the strengthening of elementary vernacular education (Coperahewa, 2011, p. 46). This led to the formation of two types of schools, the English medium and the vernacular-medium schools. Wickramasinghe (2018, p. 9) points out that higher education began with the affiliation of a leading secondary school, the Colombo Academy, to the University of Calcutta in 1859, which was modelled on the University of London and hence carried out all teaching and assessment in English. The Colombo Academy was renamed as Royal College. In 1870, the Ceylon Medical School was established, which was raised to the status of a college in 1880. In 1921, the Ceylon University College was established in Colombo as an affiliated institution of the University of London. In 1942, the University of Ceylon was established by absorbing the Ceylon Medical College and the Ceylon University College. In the pre-independence period, few had access to higher education for it was largely limited to the elite with greater access to English and those who were successful in English-medium schools. In 1931, the Donoughmore Constitution brought a large measure of internal self-government and universal suffrage to the country. This paved the way for educational reforms, commonly known as the Kannangara reforms (named after C. W. W. Kannangara, Sri Lanka’s first Minister of Education). These reforms stand out for the two following major policy thrusts: (i) provision for extending free education in the English medium to all fee-levying English-medium schools, both government and private, with the exception of 15 schools that had opted to remain outside the scheme of the government; and (ii) provision for free education from kindergarten to University. They led eventually to the Free Education Bill of 1945 which, on the grounds of social justice and social efficiency, made education free in Sri Lanka from kindergarten to university level (Sarma et al., 2018, p. 26), and resulted in the rapid expansion of higher education system in the country in a few decades. A significant development in the years leading to the country’s independence in 1948 was the rise of the swabhasha (‘our language’) movement as an assertion of national identity. The movement demanded that Sinhalese and Tamil, the two main indigenous languages, replace English as the official language of government. In 1946, a new language policy was proposed for phasing out the English language from all functions of the government within 10 years and replacing it with local languages. The MOI in all pre-secondary education was also to be either Sinhala or Tamil, as appropriate. However, since the English language was still considered important for the future of Sri Lanka, it was also made compulsory as an additional language to be studied in all schools at the upper secondary level (Coperahewa, 2009; Liyange 2019). At the lower secondary level, either a vernacular or a bilingual (Sinhala/English, Tamil/English) medium of instruction could be adopted (Liyanage, 2019). After independence in 1948, there was an assertion of ethnicity, and a Sinhala-educated ‘rural elite’ began to clamour for Sinhala as the only official language and for the Sinhalese majority to obtain government jobs (Coperahewa, 2009). As a result, EMI was eliminated from all levels of Sri Lankan education and the ‘Sinhala Only’ Act of 1956 replaced it for all official purposes. The Tamil language too did not get any official status. However, according to Saunders (2007), English remained the language of commerce, higher education, technology, science, and so on, and so it continued to hold social, cultural, and economic value throughout the period of these language policy enactments. After 1960, EMI was allowed in expensive ‘international schools’ opened under legislation covering private companies (Wettewa, 2016, p. 67), where the children of the rich class were admitted. After graduation, being proficient in English, they continued to be preferred for employment in lucrative jobs (Wettewa, 2016).

370

EMI in higher education in India and Sri Lanka

The 1980s and 1990s were generally a period of political disturbances, often fuelled in part at least by language policy favouring Sinhalese over the Tamil language of the significant minority. Eventually, however, to promote good inter-ethnic relations between the Sinhalese and Tamils and to boost the economy, Article 18 of the 1978 Constitution was amended in 1987 to designate both Sinhala and Tamil as national languages with English as the ‘link’ language (Perera & Canagarajah, 2010, p. 113; Sarma et al., 2018, p. 27). In addition, general education reforms of the late 1990s included a renewed focus on English as an additional language across all the years of schooling (Walisundara & Hettiarachchi, 2016) as well as a General English course for Advanced Level GCE. In 2000, the government again permitted EMI in schools run by the state (Balakrishnar & Thanaraj, 2015), and as a means of ethnic reconciliation, trilingualism was introduced in education policy (Liyanage & Canagarajah, 2014). This policy promoted Sinhalese-Tamil bilingualism along with English in education, and English was considered a necessary ‘culturally neutral life skill for occupation, employment and for accessing knowledge from the outside world’ (Fernando, 2011, p. 4; Premarathna, Yogaraja, Medawattegedara, Senarathna, & Abdullah, 2014, p. 8). The policy also recommended that the MOI in universities be English for STEM, while arts and humanities courses could be conducted in Sinhalese or Tamil as well (Navaz, 2016, p. 161). The aim of bilingualism in education was to achieve equity where more children from disadvantaged backgrounds would be able study in English for gainful employment (Premarathna et al., 2014, p. 10). However, the result was highly disappointing, and the policy appears not to have been successful in achieving this aim. Further, the lack of proficiency in English, according to Liyanage (2021, p. 96), was attributed to the shaortage of qualified teachers. This issue was evident in the failure of 60% of the candidates in the compulsory General English examination for university admission in 2018, where half of those who passed only got the lowest passing grade of Satisfactory. There are many studies like Navaz (2013, 2016, 2020), Kennedy (2017), Prasangani (2018), Rameez (2019), Jayasinghe (2020), Neranjani (2021) that focus on why many students in Sri Lankan universities lag behind when studying various courses at the university through the English medium. The general reasons pointed out are the mismatch between the students’ first language and the EMI at the university, as well as a general lack of competence among teachers of English. Another reason affecting standards is that while the target language is Standardised British English, it is Sri Lankan English that is used outside the classroom (Mendis & Rambukwella, 2010; Meyler, 2015).

EMI in higher education in India Today, India has one of the largest higher education systems in the world, next only to the United States and China. According to the latest available details in the All-India Survey of Higher Education 2020 (AISHE-2020), there are 1043 universities in India. Based on the UGC notification of November 16, 2022, the total number of universities is now 1070 but details regarding enrolments and demographics are not available. There is also no official data available on the number and types of EMI university programmes and courses in India. To establish the state of EMI, the data available from AISHE-2020 has been examined and interpreted in terms of major courses that are conducted solely through the English medium, and those that are bilingual (with options between English or Hindi or another Indian language (IL) as a medium of instruction). Additionally, a questionnaire to gauge the attitudes to EMI in India was circulated offline and online. Since the

371

Ravinder Gargesh

universities were not functioning in the offline mode until mid-March 2022, the data obtained was far less than anticipated. Based on AISHE-2020, there are 1,043 universities, which include 48 Central Universities, one Central Open University, 135 Institution of National Importance, 386 State Public Universities, five Institution Under State Legislature Act, 14 State Open Universities, 327 State Private Universities, one State Private Open University, 36 Deemed Universities – Government, 10 Deemed University – Government Aided, and 80 Deemed Universities – Private. There are also 42,343 Colleges and 11,779 Stand-Alone Institutions (non-degree awarding institutions) listed on the AISHE web portal. Of the above 94% of the institutions responded to the survey, that is, 1,019 Universities, 39,955 Colleges and 9,599 Stand-Alone Institutions (AISHE-2020, p. I). The Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) in higher education in India is 27.1, calculated for the 18–23 years age group. Based on the data provided by AISHE, among all the courses streams at the undergraduate level, the highest proportion of students (32.7%) are enrolled in Arts/Humanities/ Social Sciences courses, followed by science with 16%, Commerce 14.9%, and Engineering and Technology 12.6%. At the postgraduate level, the greatest proportion of students are enrolled in the Social Sciences followed by the Sciences. Ph.D. students comprise about 0.5% of the total student enrolment, and the greatest number of research students are from STEM fields (AISHE-2020, p. II). AISHE-2020 estimates the total enrolment in higher education for the academic year 2019– 2020 to be about 38.5 million (19.6 million males and 18.9 million females). This chapter focusses on regular university programmes and does not include distance programmes, and it examines the figures provided by AISHE-2020 for major disciplines/subjects (based on actual responses) enrolments at undergraduate (AISHE-2020, Table T-12, pp. 121–122/290) and at postgraduate levels (AISHE-2020, Table T-13, pp. 123–126/290). Such course-wise enrolments are missing in the Annual Report (2020–2021) of the University Grants Commission. The data can broadly be divided into courses that are conducted in English medium, and courses that are conducted optionally in English or Hindi or in a dominant Indian language. There are some courses that can be taught through Hindi only, and some others optionally through Hindi or an Indian language. English is the medium of instruction for all STEM courses, and some important professional courses such as architecture, management, business administration, information technology, and library science. Facts about the use of EMI in the context of these courses are directly observable. However, the same is not possible for courses that allow options in the medium of instruction and examination, for a student is permitted to take an exam in another permissible language that may be different from the medium if instruction in the classroom. There are also courses like the Performing Arts, Fine Arts, and those related to Indian systems of medicine, such as Ayurveda and Unani, that are conducted either through Hindi or through another permissible Indian language. There are also a few traditional courses related to Hindi language pedagogy that are taught through the medium of Hindi. For understanding EMI in the Indian context, the MOI categories English, English/Hindi/IL, Hindi/IL, and Hindi are used due to the absence of precise data. Tables 27.1 and 27.2 present the number and proportion of students taking courses in each of these MOI categories at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels. As can be seen in Table 27.1, English is the medium of instruction for more than 11.9 million students (38%) at an all-India level. Of these, the overwhelming majority (94%) were students in STEM courses (AISHE, 2020). Courses in the humanities and social sciences may have English, Hindi, or an Indian language (depending on the region/state) as the medium of instruction. Since no data is available regarding the number of students for each MOI, they have been categorised as English/Hindi/IL. At the undergraduate level, the largest number of students, that is, over 19.6

372

EMI in higher education in India and Sri Lanka Table 27.1  India: Medium of instruction at undergraduate level Medium of instruction

N

%

English English/Hindi/IL Hindi/IL Hindi

11,913,731 19,699,272 135,985 74,566

38% 62%  0%  0%

Source: AISHE (2020). Table 27.2  India: Medium of instruction at postgraduate level Medium of instruction

N

%

English English/Hindi/IL Hindi/IL Hindi

2,671,439 1,454,668 331,400 26,827

60% 32%  7%  1%

Source: AISHE (2020).

million (62%), pursue courses in social sciences and humanities in either of the three optional languages – English or Hindi or a dominant Indian language. At the same time over 11.9 million students (38%) study STEM and some other professional courses exclusively through the English medium. There are courses related to the traditional Indian system of medicine which are conducted through Hindi or an Indian language for 135,985 students. Some traditional degree courses are conducted through the Hindi medium for 74,566 students. As can be seen, the number of students undertaking such courses are relatively negligible. At the postgraduate level, EMI courses dominate. The extent of EMI can be observed in Table 27.2, which shows that more than 60% of the students (over 2.67 million) undertake EMI, while a minority (32%, that is, over 1.45 million) study through the medium of English or Hindi or an Indian language. Since the enrolments for postgraduate studies are much lower than for the undergraduate courses, the figures for Hindi/IL as a medium is 331,400 (7%), and for Hindi is 26,827 (1%). It can be inferred that as we go up the educational ladder, particularly in relation to STEM fields, EMI increasingly gains in prominence. Regarding attitudes towards EMI in higher education in India, responses were received both offline and online. While 66.7% of the respondents considered EMI to be extremely useful for academic purposes in today’s globalised world, 13% did not find it useful, and 20.3% were neutral. Concerning the variety of English preferred, 14.5% of the respondents chose British or American English, with 72.5% rejecting both, while 13% were neutral. Among the respondents, 82.6% had no negative opinions about local varieties of English with local accents, with only 8.6% considering them bad while 8.7% were neutral. The findings here illustrate that the overwhelming majority desires EMI, but the variety of English used could be an Indian variety.

EMI in higher education in Sri Lanka The UGC of Sri Lanka is the apex body of the University System in Sri Lanka. It plans and coordinates university education, allocates funds, monitors academic standards, and regulates administration as well as admission of students to HEIs. Currently, the Sri Lankan higher education system

373

Ravinder Gargesh

comprises 17 government universities, 20 university-affiliated institutes, five other government universities, 11 advanced technological institutes, seven advanced technological institute sections, and 10 private universities and institutes (Vivekanantharasa & Blanco, 2022, p. 17). However, the UGC’s planning activities to improve the higher education system have been thwarted by the most recent economic collapse in unprecedented ways (Vivekanantharasa & Blanco, 2022, p. 17). In the current post-pandemic economically uncertain climate, it has been difficult to obtain information on universities and their activities. Since the government focusses on public universities, this chapter reports information obtained from the annual reports of such universities available online. Sri Lanka’s higher education system categorises students into two types, ‘internal’, students who study on campus, and ‘external’, those who do not (for example, those who undertake distance learning programmes). This chapter further limits its focus to ‘internal’ students, and excludes ‘external’ students. Thus, information on The Open University of Sri Lanka has not been considered. Information on the recently formed Grampha Wickramarachchi University of Indigenous Medicine was not available, while information from the Vavuniya Campus of Jaffna University (which subsequently became Vavuniya University) and from General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University has been considered. While most of the data from 15 universities pertain to the year 2018, data from other universities were obtained for the year shown against each of them, that is University of Moratuwa (2016), Rajarata University (2017), University of Jaffna (2017), Eastern University (EUSL) (2019), University of Ruhuna (2019), and General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University (2020). In all, data was taken from the annual reports of 17 universities.2 Data is available for English, Sinhala, and Tamil separately as MOI, but where a choice of the medium exists, data is not available regarding the number of students who opted for each medium. Here data is available in collective form. Therefore, options for either English or Sinhala or Tamil are shown as English/Sinhala/Tamil, for options between English or Sinhala are shown as English/Sinhala, and between English or Tamil as English/Tamil. Based on the information collected from the annual reports, the official MOI in faculties of science, applied sciences, engineering, technology, medicine, agricultural science, veterinary science, information technology, management, and finance is exclusively English across all the universities. For courses under the faculty of arts and social sciences the universities appear to have options for the MOIs. Whether Sinhala or Tamil dominates as the MOI for arts and social science courses depends on the regions where the universities are situated, and which language dominates in terms of number of speakers in the region. Nonetheless, Sinhala is the main medium for the study of Buddhism, and Tamil is used for Islamic studies and traditional medicine system. The medium of instruction for students in Sri Lankan universities can be seen in Tables 27.3 and 27.4. Table 27.3  Sri Lanka: Medium of instruction at undergraduate level Medium of instruction

N

%

English English/Sinhala/Tamil English/Sinhala English/Tamil Sinhala Tamil

85,708 9,594 10,262 9,028 5,084 697

71% 8% 9% 7% 4% 1%

Source: Annual reports of 17 public universities.2

374

EMI in higher education in India and Sri Lanka Table 27.4  Sri Lanka: Medium of instruction at postgraduate level Medium of instruction

N

%

English English/Sinhala/Tamil English/Sinhala Sinhala Tamil

12,735 5,983 396 5,084 697

51% 24% 2% 20% 3%

Source: Annual reports of 17 public universities.2

Table 27.3 illustrates that EMI is the dominant choice for students (85,708, or 71%) at the undergraduate level, while the remaining choices in descending order are English-Sinhala (10,262, 9%), English/Sinhala/Tamil (9,594, 8%), English/Tamil (9,028, 7%), Sinhala (5,084, 4%), and Tamil (607, 1%). Within the English/Sinhala and English/Sinhala/Tamil and English/Tamil options, there may be a significant number of students opting for EMI. In Sri Lankan universities, EMI is the sole medium of courses related to Science, Medicine, Technology, Information Science, and at times in courses related to management and law. The English/Sinhala option is popular in BA General, and BA Honours courses, Bachelor’s course in Translation, Films and Television, and in BA Political Science course at the University of Kelaniya. The English/Sinhala/Tamil options are available in BA in Translation (Sabaragamuwa University), BA General, BA Special and Law courses (University of Peradeniya), and the BA programme of Colombo University. The English/ Tamil option is available for BA General and for BA Islamic Studies at the South Eastern University of Sri Lanka. Exclusive use of Sinhala as the MOI can be found in BA programmes at the Buddhist and Pali University and Rajarata University, at the Bachelor’s programme in Commerce and Management at University of Kelaniya, at the Bachelor of Law course at the University of Colombo, and at all the Visual, Music, Dance and Drama courses at the University of Visual and Performing Arts. Exclusive use of Tamil was found in the BA programme at the Eastern University of Sri Lanka, and at the University of Jaffna for the BFA programme and the Bachelor’s degree in Siddha medicine. At the postgraduate level, enrolment is relatively low as can be seen in Table 27.4, but here EMI is still the dominant MOI (12,735, 51%) followed by English/Sinhala/Tamil (5,983, 24%), Sinhala (5,084, 20%), Tamil (697, 3%), and English/Sinhala (396, 2%). Here too, there may be relatively significant numbers of students opting for the English medium in the English/Sinhala/ Tamil and English/Sinhala options. While English is the sole medium for courses related to science, medicine, engineering, and technology, English/Sinhala/Tamil is available in management and agriculture courses at the Master’s level in Peradeniya University and in the Arts courses at MA, MPhil, and PhD levels at the Eastern University of Sri Lanka. Sinhala as the sole medium is mainly provided at the MA and MPhil levels at the Buddhist and Pali University, at MPhil and PhD levels at Sabaragamuwa University, and at the postgraduate courses in commerce, marketing and management, education and for courses in humanities, social sciences, and in fine arts at the University of Kelaniya, and for MA, MPhil, and PhD in Sinhala at Colombo University. Tamil as the sole medium is available in MA, MPhil, and PhD courses at the Vavuniya Campus of Jaffna University, at the Eastern University of Sri Lanka, and at the University of Colombo. English/ Sinhala options are available at the MA, MPhil, and PhD levels at the Bhiksu University, in the Master’s courses in humanities, social sciences, and fine arts at the University of Kelaniya, and in education and some arts courses at the University of Colombo. 375

Ravinder Gargesh

Conclusion India and Sri Lanka share similar histories of EMI, despite the large differences in the number of universities and colleges established for higher education. EMI was introduced in both the countries in the colonial era, and in both the countries an English-medium and a vernacularmedium education system were set in motion, where English was seen as the predominant medium for excelling in higher education, for getting the best jobs, and for successfully climbing up the social ladder. Gradually, in both countries, the pursuit of political freedom heightened the desire for higher education in each country’s own indigenous languages. In both countries, the English language was viewed by many as a symbol of British imperialism and slavery. Many, in both countries, viewed it as, to use the Sinhala word, kaduva, ‘a sword that divides and rules’ (Lim, 2013, p. 61). After gaining independence, both countries expanded higher education to meet the aspirations of the younger generation as well as to rethink about MOI in higher education. India, being a large and diverse country and due to inner resistances, could not displace English-medium education, but brought in optional Indian languages as MOIs in the domain of humanities and social sciences. It continued with EMI in disciplines related to STEM. For national reconciliation, the ‘three-language formula’ was introduced, and it is still functioning. Sri Lanka, with an overwhelming majority of the population being Sinhalese, under popular pressure, displaced English-language education in 1956, except in the science subjects. Some expensive ‘international schools’ continued to use English as MOI, however, English was reintroduced after two decades as a ‘link language’ in 1978. For national reconciliation, ‘trilingualism’ (like the ‘three-language formula’ in India) was introduced which made it possible to provide instruction through English or Sinhala or Tamil in HEIs. EMI, which has continued in science-related subjects, is now also available as an option with most disciplines in the humanities and social sciences. The attitudes towards EMI are positive in both countries in the context of the globalisation in the fields of education and employability. Notwithstanding this, in India, there is no proclaimed external standardised variety of English to be followed in EMI, and the default variety is largely Indian English. In Sri Lanka, the aim of using British standardised English as MOI continues to persist.

Acknowledgement Thanks to Dr Anamika Sharma, from Deakin University, Melbourne, for providing comments on the first draft, and to Dr Youdhvir Singh, Librarian, Association of Indian Universities, Delhi, for providing broad information regarding MOI in India and Sri Lanka.

Notes 1 Wikipedia. (2022). Census of India. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Census_of_ India. 2 1. University of Colombo, 2. University of Peradeniya, 3. University of Sri Jayawardhenapura, 4. University of Kelaniya, 5. University of Moratuwa, 6. University of Jaffna (includes Vavuniya Campus), 7. University of Ruhuna, 8. Eastern University, Sri Lanka, 9. South Eastern University, Sri Lanka, 10. Rajarata University of Sri Lanka, 11. Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka, 12. Wayamba University of Sri Lanka, 13. Uva Wallessa University of Sri Lanka, 14. University of Visual & Performing Arts, 15. General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University, 16. Buddhist and Pali University of Sri Lanka, and 17. Bhiksu University of Sri Lanka.

376

EMI in higher education in India and Sri Lanka

References Aggarwal, J. C. (1993). Landmarks in the history of modern Indian education (2nd rev. ed.). Vikas Publishing House. AISHE-2020. (2020). All India survey on higher education – 2019–2020. Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education. Audit Bureau of Circulations. (2019). Highest circulated dailies, weeklies & magazines amongst member publications (across languages). Retrieved from http://www.auditbureau.org/files/JD%202019%20Highest%20Circulated%20(across%20languages).pdf Balakrishnar, J., & Thanaraj, T. (2015). Instruction in the English medium: A Sri Lankan case study. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Language and social cohesion in the developing world (Selected proceedings of the Ninth Language and Development Conference, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2011) (pp. 166–177). British Council & Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH. Retrieved from https://docslib. org/doc/2881960/instruction-in-the-english-medium-a-sri-lankan-case-study Baumgardner, R. J. (Ed.). (1996). South Asian English: Structure, use, and users. University of Illinois Press. Census of India. (2011). Language – Atlas of India 2011. Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India, Ministry of Home Affairs. Coperahewa, S. (2009). The language planning situation in Sri Lanka. Current Issues in Language Planning, 10, 69–150. Coperahewa, S. (2011). Colonialism and problems of language policy: Formulation of a colonial language policy in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka Journal of Advanced Social Studies, 1(1), 27–52. Dharmadasa, K. N. O. (1992). Language, religion, and ethnic assertiveness: The growth of Sinhalese nationalism in Sri Lanka. University of Michigan Press. Fernando, S. (2011). From dethroning English to planning for a trilingual society. Daily News. Retrieved from http://archives.dailynews.lk/2011/10/26/fea01.asp Gargesh, R., & Dev, A. N. (2017). Tertiary education in India: A Janus-faced perspective. In B. Spolsky & K. W. Sung (Eds.), English in higher education in Asia (pp. 46–64). Routledge. Golding, D. (2018). The colonial and neoliberal roots of the public-private education debate in Sri Lanka. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 16, 145–174. Government of India. (1962). The report of the University Education Commission (December 1948 – August 1949) (Vol. I). Ministry of Education. Government of India. (2018). Study in India: Higher education. Ministry of Education. Retrieved from https:// studyinindia.gov.in/about-indian-higher-educationHerath, S. (2015). Language policy, ethnic tensions, and linguistic rights in post war Sri Lanka. Language Policy, 14, 245–261. Hindustan Times. (2021). AP government makes English medium compulsory at undergraduate level. Retrieved from https://www.hindustantimes.com/education/news/ap-government-makes-english-mediumcompulsory-at-undergraduate-level-101623819655911.html Index Mundi. (2022a). India. Retrieved from https://www.indexmundi.com/india/ #Demographics. Index Mundi. (2022b). Sri Lanka. Retrieved from https://www.indexmundi.com/sri_lanka/ Jayasinghe, A. (2020). A study on the effectiveness of English medium teaching in Faculty of Social Sciences and Languages in Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/341051543 Kennedy, J. (2017). Students vs. language: Challenges faced by the undergraduates offering English medium instruction in Sri Lanka. People: International Journal of Social Sciences, 3(1), 554–566. Lim, L. (2013). Kaduva of privileged power, instrument of rural empowerment? The politics of English (and Sinhala and Tamil) in Sri Lanka. In L. Wee, R. B. H. Goh, & L. Lim (Eds.), The politics of English. South Asia, Southeast Asia and the Asia Pacific (pp. 61–80). John Benjamins. Liyanage, I. (2019). Language education policy in Sri Lanka. In A. Kirkpatrick & A. L. Liddicoat (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of language education policy in Asia (pp. 399–413). Routledge. Liyanage, I. (2021). English language education policy in Sri Lanka: Historical developments, current realities, and future challenges. In E. L. Low & A. Pakir (Eds.), English in East and South Asia: Policy, features and language in use (pp. 90–103). Routledge. Liyanage, I., & Canagarajah, A. S. (2014). Interethnic understanding and the teaching of local languages in Sri Lanka. In D. Gorter, V. Zenotz, & J. Cenoz (Eds.), Minority languages and multilingual education: Bridging the local and the global (pp. 119–135). Springer.

377

Ravinder Gargesh Mendis, D., & Rambukwella, H. (2010). Sri Lankan Englishes. In A. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of world Englishes (pp. 181–196). Routledge. Meyler, M. (2015). Sri Lankan English: An appropriate model for the teaching of English in Sri Lanka? In H. Coleman (Ed.), Language and social cohesion in the developing world (Selected proceedings of the Ninth Language and Development Conference, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2011) (pp. 178–185). British Council & Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH. Mihindukulasuriya, R. (2021). English India’s most used social media language, but it’s shutting out rural women: Meta paper. ThePrint. Retrieved from https://theprint.in/tech/english-indias-most-used-socialmedia-language-but-its-shutting-out-rural-women-meta-paper/779112​/ Ministry of Education. (1966). Report of the Education Commission, 1964–1966. National Council Of Educational Research And Training (1970). Retrieved from http://www.academics-india.com/Kothari%20 Commission%20Report.pdf National Knowledge Commission. (2008). Recommendations on language: A letter to the Prime Minister of India. Retrieved from https://nationalknowledgecommission.wordpress.com/2008/11/17/ recommendations-on-language/ Navaz, A. M. M. (2013). A study on perception of lecturer-student interaction in English medium science lectures. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 7, 117–136. Navaz, A. M. M. (2016). Challenges faced by students in English medium undergraduate classes: An experience of a young university in Sri Lanka. Researchers World – Journal of Arts, Science & Commerce, VII(4(1)), 158–166. Navaz, A. M. M. (2020). Developing a framework for understanding lecturer-student interaction in Englishmedium undergraduate lectures in Sri Lanka: First step towards dialogic teaching. International Journal of English Linguistics, 10, 395–409. NEP. (2020). National education policy. Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. Retrieved from https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/ NEP_Final_English_0.pdf Neranjani, S. (2021). English medium education and Bachelor of Education programmes in the Sri Lankan university: Challenges and realities. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), V(VII), 587–598. Perera, K., & Canagarajah, A. S. (2010). Globalisation and English teaching in Sri Lanka: Foreign resources and local responses. In V. Vaish (Ed.), Globalization of language and culture in Asia: The impact of globalization processes on language (pp. 106–119). Continuum. Prasangani, K. S. N. (2018). Investigation of L2 motivational self system: A comparative study of undergraduates from displaced and resettled regions in Sri Lanka. Sabaragamuwa University Journal, 16(1), 58–67. Premarathna, A., Yogaraja, S. J., Medawattegedara, V., Senarathna, C. D., & Abdullah, M. R. M. (2014). Study on medium of instruction, national and international languages in general education in Sri Lanka. National Education Commission. Ramamurti, A. (1990). Report of the Committee for Review of National Policy on Education 1986. Retrieved from https://www.educationforallinindia.com/1990%20Acharya% 20Ramamurti%20Report.pdf Rameez, A. (2019). English language proficiency and employability of university students: A sociological study of undergraduates at the Faculty of Arts and Culture, South Eastern University of Sri Lanka (SEUSL). International Journal of English Linguistics, 9, 199–209. Rukmini, S. (2019, May 14). In India, who speaks in English, and where? Mint. Retrieved from https://www. livemint.com/news/india/in-india-who-speaks-in-english-and-where-1557814101428.html Sarma, V., Licht, S., & Kalugalagedera, T. (2018). Educational inequalities in Sri Lanka: National data and local perspectives on access, quality and learning outcomes. Centre for Poverty Analysis. Saunders, B. M. (2007). (Post)colonial language: English, Sinhala, and Tamil in Sri Lanka. Retrieved from https://cpercy.artsci.utoronto.ca/courses/eng6365-saunders.htm Statista. (2022). Number of Indian and English language internet users across India from 2011 to 2021 (in millions). Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/718420/internet-user-base-by-language-india/ The Economic Times. (2023, February 26). Mission 2047: India’s march to become third-largest economy. Retrieved from https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/indicators/mission-2047-indiasmarch-to-become-third-largest-economy/articleshow/97346381.cms The World Bank. (2021a). GDP (current US$) – India. Retrieved from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=IN The World Bank. (2021b). GDP (current US$) – Sri Lanka. Retrieved from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=LK

378

EMI in higher education in India and Sri Lanka The World Bank. (2022). Overview. Retrieved from https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/ srilanka/ overview University Grants Commission. (1965). Report of the English Review Committee. Retrieved from http://14.139.60.153/bitstream/123456789/6862/1/REPORT%20OF%20THE%20ENGLISH%20REVIEW%20COMMITTEE-CSL-IOD_IO27403.pdf Vivekanantharasa, R., & Blanco, G. (2022). Higher education amid crisis in Sri Lanka. International Higher Education, 112, 17–18. Walisundara, D. C., & Hettiarachchi, S. (2016). English language policy and planning in Sri Lanka: A critical overview. In R. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), English language education policy in Asia (pp. 301–332). Springer. Wettewa, V. (2016). Postcolonial emotionalism in shaping education: An analysis of international school choice in Sri Lanka. International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 15, 66–83. Wickramasinghe, V. (2018). Higher education in state universities in Sri Lanka: Review of higher education since colonial past through international funding for development. International Journal of Educational Management, 32, 463–478.

379

28 ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN MALAYSIA Azirah Hashim

Introduction Various decisions made by political leaders in Malaysia regarding language planning have resulted in a broad range of national policies, either promoting a national language as official language or adopting alternative multilingual policies. In the early postcolonial period, studies on language policy in Malaysia often focussed on the effectiveness of former colonial languages compared to the promotion of national languages. In recent decades, research has shifted focus to the impact of globalisation and internationalisation of higher education on the medium of instruction (Gill, 2005; Azirah, 2009; Asmah, 1992). Tsui and Tollefson (2007, p. viii) highlight the importance of ‘underlying social and political agendas in different socio-political contexts’ using a critical conceptual lens. Since then, research on English-medium instruction (EMI) in contexts where English is not widely used has proliferated, especially in relation to multilingualism, concerns about equity, and connections between policies and practices. In such contexts, discussions on political and pedagogical expectations and their effectiveness have become critical. This chapter begins with a historical background of the medium of instruction (MOI) issues in Malaysia and then proceeds to survey the higher education landscape as well as national and institutional policies on language. It is followed by an exploration of the realities of EMI in the Malaysian context, with a specific focus on students’ and lecturers’ difficulties with EMI and their perspectives on it. As the rise of EMI raises critical questions for applied linguists, the chapter concludes with implications of EMI and proposals on how EMI policies and practices can be further refined and how lecturers and students in universities can be adequately supported. This study involved a review and analysis of documents on education and language policies and contemporary research.

History and background Hamid, Nguyen, and Baldauf (2013, p. 3), in discussing their framework for MOI and language policy and planning, state that ‘MoI cannot be decontextualised from its social, geographical and historical context’. They highlight that a historical perspective is essential in understanding current policies, and an ecological perspective reveals that ‘all languages in a particular context have symbiotic relationships comparable to a natural ecology and introducing change in any language in the

DOI: 10.4324/9781003011644-32 380

English-medium instruction in higher education in Malaysia

ecology potentially affects the entire language ecology’ (Hamid et al., 2013, p. 4). In this section, the historical and ecological context for Malaysia’s language policies is described to provide a better understanding of the evolving language policies. Malaysia today consists of two parts, Peninsular Malaysia (West Malaysia) and Sabah and Sarawak on the island of Borneo (East Malaysia). The population of about 32 million comprises 69.9% Malays, 23% Chinese, and 6.7% Indians, with the rest consisting of other ethnic and indigenous communities in West and East Malaysia (Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2022). Prior to attaining independence from the British in 1957, it had been colonised by the Portuguese and the Dutch. European exploration in the fifteenth century for trade and colonisation in the Malayan archipelago led to the present state of Malacca falling under the Portuguese in 1511. The language, Portuguese, then was used in various locations in Malacca. Following this, in the seventeenth century, the Netherlands, which had already established control over parts of Indonesia and set up trading posts, seized Malacca from the Portuguese. Dutch was introduced and primarily used mainly in Dutch enclaves. In 1824, Malacca was taken over by the British, and the Federated States of Malaya was formed comprising Malacca, Penang, and Singapore. There were trade-offs between the British and the Dutch and, by the nineteenth century, English was firmly implanted in Southeast Asia (Azirah & Leitner, 2021; Taib, 2016). Before the arrival of the Europeans, Malay served as the lingua franca and was the language of trade, diplomacy, and communication between Europeans and local rulers. Education focussing on religion, with Arabic used as the language for education and Quranic reading, already existed before the British arrived. However, it did not become the language for communication. The British established schools where English was the language used, and the earlier religious schools evolved into formal schools with Malay as MOI, using the Roman script, which replaced the Jawi script. An influx of the Chinese from China and Indians from India, who were brought in for labour, soon changed the demographic and linguistic make-up of the Malay region. Furthermore, the demarcation along ethnic lines in terms of jobs led to a similar division of settlements in different parts of the country. The Chinese who worked in the tin mines lived mainly in small towns and started businesses and became traders. They eventually became a significant component of the urban middle class. The Indians worked in the rubber plantations and railways stations and, therefore, settled in these areas, while the Malays lived in rural parts of the country. The presence of the Chinese and Indians led to the establishment of schools catering to these communities. In 1925, a survey showed that there were 29,000 children in Malay vernacular schools, 15,000 in Chinese vernacular schools, 8,000 in Tamil vernacular schools, and 14,000 in Englishmedium schools (Kirkpatrick, 2010, p. 22). When Malaya gained independence in 1957, it boasted a multi-ethnic population, encompassing different languages and dialects, including those of Malay, Chinese, and Indian and other indigenous languages. In 1963, Sabah and Sarawak joined Malaya to form Malaysia, futher augmenting the ethnic and linguistic complexity of the country. Malay, having the longest historical legacy in the region and being the primary language of the major ethnic group, was designated the national and official language of the newly independent country. English remained as an official language for 10 years after which it was relegated to ‘second most important language’ and was phased out gradually. Nevertheless, in domains such as the legal field, English continued to be used and the switch to the national language took place later (Azirah, 2009; Asmah, 2012; Taib, 2016). Numerous education and language policies have been formulated from the period of the colonial establishment to contemporary Malaysia (Azirah & Leitner, 2016; Asmah, 2012; Taib, 2016).

381

Azirah Hashim

These policies indicate plurality due to ‘changing actors and changing purposes throughout the various eras’ (Ozay, 2012, p. 1). The language policy during the British colonial government can be traced back to the language policy under the overall education policy formulated by Thomas Stamford Raffles when he established the state organisation of Singapore in the early nineteenth century. He outlined an education policy that included English as MOI while concurrently emphasising mother tongue education. Penang Free School, the oldest English-medium school in Southeast Asia, was established in 1816, and Singapore Free School in 1834 followed the spirit of this policy. Other English language schools were subsequently established (Azirah & Leitner, 2016; Ozay, 2012; Taib, 2016). Towards the end of the nineteenth century, vernacular schools were established to cater to each racial group. The English schools were mainly attended by children of the British as well as Eurasian children. However, in response to the criticisms expressed in two reports, the Wooley Report of 1870 and the Isemonger Report of 1894, which highlighted the lack of access to educational facilities for Malay youth, these schools began admitting local youth as well. Prior to gaining independence in 1957, the Barnes Report of 1951 recommended the preservation of both Malay and English schools, with Malay and English as MOI and proposed the closure of vernacular schools. However, this recommendation did not find widespread agreement, especially among the Chinese and Indian communities. Consequently, the Razak report of 1956, which recommended a national system representative of the different ethnic groups and emphasised national unity, was adopted. Malay together with English became the MOI in national schools. During the 1970s, two types of schools were recognised, national and national-type schools. National schools had Malay as the MOI, while national-type schools could use either Chinese or Tamil as MOI. To ensure that the national language was not neglected in the national-type schools, Malay was made a compulsory subject in these schools. By 1976, Malay had become the MOI in all schools in Peninsular Malaysia. East Malaysia (Sabah and Sarawak) followed this transition a few years later. The Rahman Talib Report of 1960 confirmed the educational policy outlined in the Razak report and its general acceptance by the public. The principles arrived at in these two reports became integral components of the Education Act of 1961. This Act was extended to Sabah and Sarawak only in 1976 (Gill, 2004; Azirah, 2009; Asmah, 2012). Regarding schools, four school systems were recognised, differing in terms of the MOI: Malay, Chinese, Tamil, and English. English schools used English as the MOI, with students comprising those whose parents were willing to pay fees, mainly the Chinese. The ethnic divisions that were evident during the colonial period and early independence became even more pronounced in school enrolment patterns subsequently (Asmah, 2012). The use of the national language, Malay, as the MOI in national primary and secondary schools in Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah was implemented in stages, starting in 1970. Schools at the primary level switched to Malay in 1976 and at the secondary level in 1982. The transition of Malay as the MOI in Sarawak primary schools came later, in 1977. At the tertiary level, however, although Malay slowly replaced English as the MOI, English was not erased completely, especially in the science-based and law faculties of local universities. A significant change took place in 2003 when the government under then Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, mandated that the teaching of mathematics and science must be in English from the first year of primary school. The rationale behind this decision was that students’ lack of English proficiency made them unmarketable as graduates, and there was an urgent need to curb the decline in English (Azirah, 2009; Asmah, 2012). A switch back to Malay as the MOI was announced a decade later, and there have been constant debates and discussions on this in Malaysian education.

382

English-medium instruction in higher education in Malaysia

Higher education policies and English as medium of instruction In Malaysia, university education is provided by both public and private higher education institutions. Public universities are funded or semi-funded by the government and operate under the purview of the Ministry of Higher Education. There are currently about 20 public universities with the majority offering both undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. These universities are categorised into research universities, comprehensive universities, and focussed universities. Private universities, which have mushroomed since the 1990s, also offer programmes at different levels. However, they generally have a smaller population of staff members and a stronger focus on undergraduate programmes. Another category of universities are foreign branch campuses. Currently, there are 10 of these campuses in the country, originating from Australia, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and China. These foreign universities offer programmes that are identical to the ones offered in their home countries but at a lower cost. Many of the universities in the country participate in global rankings with 10 institutions in the top 500 according to Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World Rankings in 2022. Universiti Malaya, Malaysia’s oldest university, stood at number 65 in the world and 8 in Asia in the QS Rankings in 2022. The use of Malay at universities in the country is the result of the implementation of the national language policy applied at the primary and secondary school levels. As mentioned earlier, the changeover from English to Malay in the former English schools was completed by 1983. This meant that university intakes from that year comprised students who had received their school education completely in Malay. Universities took measures to prepare staff for the transition from teaching in English to Malay. For example, at Universiti Malaya, a language service centre to assist with the implementation of the national language policy was established in 1972. The university was thus able to facilitate the change from English to Malay quite quickly. Training of staff, however, to ensure that teaching in Malay was smoothly implemented took a longer time. According to Taib (2016, p. 37), ‘the programme proved to be a success, as indicated by the ability of the university to implement the national language policy fully in 1983’. By the turn of the present century, EMI programmes had become widely introduced in universities in Asia and other parts of the world. In Malaysia, EMI was promoted for science, engineering, and medical courses in public universities. In private universities, the Malaysian Education Act of 1996 allowed and encouraged the use of English for partnerships in transnational education which led to universities in the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States offering joint and twinning programmes (Azirah & Leitner, 2014). With internationalisation, several higher education policies have emerged in Malaysia and an analysis of references to language in some of these policies is given here. It can be observed that although the policies refer to Malay, English, and other languages, there is no clear written policy on EMI (Hasim & Barnard, 2018). The Constitution classifies English as the ‘second most important language’ but does not give it a legitimate official place except in some domains like private higher education. Article 152 of the Constitution made Malay the official and sole national language but stated that English would be phased out gradually over the next 10 years (Azirah, 2009; Asmah, 2012). It further stated that ‘English would continue for a transitional period in legal and administrative affairs’ (Azirah & Leitner, 2021, p. 129). Reforms, however, gradually increased the role of Malay in the legal domain. A succession of language planning measures in education increased the role of Malay in the legal domain, following similar reforms in government and education. A policy ‘To uphold Bahasa Malaysia & to strengthen the English language’ was introduced in 2003 following the switch back to Malay for mathematics and science in 2012 after the sudden 383

Azirah Hashim

change from Malay to English. This policy aimed at boosting students’ proficiency in Malay and English, while Malay was made the MOI in schools and recommended strategies that include improvements in the English curriculum, increase in the credit hours for the subject of English, training of English language teachers, introducing BM as the language of knowledge, utilization of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) scales as benchmarks for BM and English, introducing blended-learning models, and upholding BM as the language of knowledge. (Mahmood & Yamat, 2019, p. 907) Subsequently, the Internationalisation Policy of 2011 ‘which aims at accelerating the inflow of international students to 150,000 by 2015 and 200,000 by 2020’ (MOHE, 2011, p. 7), led to public universities offering programmes in English, in particular postgraduate programmes targeting international students on a large scale. Regarding English, the policy stipulates the use of English documents when international students are involved. It states that English is (to be) used as an MOI in the management and academic aspects of higher education involving international students and action steps include ensuring that ‘all course materials and assessments are in English’ and that ‘all documents related to academic programmes delivered to international students are in English’ (MOHE, 2011, p. 63). It also stipulates that ‘HEIs (higher education institutions)…implement the use of English in all communication relating to all international staff and students’, with all administrative documents available in English, and all communication medium including emails, signboards, and announcements to be available in English as well (Kaur, 2020, p. 136). These statements in a Ministry of Higher Education document signals a departure from earlier documents that avoided any mention of EMI including any explicit written statement on EMI. However, in the interest of protecting the position of the Malay language, the policy was formulated as ‘proposed measures’ (MOHE, 2011, p. 7), which the Ministry hoped the respective institutions would adopt to further its internationalisation agenda. ‘The extent to which the aforementioned action steps on the use of English as a medium of instruction and communication are implemented is clearly left to the individual universities’ (Kaur, 2020, p. 136). The Malaysian Higher Education Blueprint 2015–2025 outlines strategies to elevate the education system in the country to a world-class level, with language proficiency as one of the key attributes for global competitiveness. The Blueprint also emphasises bilingual proficiency in Malay and English. While earlier education policies made the preservation of national identity a key component, the Blueprint places emphasis on a liberal economist view. What is clearly specified is that globalisation requires the adoption of language policies that ensure that Malaysians can compete in a globalised environment (Azirah & Leitner, 2014). In this document, proficiency in both Malay and English is listed as one of the six outcomes in the education system. However, the document is silent on the issue of MOI. Zaman (2019, p. 8) analysed the Blueprint to determine how English is represented in it and what English means to the education system in the country. She found that English ‘is constructed as being a global language which the Ministry of Education Malaysia (MOE) believes is important to master’. In addition, she asserts that MOE ‘believes that being proficient in the English language will enable Malaysian youth to compete on a global platform and that success means being able to compete globally’ and that ‘MOE does acknowledge the importance of English language and being proficient in the language but the execution and implementation of the initiatives for improving the level of English language proficiency need to be addressed with more attention’. Another study on the Blueprint by Too (2017) also highlighted

384

English-medium instruction in higher education in Malaysia

the prominence of English in the higher education system and emphasised that students must be proficient in Malay and an additional language. According to Too (2017, p. 15), ‘placing the importance of Bahasa Melayu (Malay), the national language, and the English language at the same level indicates the recognition given to the role of the latter in developing knowledge and communication skills among university students’. Furthermore, he points out that the document shows that international students are welcome and encouraged to come to Malaysia and that English as the MOI is widely used. What seems to be clear is that none of these documents state explicitly that EMI is to be implemented by all universities, hence leading to different interpretations by different universities and individuals. The directives for EMI in universities have been mainly verbal and conveyed through media reports. How EMI should be institutionalised and what procedures were to be implemented were not stated in a written document (Ali, 2013). Ali’s (2013, p. 84) analysis of official documents concluded that ‘language-in-education policy in Malaysia is driven by the ideology of globalisation rather than educational principles’. Another study by Hasim and Barnard (2018) found that, in their interview with academics about how they interpreted the various national and institutional statements on English and EMI, the responses were varied. Individual interpretation of these policies is, therefore, common. Similar findings have been found in other countries in the region (Manh, 2012; Tri, 2020; Vu & Burns, 2014). Simbolon (2021) described the Indonesian context where universities are striving to be internationally recognised with several currently offering EMI courses. She also states that no documentation of how EMI should be implemented can be found and that the main reason for EMI is to keep pace with other universities with two types of EMI classes found, the bilingual class and the international class.

The realities of EMI in Malaysia’s universities This section provides a discussion of studies on EMI in Malaysia with references also to studies in other countries in Southeast Asia as a comparison. An early study on EMI in Malaysia, Choi and Kaur (2005) conducted a survey on the oldest public university in the country. This took place at around the time when the announcement to switch from Malay to English for the teaching of mathematics and science had just taken place. Responses from academics in different faculties showed that, at the undergraduate level, Malay was mostly used as medium of instruction. It was found that among the 17 faculties, academies, and centres, only three conducted their undergraduate programmes in Malay, namely the Academy of Malay Studies, the Faculty of Economics and Administration, and the Cultural Centre. While the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences also conducted all its courses in Malay, an exception was made regarding three specific programmes: English Literature, Chinese Studies, and Indian Studies, where 70% of the classes were conducted in English, Mandarin, and Tamil, respectively. Other mainly Arts-based faculties adopted both Malay and English as the medium of instruction, with the proportion of classes conducted in each MOI ranging from 70 to 90% in Malay, and 10 to 30% in English. The Engineering faculty had 60% of its programmes conducted in English and the Faculty of Dentistry had 50%. The others had more English-medium programmes than Malay-medium programmes. The Faculty of Languages and Linguistics offered programmes in several languages due to the nature of its programmes and had only 23% of courses taught in Malay. At the Faculty of Law, all lectures were conducted in Malay, while all tutorials were conducted in English, given the importance of English for law students. The Faculty of Business and Accountancy and the Faculty of Medicine had different guidelines for

385

Azirah Hashim

different years of the programmes, with more EMI courses offered in the later years. In contrast, at the postgraduate level where there were international students present, on the whole, English was used, although students had the option of writing their theses in Malay or English. Choi and Kaur’s study showed that even within one university, EMI was implemented quite differently and usually left to the management of each faculty to determine. In general, Science-based programmes used more EMI than Arts-based programmes. A decade later, Ali (2013) conducted a study on EMI at three levels: the macro, which looked at the national policy, the meso, which examined the university documents, and the micro, which concerned actual stakeholders who are involved. She found no explicit references to EMI in any of the documents. As mentioned in the earlier section, the national education documents mention English and its importance in internationalisation of higher education. In studying the university documents of a university, she found the statement ‘Languages of instruction, other than Bahasa Malaysia, can be used with permission of the respective faculty, but in such cases students must be given the opportunity to be assessed in Bahasa Malaysia’ (Ali, 2013, p. 76). Apart from this, there is no clear statement on EMI, leading to some respondents in her study to assume that EMI should be used only for science and engineering classes (Ali, 2013). Lack of clarity in policy and practice was also a finding in another study by Kaur and Zainuddin (2019) who conducted a study on EMI policies and practices in a Malaysian university and, through interviews with students and lecturers, examined the extent that language practices conformed to EMI policies. They provided an extract from the university’s International Student Centre’s homepage intended for prospective international students: ‘The medium of instruction is in English (for all Science-based courses). Some programmes in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Academy of Malay Studies, and Academy of Islamic Studies, however, may use the Malay language or Arabic’. They found that: while English is used both at undergraduate and postgraduate levels in the Sciences, in the Humanities and Social Sciences, Malay continues to be used at undergraduate level and English or Malay at postgraduate level, depending on the programme and the availability of English-speaking staff. (Kaur & Zainuddin, 2019, p. 174) Another language that was used as an MOI was Arabic, but only in courses on Islamic studies. At the faculty level, it was found that EMI was explicitly stated in the academic programme handbooks. It was also mentioned that both Malay and English were used as an MOI, with Malay being used when there were teaching staff who were not proficient in English. The study also highlighted an extract from a handbook at the Faculty of Education that, in practice, the National Education Policy may not be adhered to: Although the official medium of instruction for the Masters and PhD programmes is Malay, most of the courses are taught in English. This is to enable foreign students who are not proficient in the Malay language to pursue their postgraduate studies at the Faculty. In effect all staff members are bilingual, that is, they are proficient in the Malay language as well as in English. For students from overseas who do not master the Malay language, the Faculty provides, as far as possible, special education procedures, so that they can continue their course of study in English. (Kaur & Zainuddin, 2019, p. 172)

386

English-medium instruction in higher education in Malaysia

Lecturers’ perspectives on EMI When the policy of teaching mathematics and science in English in schools was announced in 2002, a verbal directive was given to public universities to adopt EMI for teaching science and technology courses when the first cohort of students entered university. While studies on EMI and internationalisation of higher education in Malaysia have been carried out quite extensively (­Azirah & Leitner, 2014; Asmah, 2012; Taib, 2016), lecturers’ and students’ perspectives on EMI have not been sufficiently studied. Gill (2006) examined the transmission of the MOI policy from the macro-level to the meso-and micro-levels and identified a lack of written directives on the EMI policy in public universities. She also found opposition to the transition in MOI from Malay to English among academics, mainly due to nationalistic attitudes. In contrast, 65% of lecturers supported the change due to their perception that English is the language of science and technology, and EMI would help students get jobs when they leave university (Gill, 2006). Hasim and Barnard (2018) examined institutional policy and the perceptions and practices of staff involved in teaching EMI programmes in a public university to explore the language policy adopted by the selected institution. They wanted to find out the extent to which, and how, English was used as an MOI, and to gather insights into the teaching staff’s beliefs and practices regarding EMI. They reported that the Faculty of Education and the Faculty of Arts and Social Science ran courses in both English and Malay, depending on the discipline or subject. A Law lecturer reported that there used to be a specific bilingual policy at the faculty, and that lectures were in Malay and tutorials in English. This was due to the view that it was important to retain Malay. This had since then changed, and the bilingual policy was not adhered to, as the majority of lecturers conducted both lectures and tutorials in English. Lecturers in the faculties represented in this study were found to use EMI across all their programmes. It was: common policy that, at least so far as examinations are concerned, the instructions should be provided in both English and BM, and the students were allowed to write their answers in whichever language they preferred, although code-switching within any one answer was generally prohibited. (p. 36) Lecturers: also said that they were better able to express disciplinary concepts more precisely in English than in BM, which they felt lacked exact equivalences for many key concepts. With the exception of the Education lecturer, the participants reported that they had not had any formal training in teaching through the medium of English, and very little, if any, professional development in pedagogy. (p. 37) Another study (Selvaraj, Chandrasekran, & Santhanam, 2016) explored the acceptability of EMI in a public university that promotes the use of Malay MOI. Unsurprisingly, the views of the lecturers were largely negative about EMI. One person was quoted as saying that ‘it is not essential for a nation to develop on the basis of language. There are other critical factors that can lead a country to development and success’ (p. 71). The majority of lecturers interviewed were against the implementation of EMI and made remarks such as ‘the process of implementing the English language as MOI resulted in various issues and conflicts between the professors’ and ‘I believe that 387

Azirah Hashim

the inclusion of English language can increase the confusion of the students who have little or no command over the English language’ (p. 72). However, there were a few lecturers who responded positively stating that ‘the change in the language from Malay to English has assisted the students in identifying terminologies in another language’. In contrast, Rahman and Mehar Singh’s (2022) study, which discussed language-related ideologies among lecturers at a public university in Malaysia, found positive views towards EMI on the whole among lecturers. Feedback showed that there was a general belief that EMI was beneficial for English language proficiency: EMI helps students to learn the content in English, the language of today’s international business […] and it helps them to be better communicators and negotiators in workplaces… the ability to demonstrate English language competency is advantageous for higher education students who wish to pursue higher education or employment prospects abroad, and EMI would help them in this regard. (p. 116) The authors also noted that social values associated with English and EMI impacts well on student enrolment. Another positive view towards EMI was that: in Malaysia, you would hardly find parents who do not prefer English-medium schools and universities…There is a widespread assumption among these stakeholders that English is a respectable language and a prosperous passport for the future…English is related to social status. No English medium means no English, and no English equals no value in Malaysia. (p. 117) Mustapha et al. (2021) interviewed lecturers from both public and private universities about their views on internationalisation and English. They obtained responses from lecturers pertaining to what languages were used in the classroom and reasons for this. For example, they found that switching to a language that international students understood was common and a lecturer commented that ‘there wasn’t much issue because the Indonesian students do speak English and on top of that, they are also well versed in Bahasa Melayu (Malay) hence making communication bearable’. Another response was that both local and international students were pushed to speak in English in the presence of one another. Participants in this study pointed out that language issues were a big challenge for lecturers who do not use English often. Language issues appear to top the list of challenges faced by the lecturers when dealing with international students. One response was that daily communication was not a problem but explaining content and concepts often was for both lecturers and students. A study by Ali and Hamid (2018) conducted on content-area lecturers (CALs) and their teaching practices in EMI classes in a public university in Malaysia investigated the kinds of agency of the CALs and whether they showed resistance, accommodation, and dedication to the EMI policy and implementation. They found varying views and practices in the classroom – some used Malay despite EMI being the de facto policy. Some indicated that the English language proficiency of the students was inadequate for them to follow a completely EMI class. The majority of lecturers in this study used both English and Malay for the students’ benefit and did not actually state they were resistant to the EMI policy. They highlighted the challenges faced by CALs and the additional work that went into implementing EMI in class. 388

English-medium instruction in higher education in Malaysia

Similar findings have been reported in neighbouring countries. Simbolon (2018) studied stakeholders’ perspectives on EMI in Indonesia and found, through focus group interviews of contentbased lecturers and policymakers in a university, that a gap exists between the perspectives of policymakers and the articulation of institutional policy regarding EMI. The stakeholders also believed that content-based language teaching was the most suitable approach to implement EMI. Dewi’s (2017) study found that, although there were differing views and that perceptions about EMI were highly complex, ‘all participants agreed that their universities needed to empower students through English. The reasons varied, yet they were all related to access to information, whether through international interaction or reading and understanding academic literature and other sources of information’. In Vietnam, Thi (2017) reported that both lecturers and students faced varied challenges with EMI programmes. Lecturers also found it challenging to deal with students’ lack of English language proficiency while students felt most pressured when they had to demonstrate their content-area knowledge in English in exams. They also had difficulties with the curriculum and lecturers’ teaching. The added workload created by EMI was a big obstacle for lecturers in carrying out their job well. In support of these findings, Vu and Burns’s study (2014) found that several Vietnamese content lecturers experienced difficulty in using English and that the four major challenges were language abilities of lecturers and students, pedagogical issues, and learning styles as well as resources available.

Students’ perspectives on EMI Other important stakeholders in EMI implementation are the students themselves and their perception of EMI. Kaur and Zainuddin (2019) interviewed 24 participants who were generally positive about the adoption of EMI. They speculated that the reason for this could be that enactment at the university had some flexibility in that other languages used together with English was accepted and that ‘far-from-perfect English’ was not frowned upon. The focus on meaning over form reflect more realistic expectations which are attainable by most. Another study supporting these findings (Saeed, Varghese, Holst, & Ghazali, 2018) found that students had positive attitudes towards EMI as they believed that EMI would lead to improvement in their English proficiency and they were keen to be able to read and research better. They found that EMI was seen as encouragement to use English outside the classroom. P’ng (2021), on the other hand, had mixed findings but concluded that, on the whole, the views were positive. It is noted that students in this study came mainly from Chinese schools where MOI had been Mandarin with varying levels of English language exposure. The challenges they faced stemmed from the lack of exposure to the use of English and the teachers’ lack of English language proficiency. Comments such as the following were recorded: From the aspects of receiving English language, I am okay with it, but when you ask me to produce the English language myself, it would kind of be very hard for me. But there are certain lecturers I don’t really understand their English. It’s like they use key words to explain and then they stuck for a while and as a listener I can’t really get what the lecturer wants. The lecturer […] the lecturer speaks very fast. I cannot get what […] what does she says and the […] the lecturer notes are very hard for me. So if she speaks so fast it will be very hard for me to understand. (P’ng, 2021, pp. 25–26)

389

Azirah Hashim

Kaur’s (2020) study examined the experiences of teachers and students using English in the classroom within the context of EMI. She found that, as there were no policies or guidelines on what language should be used for classroom interaction in an EMI class, teachers tended to individually determine whether to use only English, or both English and Malay, or only Malay for interaction. One head of department interviewed indicated his support for the university’s stand on EMI and would remind colleagues that they should teach in English. Kaur quoted him as saying ‘What we do is that if we have international students, we must teach in English and communicate in English at all times during the class, whether it’s lecturer or lab session’ (p. 140). She quoted a law student who stated that ‘in terms of having discussions and also doing group assignments and so on, the MOI between us would still be English’ (p. 140). However, challenges faced were also highlighted as in the earlier studies. As mentioned by a lecturer about the students: There are some you know who struggle a lot with English. Even for them to ask me a question about something that they are confused, like they cannot, they feel fearful, or that the sentence that they want to construct in their head, they’ve constructed it in Malay or Chinese, and then when they translate it takes a long time. So they hesitate to come up to me and ask me questions. (Kaur, 2020, p. 141) As a comparison, Despitasari (2021) examined students’ perspectives on EMI in Indonesia and found that the importance of EMI was widely accepted, with students offering reasons such as career and internationalisation. Her findings are in line with the rise of EMI with globalisation and many of those who were interviewed aspired to be mobile where work was concerned. Hasim and Barnard (2018), in their study on stakeholders’ perspectives, observed very little interaction between the students and the lecturer in a few sessions they attended. They reported that: students responded monosyllabically when asked if they understood; in another class, the lecturer elicited points from the textbook to which the students responded in chorus. All the participants said that most students were too shy to ask questions openly in class, and only occasionally did students do this; when they did ask questions, they did in BM – and usually outside the class. English was rarely spoken by the students: in one lecture (Accountancy), two international students each asked a question in English, and in another (Engineering) one Malay student asked several questions, again in English. (p. 35)

Conclusion Several factors serve to promote English in higher education in Malaysia, and EMI has become increasingly common to facilitate the participation of international students in class. English is not the sole language for the MOI in Malaysia. Some universities and disciplines still use the national language. However, English predominantly serves as the sole MOI in not only the sciences and in medicine but also in the Social Sciences in some public universities and in all programmes in private universities. The decision to establish English as the sole working language in ASEAN, the efforts aimed at creating a common higher education area, and the drive to establish more uniform systems and processes in higher education across ASEAN have further enhanced the role of English. Furthermore, the importance placed on ranking and league tables, along with the pressure 390

English-medium instruction in higher education in Malaysia

to meet the requirements of ranking bodies, has created additional pressure on universities to internationalise. This is also tied to demands on academics to publish in top journals, which generally accept articles in English. This chapter has indicated the complexities involved in EMI implementation and differing views on it from stakeholders involved. It has provided some of the realities of EMI in the Malaysian context that include students’ and teachers’ difficulties with EMI and their perspectives on it. As the rise of EMI raises critical questions for applied linguists, the chapter concludes with implications of EMI and proposals, how EMI policies and practices can be further refined, and how teachers and students in universities can be adequately supported. It takes the view that understanding the ideology of stakeholders is important and that top-down language policy is not enough as it is important to also know the beliefs and attitudes of those involved to influence acceptance for any language policy (Spolsky, 2009). One main challenge identified is the absence of clear policies on EMI. Documents examined and prior studies indicate that there is no explicit statement regarding the implementation of EMI, and directives on EMI in universities are mainly conveyed verbally or incorporated in statements about the presence of international students in the programmes. The absence of a clear statement on EMI leads to confusion on implementation and varying interpretations of how the education and language policies should be executed. These challenges necessitate universities to provide support for academics and students to cope with EMI adoption. While some lecturers (especially those who were trained overseas in mainly English-speaking countries) are comfortable with EMI (Hasim & Barnard, 2018; Kaur, 2020), language and pedagogical training and support must be offered to lecturers, especially those who do not have a teaching and education background. Close collaboration between content lecturers and English specialists should be encouraged. Lecturers should be exposed to relevant teaching approaches as well as assessment methods which are suitable. There is also a clear need for pedagogic and academic language support for students (Hasim & Barnard, 2018). Language courses for those who lack the proficiency to teach in English should be offered. For students, there are usually entry requirements stipulated for each programme. However, it is generally assumed that lecturers are able to teach in English. Universities could perhaps consider if there is a need to impose an English test when recruiting lecturers too. If only English is used in the classroom and the proficiency levels of both lecturers and students are not high, then it can be assumed that the richness of the language would be missing in the classroom (Macaro, Curle, Pun, & Mohamad, 2018). Therefore, instead of being rigid about the use of only English in the classroom, lecturers and students should be made aware that they can use their multilingual resources even if EMI is adopted. While English plays a major role, they need to be able to participate effectively and efforts must be made to ensure that other languages are also considered important. In addition, universities that are striving to internationalise need to create a multilingual and multicultural environment. Universities must also promote intercultural awareness and understanding, and develop interpersonal skills in an internationalised education landscape (Despitasari, 2021; Simbolon, 2018, 2021; Tri, 2020). There are also questions of which varieties of English should be used in EMI, as well as whether code-switching and code-mixing should be encouraged in the EMI context. In an internationalised classroom, students would participate in the use of various varieties of English, as well as the use of English as a lingua franca. Issues such as these need to be factored into university language policies, and policy guidelines that are clear and relevant should be formulated. The success of EMI policies requires institutional policies that align macro-level policies with the needs of faculty and students, as well as making provision for adequate and appropriate support programmes. 391

Azirah Hashim

References Ali, N. L. (2013). A changing paradigm in language planning: English-medium instruction policy at the tertiary level in Malaysia. Current Issues in Language Planning, 14, 73–92. Ali, N. L., & Hamid, M. O. (2018). English-medium instruction and teacher agency in higher education: A case study. In C. Chua (Ed.), Un(intended) language planning in a globalising world: Multiple levels of players at work (pp. 234–250). De Gruyter Open Poland. Asmah Haji Omar. (1992). The linguistic scenery in Malaysia. Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. Asmah Haji Omar. (2012). Pragmatics of maintaining English in Malaysia’s education system. In E. L. Low & Azirah Hashim (Eds.), English in Southeast Asia: Features, policy and language in use (pp. 155–174). Amsterdam. Azirah Hashim. (2009). Not plain sailing: Malaysia’s language choice in policy and education. AILA Review, 22, 36–51. Azirah Hashim & Leitner, G. (2014). English as a lingua franca in higher education in Malaysia. Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 16–27. Azirah Hashim & Leitner, G. (2016). English in language education policies and planning in Malaysia. In A. H. Omar (Ed.), Languages in the Malaysian education system: Monolingual strands in multilingual settings (pp. 45–61). Routledge. Azirah Hashim & Leitner, G. (2021). English in Southeast Asia and ASEAN: Transformation of language habitats. Routledge. Choi, K. Y., & Kaur, J. (2005). The role of languages at the University of Malaya. Journal of Modern Languages, 15(1), 93–110. Department of Statistics Malaysia. (2022). Press release: Current population estimates, Malaysia, 2022. Department of Statistics. Despitasari, N. W. P. (2021). Students’ perception of English medium of instruction (EMI) in Indonesia: A case study in a business communication course in a private higher education institution (HEI). Journal of Arts & Humanities, 10(4), 28–38. Dewi, A. (2017). English as a medium of instruction in Indonesian higher education: A study of lecturers’ perceptions. In B. Fenton-Smith, P. Humphreys, & I. Walkinshaw (Eds.), English medium instruction in higher education in Asia-Pacific (pp. 241–258). Springer. Gill, S. K. (2004). Medium of instruction policy in higher education in Malaysia: Nationalism versus internationalisation. In J. Tollefson & A. B. M. Tsui (Eds.), Medium of instruction policies: Which agenda? Whose agenda? (pp. 135–152). Lawrence Erlbaum. Gill, S. K. (2005). Language policy in Malaysia: Reversing direction. Language Policy, 4, 241–260. Gill, S. K. (2006). Change in language policy in Malaysia: The reality of implementation in public universities. Current Issues in Language Planning, 7, 82–94. Hamid, M. O., Nguyen, H. T. M., & Baldauf Jr., R. B. (2013). Medium of instruction in Asia: Context, processes and outcomes. Current Issues in Language Planning, 14, 1–15. Hasim, Z., & Barnard, R. (2018). Case study: EMI in a public university in Malaysia. In R. Barnard & Z. Hasim (Eds.), English medium instruction programmes: Perspectives from South East Asian universities (pp. 29–40). Routledge. Kaur, J. (2020). Using English for interaction in the EMI classroom: Experiences and challenges at a Malaysian public university. In H. Bowles & A. C. Murphy (Eds.), English-medium instruction and the internationalization of universities (pp. 129–154). Palgrave Macmillan. Kaur, J., & Zainuddin, S. Z. (2019). Going global: EMI policies and practices at a Malaysian public university. In J. Jenkins & A. Mauranen (Ed.), Linguistic diversity on the EMI campus: Insider accounts of the use of English and other languages in universities within Asia, Australasia, and Europe (pp. 172–194). Routledge. Kirkpatrick, A. (2010). English as a lingua franca in ASEAN: A multilingual model (Vol. 1). Hong Kong University Press. Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., & Mohamad, M. (2018). A systematic review of English medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching, 5(11), 36–76. Mahmood, M. I., & Yamat, H. (2019). Expectations of upholding the Malay language and strengthening the English language policy: A document analysis. Proceedings of ADVED 2019-5th International Conference on Advances in Education and Social Sciences, 21–23 October 2019, Istanbul, Turkey. Manh, L. D. (2012). English as a medium of instruction in Asian universities: The case of Vietnam. Language Education in Asia, 3, 263–267.

392

English-medium instruction in higher education in Malaysia Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia (MOHE). (2011). Internationalisation policy for higher education Malaysia. Mustapha, S. M., Abdullah, N., Devarajoo, K., Ibrahim, F., Suid, S. H., & Amirrudin, S. (2021). Embracing internationalization in gearing Malaysian higher education towards global education. Asian Journal of University Education, 17(4), 132–147. Ozay, M. (2012). Language policies in Malaysia: From colonial to de-colonial era. Paper presented in International Conference on Science, Technology & Social Sciences (ICSTSS2012), Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia, 20–22 November 2012. P’ng, G. S. H. (2021). Universities students’ perspective on the use of English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) in the classroom (PhD thesis). Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. Rahman, M. M., & Mehar Singh, M. K. (2022). The ideology towards English as a medium of instruction (EMI) adoption in higher education in Malaysia: A case study. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 28, 109–121. Saeed, M., Varghese, M., Holst, M., & Ghazali, K. (2018). Student perspectives of medium of instruction in Malaysia. In R. Barnard & Z. Hasim (Eds.), English medium instruction programmes (pp. 70–86). Routledge. Selvaraj, T., Chandrasekran, A. N., & Santhanam, J. (2016). The implementation of English medium instruction in the education system of National University of Malaysia, Berjaya. Journal of Services & Management, 5, 63–75. Simbolon, N. L. (2018). EMI in Indonesian higher education: Stakeholders’ perspectives. TEFLIN Journal, 29, 108–128. Simbolon, N. L. (2021). English Medium Instruction (EMI) practice: Higher education internationalization in Indonesia. Englisia: Journal of Language, Education, and Humanities, 8(2), 72–83. Spolsky, B. (2009). Language management. Cambridge University Press. Taib, F. (2016). Implementing the national language policy in educational institutions. In A. H. Omar (Ed.), Languages in the Malaysian education system: Monolingual strands in multilingual settings (pp. 30–44). Routledge. Tengku Zaman, T. E. (2019). The representation of English language in the Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013–2025: A CDA perspective (PhD thesis). Lancaster University, UK. Too, W. K. (2017). English language teaching and policies at the tertiary level in Malaysia. In. E. S. Park & B. Spolsky (Eds.), English education at the tertiary level in Asia (pp. 109–129). Routledge. Tri, H. D. (2020). English-medium instruction in Vietnamese higher education: Ideologies, management, and practices (PhD thesis). University of Newcastle, Australia. Tsui, A., & Tollefson, J. (Eds.). (2007). Language policy, culture, and identity in Asian contexts. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Vu, N. T. T., & Burns, A. (2014). English as a medium of instruction: Challenges for Vietnamese tertiary lecturers. Journal of ASIA TEFL, 11(3), 1–31.

393

29 ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN NEPAL Prem Phyak

Introduction Recent studies have shown that English-medium (EMI) policies are influenced by a host of ­local and international factors, such as internationalisation, competition, quality education, and the global ranking of universities. In the context of the Asia-Pacific region, Walkinshaw et al. (2017) discuss three major reasons behind the increasing trend of adopting EMI policy in higher education: (a) the geopolitical status of English as a lingua franca; (b) the rise of the number of higher education institutes; and (c) internationalisation policies in higher education. Other studies of language policies in Asian contexts also indicate that the perceived importance of English as a global language and its role in the internationalisation of higher education have been major factors influencing the increased adoption of EMI (Aizawa & McKinley, 2020; Duong & Chua, 2016). Contributing to this trend, as Kirkpatrick’s (2017) analysis of EMI policy in East and Southeast Asia suggests, is the fact that most countries in the region lack a systematic and coherent medium of instruction policy for higher education, and consequently embrace English as de facto medium of instruction, since EMI is seen as ‘somehow a good thing which should be implemented as widely as possible’ (Kirkpatrick, 2017, p. 32). EMI policy, particularly in universities in lowincome countries, is often unplanned, implicit, and poorly implemented due to lack of adequate resources/materials and proficient teachers (Hamid et al., 2013; Ngo, 2019). One country in which English is increasingly used as de facto medium of instruction in universities is Nepal. However, the rationale for EMI adoption and its practices have not yet been investigated. This chapter aims to provide an overview of EMI policy in Nepal’s higher education, by discussing the ecology of English, university teachers’ perspectives, and the impact of the EMI policy. It takes a view of EMI that goes beyond the use of English only for ‘classroom instruction’ and covers other areas such as syllabus/curricula, exams, and research activities. It also considers current pedagogical practices and the challenges of implementing the EMI policy.

The sociolinguistic context and language education policy in Nepal The 2021 census data reveals the existence of 124 languages spoken by 142 ethnicities across Nepal. Linguists have even claimed that more than 140 languages are spoken in Nepal (Noonan, 2005).

DOI: 10.4324/9781003011644-33 394

English-medium instruction in higher education in Nepal

According to the last published census report in 2021, Nepali (originally Khas Kuraa, the language of the Khas people, an ethno-linguistic group native to the Himalayan region) is spoken by 44.86% of the total population. Since the formation of Nepal as a modern nation-state, Nepali in the Devanagari script has been promoted as the official working language throughout the country. Nonetheless, the government has recognised 59 communities as indigenous people of Nepal. These communities have their own mother tongues and cultural practices, with Maithili, Newar, Rai, Limbu, Tamang, Magar, Gurung, Thru, Doteli, and Bhojpuri among the major indigenous and minoritised languages. Under the country’s constitution, each province may choose to use one or more of these languages for official work if they are spoken by the majority of the province’s population. Recently, the prominence of English has increased in the public sphere, notably in the public signage, which is an integral part of the country’s linguistic landscape and is predominantly in English. The plates of cars and the signboards of shops, café, and restaurants use English, and even the signboards of government offices and public notices increasingly include English. This indicates that English, in addition to Nepali, is increasingly used for official purposes. Hindi is also used in daily social interactions in the southern borderland of the country. Other foreign languages such as Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, and Korean languages are becoming visible in the public space of the country as well (Phyak & Ojha, 2019). Private language institutes offer classes in these languages to address the needs of the growing number of Nepali youths who aspire to go abroad for employment. Nepal’s linguistic, ethnic, and cultural diversity makes language policy a contentious sociopolitical issue. Since the establishment of Nepal as a nation-state in the 1760s, only Khas Kuraa has been developed and promoted as the ‘national language’ (Phyak, 2013; Weinberg, 2013). During the autocratic Rana regime (1846–1950), Khas Kuraa was renamed as ‘Nepali’ and imposed as the sole official language, with all other languages banned from official use (Awasthi, 2008). The Ranas did not open schools and universities for the public. The monolingual state policy was reinforced even after the fall of the autocratic Rana regime in 1950. A modern mass education was introduced with the opening of schools across the country, and Tribhuvan University, the first higher education institute, was established in 1959. However, Nepali continued to be promoted as the ‘national language’ by being designated the sole official medium of instruction in schools and universities, following the recommendation of the Nepal National Education Planning Commission in 1956 (Phyak & Ojha, 2019; Weinberg, 2013). Ek raastra-ek bhaasaa (‘one-nation-one-language’) was the primary mantra of the nationbuilding project during the Panchayat Regime (1960–1990). The regime focused on standardising and promoting Nepali as the national language through schools, universities, academy, and the other state-funded organisations. Indigenous and other minoritized languages were eliminated from the public spheres as they were considered as a threat to the monolingual Nepali nationalism (Yadava, 2007). As their languages and cultures were being erased, indigenous and ethnic minority communities began to resist the state’s monolingual policy and advocate for their language rights, publicly since 1990. Language rights, especially the right to speak one’s mother tongue, has gained significant attention since 1990, after the fall of the Panchayat Regime. The 1990 constitution of the new multiparty democratic system provided the citizens with the rights to preserve and promote their ‘mother tongues’. Accordingly, the government developed education plans to offer ‘mother tongues’ as optional subjects in public schools. The Ministry of Education has already developed textbooks in more than 25 different mother tongues. Multilingual policies have been at the centre of indigenous activism since the regime change in 2006. The Jana-aandolan-II (‘People’s Movement-II’) simultaneously ended the long history (240 years) of the monarchy and a 10-year-long Maoist insurgency. The cultural, linguistic, and political rights of the historically 395

Prem Phyak

marginalised indigenous and ethnic minority people received significant political attention during the drafting of the new constitution. The 2007 Interim Constitution recognised the right to speak and obtain education in mother tongue as the citizens’ fundamental rights. In 2009, the Ministry of Education developed a ‘mother-tongue-based multilingual education’ (MTB-MLE) policy, allowing for the use of local languages, other than Nepali as mediums of instruction up to grade 3 (Fillmore, 2020). Studies have shown that the replace programme with policy has helped to address the learning challenges of the minoritised language speakers and ensured their meaningful participation in classroom activities (Phyak, 2013; Rai et al., 2011). Yet, the communities and schools that implemented the MTB-MLE policy did not receive support from the government, which did not put substantial effort and commitment to implement this policy in private schools. After 1990, following the introduction of a neoliberal state policy, the number of profit-making private schools has increased throughout the country. These schools use English as a de facto medium of instruction and promote English as a symbol of quality education (Phyak & Sharma, 2020). As parents are attracted to private schools, the number of students in public schools is decreasing. Consequently, in recent years, the public schools have increasingly adopted EMI policies to compete with private schools (Phyak, 2021; Sah & Karki, 2020).

Higher education in Nepal Nepal’s first tertiary education institution, Tri-Chandra College, was established in 1918. ­Reserved for the ruling Rana family, this English-medium college followed the curricula, exams, and structural policies of Calcutta University and Patna University in India. As previously mentioned, the first public university was Tribhuvan University, set up in 1959. With its main campus ­located in the historic town of Kirtipur in the Kathmandu Valley, this university is today the largest ­state-funded public university. Currently, Nepal has 11 universities. After completing a 12-year schooling, the graduates join the Bachelor’s programme in these universities. Although each university is given autonomy to run its academic programmes, there are interventions of different nature due to national politics (Bista et al., 2019). The universities are governed by the Ministry of Education (MoE), and the University Grants Commission (UGC) provides financial and other policy-related supports to the universities. Universities in Nepal conduct their academic programmes through both constituent and ­affiliated campuses across the country. As shown in Table 29.1, there are 147 constituent campuses and 1,285 affiliated campuses in the country. Tribhuvan University (TU) alone has 61 constituent and 1,040 affiliated campuses. Nepal Sanskrit University (NSU) has 12 constituent and six affiliated campuses. Likewise, Purbaanchal University (PU) has five constituent and 111 affiliated campuses. Pokhara University (PokU) also has 9 constituent and 15 affiliated campuses. ­Constituent campuses are the extension campuses and fully supported by their respective ­universities, whereas the affiliated campuses are privately operated. The tuition and other fees collected from the students are the major sources of income for the affiliated campuses. Constituent campuses are categorised into decentralised and autonomous campuses. Decentralised campuses still depend on their university for support, while autonomous campuses receive funding from the UGC to strengthen their capacity to run academic programmes independently. Affiliated campuses are also categorised into community and private campuses. Community campuses are non-profit-making in nature and managed by local community members. In addition to the students’ tuition fees, they also generate funds from donations and other local resources. On the other hand, private campuses are profit-making institutes run by a group of investors. There are more than 747 private campuses throughout the country.

396

Table 29.1  Universities in Nepal Community campus

Constituent campus

Private campus

Tribhuvan University (TU)  (1959) Nepal Sanskrit University (NSU) (1986) Kathmandu University (KU) (1991) Purbanchal University (PU)  (1994) Pokhara University (PokU)  (1997) Lumbini Bauddha University (LBU) (2005) Mid-Western University (MWU) (2010) Far-Western University (FWU) (2010) Agriculture and Forestry University (AFU) (2010) Nepal Open University (NOU) (2016) Rajarshi Janak University (RJU) (2017)

529

61

551

1,141

4

12

2

0

9

5

Based on UGC (2020).

Total

Student (community campus)

Student (constituent campus)

Students (private campus)

Total

Teachers

119, 984

118, 521

97,038

335,543

7,592

18

421

3,081

247

3,749

484

15

24

0

8,385

9,971

18,356

252

5

106

116

694

1,562

25,271

27,527

74

0

9

58

67

0

2,292

28,250

30,542

133

0

1

8

9

0

330

365

695

23

0

18

0

18

0

7,353

0

7,353

290

0

15

0

15

0

10,113

0

10,113

363

0

10

7

17

0

3,502

369

3,871

122

0

1

0

1

0

955

0

955

49

0

1

0

1

0

0

153

30

153

English-medium instruction in higher education in Nepal

397

University

Prem Phyak

According to the UGC report (Table 29.1), 36.03% of students are enrolled in constituent campuses, 36.56% in private campuses, and only 27.41% in community campuses. The report indicates that Tribhuvan University alone enrols 75.95% of the total number of students in higher education. Following this, Pokhara University enrols 6.91% (UGC, 2020), Purbaanchal University enrols 6.23%, and Kathmandu University enrols 4.15% of total students. Far-Western University and Mid-Western University enrol 2.29 and 1.66% of students, respectively. Other universities enrol less than 1% of the total number of students. One interesting fact is the unequal representation of students across the disciplines. About 46.37% of the students take management as their major subject, and 17.19 and 10.96% of them are enrolled in Education and Humanities, respectively. Only 8.38% of students major Science and Technology, followed by Engineering (6.57%) and Medicine (6.39%). Finally, only 2.23% students study Law and 1.00% focus on Agriculture and Forestry-related subjects. Two major observations may be made here about higher education in Nepal. First, programmes related to Management, Education, and Humanities are accessible to students across the country, including rural villages. Second, Science and Technology, Medicine, and Engineering are not quite accessible for all. These subjects are expensive and open only to the students with excellent scores in their school and entrance examinations. Generally, only the students from high-income families can afford the tuition and other related fees to study these subjects. The UGC is responsible for the quality assurance and accreditation of universities. Funded by the World Bank, the UGC has set up the Quality Assurance and Accreditation (QAA) Council to provide support to the campuses and assess their quality in terms of their overall academic and organisational performances. Led by a group of experts, professors and researchers, the campuses are evaluated in terms of their academic activities, student number, research output, journal publication, and transparent and systemic institutional activities. More than 50 institutions/campuses have already received a QAA certificate.

Linguistic landscape of universities The linguistic landscape of each university is quite varied. Most signboards in all universities are bilingual, displaying both in Nepali and English. Formal notices, correspondences, and discussions are conducted in Nepali. However, the virtual linguistic landscape is mostly in English. In its website, Tribhuvan University (TU) uses English to introduce its history, academic programmes, organisational structures, and research activities. The Vice-Chancellor (VC) has used only English to convey his message. The introduction to the faculties, research centres, institutes, exam offices, and curriculum development centre is all written in English. The Deans’ offices have also used English to describe their programmes and activities. Kathmandu University (KU) follows the same policy. The historical description of the university, VC’s message, and information about each administrative unit are presented exclusively in English. The university policy and guidelines, information about schools/colleges, and annual and other occasional reports are published solely in English. Similarly, in Tribhuvan University, the Deans’ messages and the introduction to each faculty and institute are conveyed only in English. Pokhara University and Nepal Open University use only English to describe their university’s history, vision, mission, goal, and objectives. As with Tribhuvan University and Kathmandu University, these universities describe their governance structures and academic programmes solely in English. Far-Western University, Mid-Western University, and other universities follow the same practice. Nepal Sanskrit University also uses English to describe its academic programmes and introduce its senior management. However, unlike other universities, this university uses Nepali to introduce its

398

English-medium instruction in higher education in Nepal

h­ istory and goals. The VC’s message and the university laws are presented in Nepali (Figures 29.1 and 29.2). Although English is the sole language to describe the history and academic programmes of the universities, they use Nepali for their public notices and official letters. Calls for job applications,

Figure 29.1  Information from the webpage of Nepal Sanskrit University.

Figure 29.2  Information from the webpage of Nepal Open University.

399

Prem Phyak

pandemic related notices, and grants-related calls and information are communicated in Nepali in all universities. One professor at Tribhuvan University, who is in a leadership position, has explained that ‘the university does not have competent staff who can write minutes, notices, and press releases in English’, and therefore such documents are written and published in Nepali.

English-medium instruction (EMI): Policy and practice in higher education The Higher Education Policy-2017 and the Acts of each university do not explicitly mention medium of instruction. The university acts focus on research, quality higher education, production of competitive human resources, and needs-based higher education. The laws and guidelines of each university highlight the vision, mission, and objectives; organisational structures; academic programmes; and administrative procedures. However, they do not provide any information about medium of instruction policy. Yet, talking with the Deans, Heads, and teachers in leadership positions, I found that EMI is ‘a historical and understood phenomenon’. As one teacher from TU said, ‘Its’ been a common understanding and culture that the language of higher education should be English’. EMI as ‘a common understanding’, however, is not actually implemented in practice, particularly in classroom instruction, in the sense that English is used exclusively in instructional programmes. My own experiences teaching at Tribhuvan University, conducting classroom observations, and talking with teachers and students from the universities across the country show that there is a gap between what has been claimed and what is practised. Although the universities agree that they should adopt and promote EMI, teaching-learning activities in the classroom are usually conducted in both the Nepali and English languages. On some campuses, particularly in Madhes, teachers and students use local languages such as Maithili and Bhojpuri as well. As shown in Table 29.2, the universities adopt a flexible approach in classroom instruction. Rather than sticking to a monolingual EMI policy, the universities leave it to their teachers to use the language(s) they find helpful to support their students to understand the content of teaching. In Tribhuvan University, for example, most teachers use English in their PowerPoint slides and class notes, but they mix Nepali while explaining the concepts and elaborating on the lesson topics. In some disciplines, for example, education and humanities, Nepali is dominantly used in the classroom for both instructional and interactional purposes. This practice is seen in other universities as well. One teacher from Mid-Western University reported that the university does not impose an English-only policy ‘so faculty members can use both Nepali and English in the classroom’. Giving his own example, he explained that ‘using Nepali makes my class lively and interactive’. This ‘translanguaging’ practice (Canagarajah, 2011; García & Li, 2014), the simultaneous use of Nepali and English, is a common approach in all universities in Nepal. The students’ needs for deeper content knowledge and the lack of teachers with adequate English proficiency to teach all the content subjects in English are two major practical reasons for using translanguaging in university classes. The degree of translanguaging varies from one faculty to another. For example, in both Tribhuvan University and Kathmandu University, teachers in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Medicine classes dominantly use English. However, they still use Nepali to ‘elaborate on the abstract concepts’ in their lessons. Unlike other universities, Nepal Sanskrit University teachers use less English and more Nepali, along with Sanskrit. Nonetheless, English is the de facto language of the curricula (except for language subjects such as Nepali and Sanskrit) for academic programmes (Bachelor’s, Master’s and MPhil/PhD) in all universities. Course readings for nearly all subjects are in English, from sources published by international publishers. Very few departments in all universities have included books by local authors in Nepali. Isolated examples include both the sociology and anthropology departments of 400

Table 29.2  EMI policy in higher education in Nepal Explicit policy

Instructional practices

Syllabi/curricula

Exams

Research/thesis

Formal correspondence

Tribhuvan University (1959)

No

English and Nepali

English (except for language subjects)

Mostly English (with some flexibility)

Mostly Nepali

Nepal Sanskrit University  (1986) Kathmandu University  (1991)

No

Nepali, Sanskrit, and English Mostly English (with flexibility)

Sanskrit, Nepali, and English English (except for language subjects) English (except for language subjects) English (except for language subjects) English (except for language subjects) English (except for language subjects) English (except for language subjects) English (except for language subjects) English(except for language subjects) English (except for language subjects)

Sanskrit, English, and Nepali English

English (very few Departments allow students to write their Master’s theses in Nepali) English, Nepali, and Sanskrit English

Mostly Nepali

English

English

Mostly Nepali

English

English

Mostly Nepali

English

English

Mostly Nepali

English   (with some flexibility) English   (with some flexibility) English   (with some flexibility) English

English

Mostly Nepali

English

Mostly Nepali

English

Mostly Nepali

English

Mostly in Nepali

English English   (with some flexibility)

Mostly in Nepali

No

Purbanchal University  (1994)

No

Mostly English (with flexibility)

Pokhara University  (1997) Lumbini Bauddha University  (2005) Mid-Western University  (2010) Far-Western University (2010) Agriculture and Forestry University (2010) Nepal Open University (2016) Rajarshi Janak University (2017)

No No

Mostly English (with flexibility) Nepali and English

No

English and Nepali

No

English and Nepali

No No

Mostly English (with flexibility) English and Nepali

No

English and Nepali

Phyak (2022).1

Mostly Nepali

English-medium instruction in higher education in Nepal

401

University

Prem Phyak

Tribhuvan University. The use of readings in English has encouraged both the teachers and students to simultaneously use Nepali and English in the classroom. As shown in Table 29.2, all the universities prepare their tests in English (except for language subjects such as Nepali, Sanskrit, and Nepal Bhasha). Students are generally required to use English to answer questions in exams, with this being mandatory in science, technology, medicine, and engineering. However, the faculties of education, and humanities and social sciences in Tribhuvan University, Mid-Western University, and Far-Western University allow students to write their answers in English or Nepali or in a mixture of both. One challenge to the norm came in 2018, when non-English major students of the Faculty of Education at Tribhuvan University requested the Dean’s Office for bilingual test papers. This is because many non-English major students fail exams every year as they do not quite understand the test items in English. Unfortunately, the students’ request was denied by the Dean’s Office on the grounds that the use of Nepali gives a negative message to the public about the quality of the faculty and the university as a whole. Research activities are a major part of higher education programmes in Nepal. Writing a thesis/ dissertation is mandatory for Master’s, MPhil, and PhD students in all universities. Except for very few departments in the Faculty of Education at Tribhuvan University, all Master’s, MPhil, and PhD theses (except for language subjects) have to be written in English in all universities. Although the supervisors and their students discuss their theses (during feedback sessions and presentations) in Nepali, English must be used to produce a thesis for evaluation. Oral examinations may be conducted in Nepali or a mixture of both English and Nepali.

University teachers’ experiences and perceptions of EMI As observed, although universities in Nepal do not have an explicit language policy, they theoretically consider English as the de facto language of higher education. Their syllabuses/curricula, assessment/exams, and research reports are all produced in English (except for language subjects). In the remainder of this chapter, I discuss university teachers’ experiences and perceptions on EMI implementation.

Syllabus/curricula and exams in English I interviewed 12 university teachers and leaders, representing different universities, to understand how they see the adoption of English in curricula, exams, pedagogy, and research activities. One key theme that has emerged is the necessity of using English due to a lack of advanced academic resources in Nepali and other local languages. Dearden and Macaro (2016) report that in countries such as Poland, Austria, and Italy, the availability of the textbooks and other reference materials in English has influenced the teachers to use English in higher education. This appears true also in Nepal. The university teachers I interviewed stated that academic knowledge, particularly of science, technology, and medicine, is dominantly available only in English in the country, leading their universities to adopt English as an academic language (Bolton & Kuteeva, 2012). As one member of the education faculty at Tribhuvan University mentioned: We don’t have local resources. […] Most textbooks and references are available in English. We consult English books while designing our courses. I haven’t seen any good books on educational theories written in Nepali. Most Nepali books available in the local market are translated from English. They are not original. (Male teacher at Tribhuvan University, aged 50–59) 402

English-medium instruction in higher education in Nepal

The teacher, who has been part of the curriculum development committee for a long time, recounts, moreover, that it was Nepali scholars ‘who studied aboard (that) introduced the concept of higher education [in Nepal] by developing the curricula in English’, suggesting that the curricula remain available largely only in English. The necessity for using English is particularly strong in STEM subjects in all the universities, and English is dominant in these subjects. As in many other contexts, STEM faculty consider English as the ‘default language’ of science, technology, engineering, and medicine. In Kathmandu University, for example, which was established primarily to promote the knowledge of science and technology in Nepal, English is more dominantly used than in other universities. The same trend has been observed in other universities as well. One teacher from the Institute of Science and Technology at Tribhuvan University stated that although there is ‘no such a rule’, they do not develop their curricula in languages other than English because: All the reading materials in Science are in English. Exams are conducted in English. Most scientific words and concepts are available only in English. We do not have such [scientific] words in Nepali. Scientific terminologies are not available in Nepali. We are obliged to use English terminologies. Syllabuses are by de fault in English. I think that when we develop our syllabuses we study the syllabuses internationally. Professors collect and study syllabuses of different universities around the globe. Most of their syllabuses are in English. Standard textbooks are in English. We do not have textbooks in Nepali. We have not created Nepali scientific words. It’s easy to develop syllabuses in English. (Female teacher at Tribhuvan University, aged 40–49) There is a very strong perception of English as a ‘universal language of higher education’, as the teacher from Tribhuvan University’s education faculty puts it. This perception has led to the widely-held belief in EMI in Nepal’s higher education. She argues that EMI policy in universities is influenced by the assumption that English is the ‘globally accepted language of higher education’. She elaborates: The quality and image of university is better in English […] this kind of perception is deep. […] There is no academic rationale behind this assumption. But there is an understanding that academic discourses in universities should be in English. We have accepted that this [EMI policy] will maintain the standard [of a university]. The standard of higher education will be maintained if we have curricula in English […] this kind of mentality is strong. (Female teacher at Tribhuvan University, aged 40–49) This idea that English is the ‘international academic language’ (Altbach, 2007; Bolton & Kuteeva, 2012), thus, has been a major factor shaping the choice of English in curricula in Nepal’s universities. In Far-Western University, one teacher claimed that curricula are prepared in English to give them ‘an international touch’. For him, English has been a de facto language of university curricula because ‘the university expects that teachers use international reference materials in courses […] The mentality that we should follow the international standard of curricula has influenced the use of English in higher education’. Sharing his own experiences, the teacher accepted that it is their ‘obligation’ to use English in curricula. This strong belief that curricula in English symbolises high standards has also been reflected, for example, when Tribhuvan University introduced a semester system, replacing the old annual system (Tripathi et al., 2019), ‘to enhance students’ knowledge, skill and capacity continuously, extensively and in-depth’ (Tribhuvan University, 2013) and 403

Prem Phyak

establish departments on the main campus as ‘centre(s) of excellence’. Faculty members were asked to teach all subjects, except for Nepali language subjects, in English. This was despite not having any written policy. However, despite the general perception of English as a marker of excellence, not all teachers welcome EMI fully, at least not in the sense that EMI should be ‘English only’. Faculty members at Tribhuvan University, for example, silently resisted the unwritten insistence on EMI by the university leadership. Although some tried to teach in English in the first year, after the introduction of the new semester system, they did not continue to adhere to the sudden implementation of EMI policy. One teacher explained: ‘It isn’t possible to teach all subjects in English. We can’t help students understand the complex ideas. Most teachers’ English proficiency is not strong to teach everything in English-only. I mostly use Nepali in my class’. For pedagogical purposes, classroom language practices in EMI classrooms across the country are flexible, and teachers are allowed to ‘mix languages to make their classes effective’, as the teacher from Far-Western University explains. Due to students’ proficiency (or lack thereof) in English, Far-Western University adopts ‘a flexible policy’ by allowing their students to respond to the test items in English or Nepali, or a mix of both. In the case of Mid-Western University, one teacher who has worked in various policymaking positions said that their language policy for exams is ‘practice-based’. Although exam questions are prepared in English, like the other universities do, students can use Nepali or English or both languages to write their answers. In practice, this means that students’ use of English varies from one subject to another, based on the tendency of the students to study each discipline. In Mid-Western University, one teacher provides this explanation: Most students in education and social sciences write their exams in Nepali or mixed languages. But science and engineering students write [exams] in English. Students in science and engineering come from English medium [schooling] background. They have skills to memorize the answers in English. They need fact [objective] answers. So they do not have problems. In other subjects, students come from Nepali medium [schooling] background so they use both Nepali and English. In science and engineering, students do not have to write creative and critical responses to the questions. So they have no issues in writing exams in English. (Male teacher at Mid-Western University, aged 40–49) The teacher’s description, if indicative of a wider pattern in Nepal, suggests another important point: Students’ schooling background sometimes also influence the language policy and practice in higher education. In relation to examination policies, students from a Nepali schooling background may, as in Mid-Western University’s case, be allowed to use Nepali or English. However, as most students in STEM subjects graduate from English-medium schools, they tend to write their exams in English. This trend may also be prevalent because STEM students do not need a deeper knowledge of English to answer questions. At STEM-oriented Kathmandu University, students must write their exams in English, irrespective of their schooling background. In other universities, the STEM students are required to write their exams in English, but language choice is allowed for the students of other subjects.

Research activities In relation to the requirement in all universities for postgraduate theses to be written in English (apart from a few subjects in some universities), the account of one teacher from Tribhuvan ­University highlights some complex conundrums and issues: 404

English-medium instruction in higher education in Nepal

There is a growing assumption that the theses written in English are of better quality. But most students have very poor English language proficiency to write their theses. Many teachers do not have adequate academic writing competence of English. But again, if I ask them to write [a thesis] in Nepali where they do they go? […] they have to consult English sources. They can find articles and books in English. We lack resources in Nepali. (Male teacher at Tribhuvan University, aged 40–49) In brief, while the requirement appears to be borne out of necessity, again given the lack of reference resources other than those in English, both students and teachers find much difficulty resulting from the lack of sufficient English proficiency. He reveals that most students ‘cannot express their fieldwork experiences in English. They can’t analyze and interpret the data in depth’. As a result, for him, most theses are of ‘a poor quality in terms of [their] research rigor and language’. One teacher from Mid-Western University also reports: We have an assumption that a thesis should be written in English. It’s kind of a hidden policy. The written document should be produced in English. But there are language issues such as grammar, structure, and flow of ideas. Our students cannot express their ideas in English. Research designs, data analysis, and arguments are not clear and strong. There are issues with the English-only policy. (Male teacher at Mid-Western University, aged 40–49) My own experience working with MA/MEd, MPhil, and PhD students at Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu University, and Nepal Open University supports these observations. The non-English major students I taught find it challenging to write their theses and research papers in English. My own reading of research reports and discussions with the students suggests to me that the non-English major students are not able to produce quality theses, with a theoretical and methodological rigour and clarity, due to the lack of English language proficiency. Many students have informed me that they need to seek assistance from individuals with strong English editing skills to complete their theses. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that universities do not have any systemic arrangements (for example, editing or tutoring) to support their students in writing their theses in English. Kathmandu University has a policy in place that requires students to present a ‘proof’ of English language editing from an ‘expert’, but the quality of the editing service itself is questionable. As international editing services are expensive, students seek help from local ‘experts’ who they think have good English language editing skills but may actually lack a sufficient level of English proficiency in specialised academic fields and genres. This mandatory writing-in-English policy further raises some critical issues. For example, one teacher from Far-Western University reveals that: There are issues of copy-pasting from other sources. Students themselves feel inferior [in writing] because of language problems. Students cannot write a quality research thesis. We are discussing whether we should leave it [choice of language] to the students and their supervisors. We have many issues. (Male teacher at Far-Western University, aged 40–49) The same teacher further asserts that their faculty members may also lack sufficient English language proficiency. They cannot participate in academic discussions fully due to this limitation. In addition, while students cannot fully invest their ideas and analytical skills in writing their theses, 405

Prem Phyak

the university teachers also cannot provide meaningful feedback on their students’ writing and research processes due to lack of English language proficiency. These experiences illustrate that the de facto English-only policy in research activities has posed the challenges for both students and teachers. This issue is particularly critical in social sciences and humanities. In this regard, one teacher from Tribhuvan University disclosed that the quality of theses is ‘very poor due to lack of the students’ command over English’. For him, teachers are ‘lost because they do not know whether they have to edit language or provide them with feedback on the content and the flow of research’. He stated that there is a strong mentality among teachers and students that ‘a thesis written in English is a quality work’. However, this mentality is not actually enacted in practice as the students’ English language proficiency is inadequate to write MA, MPhil, and PhD theses, particularly in social sciences.

Pedagogical practices As previously mentioned, in all universities in Nepal, including Tribhuvan University, teachers are now allowed to adopt a ‘flexible language policy’ (Weber, 2014). Observation of classes at Tribhuvan University and interviews with teachers from different universities indicate that teachers adopt a needs-based approach. They often use Nepali and other local languages to help their students fully understand the topics of their lessons. As argued by a teacher at Tribhuvan University, a monolingual EMI policy is ‘not practical and possible’ because most students, including MPhil and PhD candidates, do not have strong English language proficiency and academic skills to engage themselves in pedagogical activities. He states: Students come from diverse language and educational backgrounds. Most of them are from Nepali medium schools and colleges. Some can speak and understand English. But basic English proficiency doesn’t help much in higher education. It doesn’t help students understand complex philosophies, research methods, concepts, and perspectives [in the courses]. They have to participate in critical discussions. They need to develop their own perspectives. But they cannot do all of these in English. (Male teacher at Tribhuvan University, aged 50–59) Another teacher from the same university recounts similar experiences. Describing the struggles of students, she states that ‘most students in my class ask me to interpret lessons in Nepali’. She prepares her lessons in English because most reading materials are in English, but reports: ‘I use English in my PowerPoint slides. But I explain the topic and ideas in Nepali. I use a mixed approach’. Yet another teacher from Mid-Western University argues that ‘if I teach only in E ­ nglish, my students do not understand the theories, and philosophies in my class. They don’t have strong English proficiency to understand and develop and express their own concepts about the topics in the course’. Thus, teachers in Nepal’s higher education use both Nepali and English simultaneously in their classes, adopting what has been called a ‘translanguaging’ (García & Li, 2014) strategy to make the mastery of the content more effective. Even if they do not have problems in their own English language proficiency, as one teacher in Kathmandu University said, ‘the use of Nepali helps both the teachers and students interact with diverse, deep, and clear ideas. My students bring in diverse and critical ideas when I also use Nepali in class’. Even teachers in STEM classes, who mostly use English in their classes, do not deny the use of Nepali in their classes. Language mixing is still

406

English-medium instruction in higher education in Nepal

used as a pedagogical strategy to explain the contents of STEM subjects. For example, one teacher from Tribhuvan University states: We don’t ban the use of languages [other than English]. It’s flexible. We mix languages. Teachers use Nepali and English to explain [the content of the lessons]. They can use any language they feel comfortable. I explain the concepts in Nepali as well. I constantly mix languages. (Female teacher at Tribhuvan University, aged 50–59) The teacher argues that if students understand the concepts in Nepali, they can explain them in English. For her, students do not learn effectively ‘if they do not understand the contents’. These views indicate that translanguaging is a natural approach in the reappropriation of the EMI policy in higher education for pedagogical purposes. Rather than following a monolingual approach, the teachers adopt ‘a flexible multilingual approach’ to help students gain deeper knowledge of the content and participate in classroom interactions meaningfully (Weber, 2014).

Conclusion This chapter has provided an overview of EMI policy and practices in higher education in ­Nepal. Based on interview data and my own experiences working in Nepal’s higher education, I have discussed how English has become a perceived de facto medium of instruction in Nepal’s higher education system. The analysis shows that EMI policy in Nepal is highly ideological and shaped by the assumption that languages other than English are not relevant for higher education. Put differently, EMI policy in Nepal’s higher education reproduces the ideology of English as a global academic language (Bolton & Kuteeva, 2012). Nepal’s acceptance of English throughout its universities as the de facto language of curricula, exams, and pedagogy from the opening of the first university, Tribhuvan University, implies that English has a symbolic value in higher education. Although the universities have not developed explicit language policies, their language practices, particularly in curricula, exams, and research activities, imply that English is the preferred language. This ­implicit EMI policy is also shaped by the global politics of knowledge production (Canagarajah, 1996; Rambukwella, 2019). The perspectives of the teachers demonstrate that ­Nepali universities continue to focus on EMI because of the global dominance of the materials produced in English. Since the reference materials, in the subjects other than local languages, are available largely only in English, the curricula in Nepali universities are developed in English. The use of English in ­curricula and research activities remains uncontested due to the lack of knowledge produced in Nepali and other local languages. Moreover, there is an implicit ‘deficit ideology’ (Gorski, 2011) in relation to local languages, including Nepali, in higher education. This ideology is clearly seen in the case of Tribhuvan University’s denial of their students’ request to prepare bilingual test papers for the non-English major students because the leadership thought that the use of Nepali in the test papers would weaken the quality of higher education. EMI policy and practice in Nepal’s higher education is also distinctive in two ways. First, the rationale for EMI implementation on the grounds of internationalisation of universities is ­ ­understood differently from most other contexts. Although all the universities embrace the idea that EMI is necessary for internationalisation, they lack clear policies and plans to hire international faculty members and enrol international students. Any candidate for a faculty position in any university still must be ‘a Nepali citizen’. The number of international students is negligible:

407

Prem Phyak

only very few students from South Asian countries study medicine and engineering subjects in the universities such as Tribhuvan University and Kathmandu University. Since the universities enrol predominantly local students, the use of Nepali is common in the classroom and university premises. In other words, internationalisation is simply understood as the teaching of courses with international contents in English to prepare students for international mobility for further education. Annually, some thousands of students leave the country for higher education abroad, particularly in the United States, Australia, and Europe (Phyak, 2020). Citing the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, the Onlinekhabar has reported that some 82,409 Nepalis have received a ‘no-objection certificate’ (NOC) in 2022 (Onlinekhabar, 2022). Therefore, where “internationalisation” is concerned, Nepal’s EMI policy should be understood only as a way to prepare the Nepali students for international market of higher education, but not necessarily to enable in-bound mobility of international staff and students. Second, EMI policies in practice limit the exclusive use of English mostly only to the (re-)production of knowledge through means such as theses/dissertations, test papers, and curricula. Otherwise, language choice in the classroom is flexible and based on the needs of the students and teachers.

Note 1 Phyak (2022) comprises research notes based on interviews with academic faculty and the analysis of policy documents.

References Aizawa, I., & McKinley, J. (2020). EMI challenges in Japan’s internationalization of higher education. In H. Bowles & A. Murphy (Eds.), English-medium instruction and the internationalization of universities (pp. 27–48). Palgrave Macmillan. Altbach, P. G. (2007). The imperial tongue: English as the dominating academic language. Economic and Political Weekly, 42, 3608–3611. Awasthi, L. D. (2008). Importation of ideologies from Macaulay Minutes to Wood Commission. Journal of Education and Research, 1, 21–30. Bista, K., Sharma, S., & Raby, R. L. (Eds.). (2019). Higher education in Nepal: Policies and perspectives. Routledge. Bolton, K., & Kuteeva, M. (2012). English as an academic language at a Swedish university: Parallel language use and the ‘threat’ of English. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33, 429–447. Canagarajah, A. S. (1996). “Nondiscursive” requirements in academic publishing, material resources of ­periphery scholars, and the politics of knowledge production. Written Communication, 13, 435–472. Canagarajah, S. (2011). Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for research and pedagogy. ­Applied Linguistics Review, 2, 1–28. Dearden, J., & Macaro, E. (2016). Higher education teachers’ attitudes towards English medium instruction: A three-country comparison. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6, 455–486. Duong, V. A., & Chua, C. S. (2016). English as a symbol of internationalization in higher education: A case study of Vietnam. Higher Education Research & Development, 35, 669–683. Fillmore, N. (2020). Mother tongue-based multilingual education in Nepal: Past, present, and emerging trends. In A. W. Wiseman (Ed.), Annual review of comparative and international education 2019 (pp. 231–254). Emerald Publishing. García, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Macmillan. Gorski, P. C. (2011). Unlearning deficit ideology and the scornful gaze: Thoughts on authenticating the class discourse in education. Counterpoints, 402, 152–173. Hamid, M. O., Jahan, I., & Islam, M. M. (2013). Medium of instruction policies and language practices, ideologies and institutional divides: Voices of teachers and students in a private university in Bangladesh. Current Issues in Language Planning, 14, 144–163.

408

English-medium instruction in higher education in Nepal Kirkpatrick, A. (2017). The languages of higher education in East and Southeast Asia: Will EMI lead to ­Englishisation? In B. Fenton-Smith, P. Humphreys, & I. Walkinshaw (Eds.), English medium instruction in higher education in Asia-Pacific (pp. 21–36). Springer. Ngo, P. L. H. (2019). English-medium instruction (EMI) in higher education: A case study of an EMI ­programme in Vietnam (PhD thesis). University of Southampton, UK. Noonan, M. (2005). Language documentation and language endangerment in Nepal. Retrieved from http:// crossasia-repository.ub.uni heidelberg.de/201/1/Iceland_Talk_Handout.pdf Onlinekhabar. (2022, July 5). 82,409 Nepalis get approval to study abroad in 6 months. Onlinekhabar. ­Retrieved from https://english.onlinekhabar.com/nepalis-approval-study-abroad.html Phyak, P. (2013). Language ideologies and local languages as the medium-of-instruction policy: A critical ethnography of a multilingual school in Nepal. Current Issues in Language Planning, 14, 127–143. Phyak, P. (2020). Neoliberal placemaking and ideological constructions of standardized tests in Nepal’s ­linguistic landscape. In S. A. Mirhosseini & P. De Costa (Eds.), The sociopolitics of English language testing (pp. 208–230). Bloomsbury. Phyak, P. (2021). Epistemicide, deficit language ideology, and (de)coloniality in language education policy. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 267–268, 219–233. Phyak, P., & Ojha, L. P. (2019). Language education policy and inequalities of multilingualism in Nepal. In A. Kirkpatrick & A. J. Liddicoat (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of language education policy in Asia (pp. 341–354). Routledge. Phyak, P., & Sharma, B. K. (2020). Functionality of English in language education policies and practices in Nepal. In R. A. Giri, A. Sharma, & J. D’Angelo (Eds.), Functional variations in English (pp. 321–335). Springer. Rai, V. S., Rai, M., Phyak, P., & Rai, N. (2011). Multilingual education in Nepal: Hearsay and reality. ­UNESCO Kathmandu. Rambukwella, H. (2019). On hybridity, the politics of knowledge production and critical language studies. Language, Culture and Society, 1, 126–131. Sah, P. K., & Karki, J. (2020). Elite appropriation of English as a medium of instruction policy and epistemic inequalities in Himalayan schools. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. https://doi.or g/10.1080/01434632.2020.1789154 Sah, P. K. (2022). English-medium instruction as neoliberal endowment in Nepal’s higher education: Policyshaping practices. In J. McKinley & N. Galloway (Eds.), English-medium instruction practices in higher education: International perspectives (pp. 71–83). Bloomsbury Publishing. Tribhuvan University. (2013). Semester system operational guideline. Tribhuvan University Central Office. Tripathi, S., Sharma, S., & Subedi, S. (2019). Making the shifts to change the system: Implementing the semester system through pedagogical training in Tribhuvan University. In K. Bista, S. Sharma, & R. L. Raby, (Eds.), Higher education in Nepal: Policies and perspectives (pp. 135–148). Routledge. UGC. (2020). Education management information system: Report on higher education 2018/19 Nepal. ­Retrieved from https://www.ugcnepal.edu.np/uploads/upload/lBmXHe.pdf Walkinshaw, I., Fenton-Smith, B., & Humphreys, P. (2017). EMI issues and challenges in Asia-Pacific higher education: An introduction. In B. Fenton-Smith, P. Humphreys, & I. Walkinshaw (Eds.), English medium instruction in higher education in Asia-Pacific (pp. 1–18). Springer. Weber, J. J. (2014). Flexible multilingual education: Putting children’s needs first. Multilingual Matters. Weinberg, M. (2013). Revisiting history in language policy: The case of medium of instruction in Nepal. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics (WPEL), 28(1), 61–80. Yadava, Y. P. (2007). Linguistic diversity in Nepal: Perspectives on language policy. Center for Nepal and Asian Studies.

409

30 ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN SINGAPORE Kingsley Bolton, Werner Botha, and John Bacon-Shone

Introduction In this chapter, we provide an interim report on the status of English-medium instruction (EMI) in Singaporean higher education.1 This is achieved through a review of the current state of EMI in Singapore and the presentation of results of a large-scale study that surveyed over 1,000 students from Singapore’s six main universities. We also report on the multilingual backgrounds of students and their experiences of EMI education. In Singapore, over the last few decades, more and more young people have entered higher education, and, today, nearly half (or 42%) of young individuals are currently enrolled in various universities, and university graduates constitute more than 32% of the adult population (Department of Statistics, 2020). This chapter commences with a literature review of EMI in Singaporean higher education, followed by description of the sociolinguistic context of the city-state. We then review the history of languages of instruction in Singapore and the contemporary language in education policies that guide the use of English as a medium of instruction. Subsequently, we present the results of our own empirical research on EMI and the language practices of students in Singapore’s six major universities.

Literature review Until the last decade, very little had been written on EMI (in higher education) in Singapore from either an applied linguistic or sociolinguistic perspective. Earlier research articles on higher education included Gopinathan (1989), Gopinathan and Lee (2011), and Chou (2015). However, these dealt with the general development of higher education, rather than specific language issues. A more recent study by Siemund, Schulz, and Schweinberger (2014) investigated the language use, language background, and language preferences of around 300 tertiary students, noting that English played an important role in the lives of these students, that Colloquial Singapore English (‘Singlish’) was an important marker of identity for these students, and that most students were either bilingual or trilingual. A follow-up study by Leimgruber, Siemund, and Terassa (2018) surveyed Institute of Technical Education (ITE) respondents in addition to university and polytechnic students. In both studies, however, the focus was on the investigating patterns of multilingualism among students rather than issues central to the implementation of EMI education and policy.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003011644-34 410

English-medium instruction in higher education in Singapore

Apart from these tangential studies, arguably the most detailed work on the implementation of EMI in higher education comes from our own empirical research on this topic, which was conducted between 2013 and 2020. This yielded a substantial body of research publications, including Bolton et al. (2016), Bolton and Botha (2017), Bolton, Botha and Bacon-Shone (2017), and Bolton and Botha (2019, 2020, 2021). Bolton and Botha (2017) provide an account of the history of English language education in the territory, spanning from the early nineteenth century through the colonial period until the present day. Interestingly, their account challenges the widely held belief that enthusiastic government promotion of English-medium education began solely in the post-independence period after 1965. Instead, they highlight an important milestone in the Education Department’s 1950 plan to promote the language, which involved ‘an English-plus-vernacular language education model, one strikingly similar to the English-plus-Mother-Tongue model currently adopted in Singapore’s schools today’ (Sai, 2013, p. 66, cited in Bolton & Botha, 2017, p. 138). Furthermore, the same article also reported on a 2015 survey of 8,463 students at Nanyang Technological University (NTU). With reference to the policy and practice, it was noted that there was ‘overwhelming compliance’ with official policy (Bolton et al., 2017, p. 14). At the same time, however, the article analysed numerous discrepancies between undergraduates and postgraduates that were partly explained by the recruitment of non-Singaporean students, particularly from mainland China and other parts of Asia, at the postgraduate level. Bolton and Botha (2019) undertook further analysis of the NTU data to examine patterns of multilingualism among NTU students, paying specific attention to the linguistic backgrounds of students as well as reports of language mixing in the student community. In addition to survey data, their analysis involved qualitative examinations of recorded language data, which highlighted the high frequency of language mixing. One of the notable findings was that ‘[i]n the teaching context, English is used almost exclusively as the medium of instruction, but as soon as other students start communicating with one another, even in classroom discussions, there is an increased use of multiple languages and language varieties’, most evidently ‘with ethnic Chinese and Malay students’ (Bolton & Botha, 2019, p. 60). Detailed analysis of students’ language mixing habits is further presented in Bolton and Botha (2020, 2021), where findings indicate that the degree of language mixing in social networks varies according to the ethnic background of speakers, with much higher frequencies in the Chinese and Malay networks compared with those for Indian speakers (Bolton & Botha, 2020, p. 38). This chapter aims to offer an overview of EMI in Singaporean higher education through a discussion of the sociolinguistic context and the history of language policy, as well as presenting relevant quantitative and qualitative data from our study of EMI in all six Singapore universities. In the final section of this chapter, we also attempt to evaluate the description of language mixing in Singapore universities against the backcloth of current debates on translanguaging in higher education.

The sociolinguistic context Singapore is one of the Southeast Asian economic powerhouses, characterised by a predominantly Chinese (75%), Malay (13%) and Indian (9%) population. Since gaining independence in 1965, Singapore has been governed by the People’s Action Party (or PAP), which has endeavoured to maintain a high degree of social cohesion and political stability. Economically, the city-state is one of the wealthiest economies in the Asian region, whose financial and technological industries have created an advanced and highly prosperous society. Geographically, Singapore is uniquely located in the Malacca Straits, and serves as an important air services and shipping hub. 411

Kingsley Bolton et al. Table 30.1  Language most frequently spoken at home (Singstat, 2020) Total Language English (%) Mandarin (%) Chinese Dialects (%) Malay (%) Tamil (%) Others (%) a

2010 32.3 35.6 14.3 12.2 3.3 2.3

Chinese 2020 48.3 29.9 8.7 9.2 2.5 1.4

2010 32.6 47.7 19.2 0.2 – 0.2

Malays 2020 47.6 40.2 11.8 0.2 – 0.2

2010 17.0 0.1 – 82.7 0.1 0.2

Indians 2020 39.0 0.1 – 60.7 – 0.2

2010 41.6 0.1 – 7.9 36.7 13.6

Others 2020 59.2 0.1 – 6.0 27.4 7.3

2010 62.4 3.8 0.9 4.3 0.1 28.6

2020 71.1 4.6 0.4 5.0 0.1 18.8

Speakers aged five years and over. N = 2,658,378.

a

English is recognised as one of the four official languages in Singapore, combined with Malay (also the designated national language), Mandarin, and Tamil. However, English is used predominantly in government, and is the language of instruction in the city-state’s education. Singapore’s three other official languages have the status of mother tongues for the major racial groups, so that each person is assigned a ‘mother tongue’ based on their ethnicity and typically study their mother tongue as a second language at school. Consequently, Chinese students often study Mandarin, Malays learn Malay, and members of the Indian community learn Tamil or other Indian languages (Jain & Wee, 2019). Over the last 50 years, Singapore’s language and education policies have been guided by policies that align closely with the nation-building agenda of the city-state (Sidhu, Ho, & Yeoh, 2011). The English language arrived in Singapore in 1819, but prior to its independence in 1965 two types of schools existed, namely English-medium schools in the urban areas and Malay-medium schools in rural areas. Schools teaching through Chinese varieties and Tamil also existed at this time (Low, 2020). During Singapore’s post-independence period, four main language policies have dominated, namely the four co-official language policy of English, Mandarin, Malay, and Tamil, the Bilingual Education Policy of 1966, the Speak Mandarin Campaign of 1979, and the Speak Good English Movement of 2000 (Bolton & Ng, 2014). Since 1987, EMI has been promoted at all levels of education as the dominant language of learning and teaching, which has crucially shaped the education landscape in Singapore (Low, 2020). The recent 2020 census data on languages most frequently spoken at home, presented in Table 30.1, indicate recent changes in the use of languages in the home. In the 2020 census data, it is reported that the percentage of Singaporeans speaking English (as their most frequent language at home) has risen from 32% in 2010 to 48% in 2020. Within the Chinese community, 48% of people also report using English as the dominant home language, compared with 39% for Malays, and 59% for Indians. Generally speaking, the latest census results suggest a rather noticeable shift towards English across all ethnic groups in the community.

The history of EMI in Singapore’s higher education The issue of English-medium education has a complex history dating back to the early years of British colonialism. Although many accounts of Singapore’s history typically begin with Stamford Raffles’ arrival on the island in 1819, the precolonial history of Singapura (‘Lion City’ in Malay) indicates that a trading community existed on the island as early as the fourteenth century. Its role as a regional centre for trade was superseded by Malacca from the fifteenth century onwards, and 412

English-medium instruction in higher education in Singapore

when Raffles arrived, the island was under the control of the Johore Sultanate, which signed a treaty giving the British East India Company (EIC) the right to establish a trading post in Singapore (Singapore Government, 2022). The history of the precolonial period suggests that the island had served as a meeting place for Arabs, Chinese, Malays, and traders from the Indonesian islands and elsewhere long before the British arrived. During this period, ‘contact varieties of Malay’ functioned as regional linguae francae (Lim, 2008, p. 452). After the arrival of the British, the population expanded very rapidly, as the city attracted a diverse population of Arabs, Armenians, Balinese, Bugis, Chinese, Siamese, as well as Europeans, Jews, and Parsees. In the early years of development, Malays formed the largest ethnic group, but by 1891, they had been overtaken in number by the Chinese, who then accounted for 66% of the population, compared with 12% for Malays, 9% for Indians, and some 3% for Europeans. By 1931, the percentage of Chinese citizens had risen to around 74%, compared with 13% for Malays (Merewether, 1892; Vlieland, 1932). By the early twentieth century, the port of Singapore was trading with Malaya, the Dutch East Indies and beyond, and continued to attract immigrants and sojourners from the region and further afield. From 1826, Penang, Singapore, and Melaka were joined together to form the Straits Settlements, which were administered in turn by the East India Company, the Presidency of Bengal, the Governor-General of India, and finally, from 1867, by the British Colonial Office (Teoh, 2008).

English language education in colonial Singapore English-medium education in the Straits Settlements began in Penang in 1816, and was in operation in Singapore by the 1830s, alongside other schools that taught through either Chinese or Malay. The first English-medium boys’ school in Singapore dates from 1834 and the founding of the Singapore Free School, which five years later took the name of Raffles Institution. This was later followed by other schools for boys, including St Joseph’s Institution (1852), the Anglo-Chinese School (1886), and St Andrews School (1871), and by 1899 there were 11 government-aided and three government boys’ schools in operation. These were complemented by several Englishmedium girls’ schools including St Margaret’s (1842), Raffles Girls School (1844), the Convent School (1854), and by 1899 half a dozen such schools were in existence, catering to Europeans, Chinese and Indians (Lim, 2008, pp. 66–67). Gupta (1994) notes that the numbers of children attending English-medium schools remained rather small throughout the nineteenth century, and only began to substantially increase from the 1890s onwards, mainly as a result of the growing popularity of such schools with the Chinese community. The popularity of English-medium education created an English-speaking section of the community, and in the 1921 Census, it was reported that, while Europeans and Eurasians accounted for 28% of English speakers, some 55% of English speakers were drawn from the Chinese community. However, while Straits Chinese children were taught officially through English, Malay was also extensively known and used, and this group contributed to a ‘Malay-speaking nexus in the English-medium schools’. The teachers in the English-medium schools were from diverse backgrounds, and in the early decades of the twentieth century, they included Eurasians, Indians, and Europeans. Of the ‘European’ teachers in 1935, 12 were American, 15 were French, 14 were German, Italian, or Portuguese (Gupta, 1994, pp. 39–43). In the colonial era of British Malaya, of which the Straits Settlements were an integral part, it seems clear from the record that access to English was not enthusiastically encouraged but instead somewhat restricted by officialdom. In 1884, E. C. Hill, the Inspector of Schools for the Straits Settlements, asserted that ‘the immediate result of affording an English education to any large number of Malays would be the creation of a discontented class who might become a source of anxiety to the community’ (Straits Settlements 413

Kingsley Bolton et al.

Annual Report, 1884, cited in Pennycook, 1994, pp. 85–86). In a somewhat similar vein, Frank Swettenham, Resident of Perak and future Governor of the Straits Settlements stated that ‘Whilst we teach children to read and write and count in their own languages or in Malay, the lingua franca of the Peninsula and Archipelago, we are safe’ adding that he also wished ‘the boys taught useful industries and the girls weaving and embroidery’ (Swettenham, 1893, cited in Barlow, 1995, p. 375). Throughout the Malayan peninsula, the government provided free elementary education for Malay children in the Malay language, although the sons of the Malay aristocracy were educated in English at the elite Malay College in Kuala Kangsar. For their part, the Chinese had to rely on wealthy donors or their clan associations to provide the funding for schools, and by the early twentieth century, there were Chinese schools in operation sponsored by various Cantonese, Hakka, Hainanese, Hokkien, and Teo Chew clan associations. The Indians mostly lived in rural areas, where children attended schools supported by plantation owners and missionaries (Chew, 2013, pp. 28–29). The pattern of education that emerged in colonial Malaya generally, as well as in Singapore, was a system of minimal government intervention, coupled with a patchwork of private educational endeavours, typically along ethnic fault lines. The net effect of such policies was undoubtedly divisive, and one mid-twentieth century commentator summarised its effects in terms of separating the four major racial groups – Malays, Chinese, Indians, and Eurasians – along language lines, noting that evidently: ‘English education is reluctantly given to these racial groups, and it is only their own determination to enter the English schools that has tended to cause the Government to acquiesce’ (Hendershot, 1941, pp. 144–145). Taking this argument further, Rudner (1994, p. 286) added that: ‘Rather than functioning as an agency for social integration, modernization and development, English schooling served instead to create a privileged Westernized, English-speaking elite geared to administrative office-holding and free professions’, an assertion that applied perhaps most obviously to the city of Singapore, given the growing popularity of an English education among the ethnic Chinese towards the end of British colonial rule. What accelerated the promotion of EMI education was nothing less than the defeat of the British army by Japanese forces under the command of General Tomoyuki Yamashita in February 1942. When the British regained control of the city in September 1945, as discussed later, there began a new era in British colonial policy; the overriding aim of colonial rule soon came to be that of engineering a smooth withdrawal from its South Asian and Southeast Asian territories (Bayly & Harper, 2007).

Language education in late colonial Malaya and Singapore The shift in British language policy after the defeat of the Japanese was motivated by the UK government’s intention to withdraw from the Malayan peninsula, and one early step in this direction was the formation of the Malayan Union in 1946. The Malayan Union included all of colonial Malaya with the exception of Singapore, which was expected to join quite shortly, and it was this attempt to create a Malayan ‘nation’ out of a multi-ethnic population that moved the government to promote a form of ‘colonial nationalism’ that aimed at creating a multi-racial ‘responsible middle class […] united by English education and the values it carried’ (Bayly & Harper, 2007, p. 100). Whereas previous colonial policy had recognised Malay as the lingua franca of the peninsula, the British now sought to promote English as the common language of the Malayan nation and an instrument for what was conceived as ‘non-communal civic nationalism’ (Sai, 2013, p. 50). Accordingly, the colonial government then introduced several initiatives to promote English throughout education, including the Ten-Year Plan for Education in 1947, a Five-Year Supplementary Plan 414

English-medium instruction in higher education in Singapore

in 1950, and the White Paper for Bilingual Education and Increased Aid for Chinese Schools in 1953, as well as the establishment and location of the English-medium University of Malaya in Singapore 1949. A closely-related motivation for English education at this time was to promote a kind of multicultural civic-mindedness in line with pro-western and anti-communist sentiments at a time when the communist insurgency was gaining ground in Malaya (Sai, 2013, pp. 50–54). The first institutions of higher education in Singapore were King Edward VII College of Medicine, founded in 1905 to train practitioners for government hospitals, and Raffles College, founded in 1929, which offered diploma courses in the Arts and Sciences. Proposals for developing higher education in Singapore were mooted in 1936 when there emerged a local campaign for raising the status of the Medical College and Raffles College to university level. Immediately after the Second World War, the Carr-Saunders Report of 1949 facilitated the merger of the College of Medicine with Raffles College in order to form the University of Malaya. At its opening, Malcolm MacDonald, the British Commissioner-General in Southeast Asia, and the first Chancellor of the University predicted that it would become ‘the crucible of the Malayan nation’ and ‘a cradle where a truly non-communal nation is nurtured’ (Stockwell, 2005, p. 1168). From the late 1940s onwards, the colonial government began to promote English rather than Malay as the lingua franca of Malaya, and simultaneously extended free primary education to all language streams, in contrast to its pre-war stance of providing free education to only Malaymedium schools. The new system also privileged English, as these plans required vernacular-medium schools to teach English as a subject in the curriculum. Thus, Singapore’s post-independence policy of promoting English-medium education may be directly traced back to these policies of the early 1950s, despite the perceived desirability of mother-tongue education at the time. Although the government recognised the arguments in favour of using vernacular languages, it ultimately argued that ‘the need of literacy in English in a polyglot population, such as Singapore, (had become) overriding’ (Sai, 2013, p. 66). What was then established was an English-plus-vernacular language education model, very similar to the English-plus-Mother-Tongue model currently adopted in Singapore’s schools today. At this time, the promotion of English education came under a good deal of challenge, not least from the Chinese community, many of whom sent their children to Chinese vernacular schools. In 1953, the prominent Chinese merchant Tan Lark Sye proposed the establishment of a Chinese-medium university. This suggestion drew massive public support and donations from all sectors of the Chinese population, resulting in the opening of Nanyang University (‘Nantah’) in 1956, despite official fears that ‘Chinese-medium instruction would undermine the use of English in the colony’ and that ‘this all-Chinese institution might aggravate communal differences or encourage the Chinese youth of Malaya to seek inspiration from the People’s Republic of China’ (Stockwell, 2005, p. 1174).

Language policies since 1965 Singapore’s membership in the Malaysian Federation lasted for a brief two years, from 1963 until 1965, after which Singapore became a separate independent nation. Although Singapore’s independence dates from 1965, self-government was initiated in 1959, towards the end of the colonial period. During this period, one of the first acts was to endorse the principle of equal treatment for the four types of school then in existence: English, Chinese, Malay, and Tamil (Lee, 2008, p. 295). Since that time, language policies have continued to play an important role in nation-building, and remain a matter of official concern. Four major language policy initiatives in the post-colonial period have included (i) the Official Languages and National Language policies (1950s–1960s); (ii) the Bilingualism Policy (1966); (iii) The Speak Mandarin Campaign (1979–present); and (iv) 415

Kingsley Bolton et al.

The Speak Good English Movement (2000–present). At the time of independence, most schools were English-medium, but there were also several Tamil, Malay, and Mandarin medium schools in existence. By 1987, all of these were closed by the Singapore government, since when Mandarin Chinese, Tamil, and Malay have been taught as a second language or ‘mother tongue’ in primary and secondary schools. For a short period, Malay was also a compulsory language for those who wanted to join the public service, and this policy was maintained until the mid-1970s. Since then, Malay has had the official status of a ‘national language’ in Singapore, and the national anthem continues to be sung in Malay, although today, knowledge of Malay is generally limited only to Malay ‘mother-tongue’ speakers (Bolton & Ng, 2014, p. 309). The four sets of aforementioned language policies have been promoted by the dominant political party, the PAP, who have held political power in the nation from the 1960s to the present. In particular, the direction of such policies was specifically shaped by the thinking and decisions of Singapore’s post-colonial leader, Lee Kuan Yew, who took a particular interest in such language issues from the very beginning. In his 2012 volume on ‘Singapore’s bilingual journey’, Lee provided the following rationale for the broad sweep of such decisions: We had 75 per cent of the population Chinese, speaking a range of different dialects; 14 per cent Malays; and 8 per cent Indians. But making Chinese the official language of Singapore was out of the question; the 25 per cent of the population who were not Chinese would revolt. [… ] For political and economic reasons, English had to be our working language. This would give all races in Singapore a common language to communicate and work in. At the same time, we knew we had to provide equal opportunities for people to study their respective mother tongues […as] knowing one’s mother tongue was a must. It gives one the sense of belonging to a culture, and increases self-confidence and self-respect. Hence, we decided that we must teach each student two languages – English and the mother tongue. (Lee, 2012, pp. 59–60) Thus, the essential formula for language policies and planning became established as a combination of English and the ‘mother tongue’, with the mother tongue designated as Mandarin for the Chinese community, Malay for those of Malay ethnicity, and Tamil, as historically the majority of South Asian immigrants had come from Southern India. Prime Minister Lee was also active in promoting Mandarin from the late 1970s onwards through the ‘Speak Mandarin Campaign’, a policy considered important for both educational and cultural reasons. In Lee’s view, Mandarin not only ‘unites the different dialect groups’, but also ‘reminds the Singapore Chinese that they are part of an ancient civilisation with an unbroken history of over 5,000 years’ (Lee, 2012, p. 150). The Speak Good English Movement was introduced in 2000, amid concerns about the spread of ‘Singlish’ in the community and perceived falling standards of English. The effects of these policies continue today, and, following the widespread promotion of English as the dominant language of education, a large section of the population may now be regarded as ‘Englishknowing bilinguals’, with proficiency in English as well as their ethnic language (Pakir, 1991). One unintended consequence of official language policies has been the increasing spread of English as a home language and the de facto ‘mother tongue’ for increasing numbers of Singaporeans across ethnic groups, whose designated mother tongues, in many cases, are now becoming ‘second languages’. Another, albeit intended, outcome in the Chinese community has been the rapid shift from Chinese dialects such as Hokkien, Cantonese, and Teochew towards Mandarin, so that today very few young people are truly conversant with the dialects of their grandparents’ generation. 416

English-medium instruction in higher education in Singapore

The politics of higher education in the post-independence era After the foundation of the modern Singapore nation in 1965, the policy of promoting Englishmedium education throughout all levels of education, including the tertiary sector, became increasingly important as the new nation developed, economically, politically, and socially. In April 1980, after a good deal of discussion with various stakeholders, the decision was taken to merge Nanyang University with the University of Singapore in order to form the National University of Singapore (NUS).2 Nanyang University’s Jurong campus in the west of the island was remodelled to host the Nanyang Technological Institute in affiliation with NUS, which later became the basis for NTU, incorporating the National Institute of Education. The choice of name for the new institution of the NUS, which came into being in 1980, was likely decided by founding Prime Minister Lee, who from the outset was mindful of the challenges of nation-building in the post-colonial context of the time. In a 1966 speech on ‘The role of universities in economic and social development’, Lee argued that in the post-independence era the role of the universities was: to produce the teachers, the administrators, the men to fill the professions – your accountants, your architects, your lawyers, your technocrats, just the people to do jobs in a modern civilised community. And next and even more important, it is to lead thinking – informed thinking – into the problems which the nation faces. (Lee, 1966) The need to establish national priorities for the University of Singapore occupied the PAP government for some years in the 1960s, and is documented in some detail by Lee (2008). One major turning point here was the appointment of Deputy Prime Minister Toh Chin Chye as Vice Chancellor of the University of Singapore from 1968 to 1975. Toh was committed to the notion that ‘the university should have a national self, an identity rooted in Singapore and in the Southeast Asian region’. He also favoured the promotion of ‘value free’ subjects such as administration, architecture, business, medicine, and science, while regarding the arts and social sciences as ‘not value free’, thus demanding special treatment, not least with reference to local values (Lee, 2008, pp. 408–411). During the era of Toh Chin Chye, the terms of employment of expatriate staff were substantially changed in the apparent move to remove a number of their previous privileges. At the same time, overseas faculty also became the focus of scandalous articles in the local press, and various government spokesmen argued that such expatriate faculty were encouraging students ‘to ape degenerate Western ways’ (Puccetti, 1972, p. 238). Five years after Toh Chin Chye stepped down as Vice Chancellor of the University of Singapore, the National University of Singapore (NUS) was inaugurated under the leadership of Tony Tan Keng Yam. However, the enduring commitment to university education in the service of society and the nation remains as a continuing theme in higher education, not only in the case of NUS but in the development of all of Singapore’s universities. The establishment of NUS in 1980 was followed by the foundation of NTU in 1991, as well as four younger universities in the 2000s. It is important to note that English is the medium of instruction at all these institutions, as is the case at all other levels of public education in Singapore. Over the past five decades, educational policy has been guided by two key objectives of Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP, that is ‘to build a modern economy and to create a sense of Singaporean national identity’ and as Singapore’s economy has developed, educational priorities have shifted accordingly (OECD, 2011, p. 160). In the 1960s, the emphasis was on labour-intensive manufacturing, in the 1970s and 1980s on skill-intensive production, while from the 1990s onwards Singapore has set out to excel in the global knowledge 417

Kingsley Bolton et al.

economy and to attract innovative engineering and scientific companies to establish themselves here. Today, at all levels of education, there is a strong focus on mathematics, science, and technical skills. Mathematics and science are core subjects for all primary and secondary students, while in higher education, more than 50% of programmes are devoted to science and technology (OECD, 2011, p. 168).

Official policies relating to EMI in higher education Currently, there are six major local universities in Singapore, including: the National University of Singapore (NUS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore Management University (SMU), Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD), Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT), and Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS). The Singapore higher education landscape also includes institutions known as polytechnics, which provide three-year diploma courses (Singapore Ministry of Education, 2015). The five polytechnics include: Nanyang Polytechnic (NYP), Ngee Ann Polytechnic (NP), Republic Polytechnic (RP), Singapore Polytechnic (SP), and Temasek Polytechnic (TP). Over the last few decades, numerous foreign ­universities have also established branch campuses in Singapore, including James Cook University ­Singapore, Curtin University Singapore, and Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh: Asia campus (Table 30.2). Table 30.2  Major universities in Singapore University

Founded

Type

National University of Singapore (NUS)

1905 (as Straits Settlements and Federated Malay States Government Medical School), 1921 (as King Edward VII College of Medicine), 1928 (as Raffles College), 1949 (as University of Malaya), 1962 (as University of Singapore), 1980 (as NUS) 1955 (As Nanyang University), 1981 (as Nanyang Technological Institute), 1991 (as NTU) 2000

Publicautonomous

43,885

Publicautonomous

32,941

Publicautonomous Publicautonomous

11,621

Publicautonomous Privatepublicly funded

8,182

Nanyang Technological University (NTU) Singapore Management University (SMU) Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD) Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT) Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS)

2009 2009 2005

Student enrolmentsa

1,658

2,049

Figures listed are for full-time undergraduate and postgraduate degree students from NUS (2020); NTU (2019); and MOE Digest (2019).

a

418

English-medium instruction in higher education in Singapore

NUS and NTU are the largest and most comprehensive of the universities in Singapore (with approximately 43,000 and 32,000 students, respectively). Botha, Bolton, and Bacon-Shone (2023) also note that NUS and NTU also have longer and more interesting histories, compared with the other four institutions (SMU, SUTD, SIT, and SUSS), and are the only local universities in Singapore established before 2000. NUS is considered the most prestigious, and comprehensive university in Singapore and is ranked 11th in the latest QS world university rankings (QS, 2022). NTU’s history can be dated from 1956 and the original Nanyang University, and, more recently 1991, when it officially became. NTU is currently ranked 19th in the latest QS rankings and its strength lies in its STEM-focussed education. SMU primarily focusses on entrepreneurship and business education, and is currently ranked 561–570 in the QS rankings (QS, 2022). SUTD, SIT, and SUSS focus on providing a more technologically-informed education that serves Singapore societal needs through integrating education and industry. In terms of internationalisation, only NUS, NTU, and SMU recruit international students in large numbers, while SUTD, SIT, and SUSS primarily recruit local, Singaporean students. These latter universities generally share an ‘applied’ and ‘practical’ orientation to tertiary education which aims to meet the economic and social needs of Singapore’s knowledge-based economy. These three universities also currently do not place in the QS world rankings. According to the latest statistics, in 2019, a total of 57.3% of the (over 25) population had at least some post-secondary qualifications, and the proportion of university graduates had increased from 22.5% in 2009 to 32.4% in 2019 (Department of Statistics, 2020). There are also noticeable differences concerning the success of members of various ethnic groups in gaining access to university education. Precise statistics on ethnicity and admission to higher education are not typically highlighted in government reports; however, analysis of the data for the General Household Survey of 2015 reveals that 40% of the (over 15 years of age) Indian population have a university degree, compared with 33.4% for Chinese, and only 9.1% for Malays (Department of Statistics, 2016). Among those (over 15) that have received a university degree by 2020, just over 80% are Chinese, 4% are Malay, and 10% are Indian (Department of Statistics, 2020). It is widely suggested that Singapore’s bilingual language policies have been instrumental in establishing the city-state as the richest and most successful nation in Southeast Asia (Bolton, 2008; Bolton & Botha, 2020). As mentioned earlier, the EMI policy of 1987 cemented the role of English in the education system. In previous studies of EMI policy and implementation at universities in Singapore, Bolton et al. (2017) and Bolton and Botha (2021) found that the official EMI policy was accepted and largely followed closely with respect to classroom activities in the universities, and that pedagogical standards were very high. However, Bolton et al.’s (2017) study also indicated that there was less compliance with the official language policy at postgraduate level, where a good deal of communication between PhD supervisors and their students evidently took place in Mandarin rather than in English. Bolton et al. (2017) also noted that although there were relatively few foreign students at the undergraduate level, there were much larger numbers of non-Singaporean students at the postgraduate level.

Researching EMI in Singaporean higher education In this section, we present and discuss some major findings of our recent study on the effectiveness of EMI education across Singapore’s six main universities. This study was concluded in 2019, and was guided by the following research issues: (i) comparing the language backgrounds of students across Singapore’s six major universities; (ii) describing students’ experiences of EMI education and their perceived difficulties; and (iii) describing students’ use of languages in the context of their learning. 419

Kingsley Bolton et al.

Background and methods Between 2017 and 2019, all six major universities, that is, NUS, NTU, SMU, SIT, SUSS, and SUTD, were surveyed using a detailed online questionnaire. We used a snowball survey method, which yielded a favourable response rate from students, resulting in 1,037 completed responses, distributing evenly across all six universities. The questionnaire comprised 54 items, with sections dealing with the social characteristics of students, their linguistic and educational backgrounds, their reading practices, their writing skills, spoken communication, language mixing, presentation skills, online learning, self-assessment of language skills, and perceived areas of difficulty. Students were offered an incentive of a Starbucks voucher, which encouraged respondents to complete the survey in a timely manner. The data underwent a consistency check at the Social Sciences Research Centre at The University of Hong Kong.

Sample characteristics The research team aimed to capture at least 150 responses from each of the institutions. The survey results showed that NTU provided 217 responses, NUS had 162, SUSS had 172, SIT had 167, SMU had 154, and STUD had 165, totalling 1,037 completed surveys. Concerning the gender of the respondents, slightly more females (59.3%) were represented in the sample compared to males (40.7%). The variable ‘residence status’ is relevant to both the nationality and the educational background of students. In our sample, the vast majority of undergraduate students were Singaporean (89.3%) or Singaporean permanent residents (or PRs, 3.4%). The survey also recorded the ethnicity of the students, using the ethnic classification and nomenclature of Singapore residents as either Chinese, Indian, Malay or ‘Other’. The survey results showed that a significant proportion of undergraduate students were of Chinese ethnicity (88.1%), with smaller percentages of Malay (4.7%) and Indian ethnicity (4.7%). The distribution of student ethnicity also reflected the overall dominance of Chinese students across the universities, although comparatively more Malays are represented at SIT, compared to the other institutions. Another variable we recorded was SocioEconomic Status (SES). Using Tan’s (2015) classification of the SES of Singaporeans, we asked students to report on their self-perceived SES, and this classification revealed that the majority of the respondents (51.6%) classified themselves as ‘Middle class’, while 30.8% of the students considered themselves ‘Working class’. Smaller figures of 13.5% and 4.1% identified themselves as ‘Lower class’ and ‘Upper class’, respectively. More students from SMU considered themselves ‘Middle’ and ‘Upper Class’, compared to respondents from the other universities.

The language backgrounds of students and EMI readiness The language backgrounds of students in Singapore are an important variable to consider in the context of English-medium education in Singapore’s universities, given the multilingual and diverse nature of the undergraduate student population. In our survey, students were asked about their personal and social backgrounds, including their country of birth, nationality, and residence status. The majority of students reported their place of birth as Singapore, with smaller numbers from mainland China, Malaysia, India, and ‘Other’. Approximately 92% of the sample identified themselves as ‘Singaporean’ or ‘Singaporean Permanent Resident’ (PR). Students were also ­queried about their knowledge of languages and usage, as indicated in Figure 30.1. As shown in Figure 30.1, among the students who responded to the question regarding their ‘first language learnt as a child’, 74.9% reported learning English as a first language, while 61.2%

420

English-medium instruction in higher education in Singapore 80%

74.9% 61.2%

60% 40% 20%

9.3%

7.8%

6.0%

5.1%

2.3%

2.3%

2.2%

3.4%

Tamil

Other

0% English

Mandarin Hokkien

Malay

Cantonese Teochew

Bahasa Bahasa Malaysia Indonesia

Figure 30.1  First language learnt as a child.

80%

71.1% 61.6%

60% 40% 20%

11.2%

6.2%

5.4%

4.4%

2.1%

1.9%

1.4%

3.9%

Cantonese

Malay

Teochew

Tamil

Bahasa Indonesia

Hakka

Other

0% English

Mandarin

Hokkien

Figure 30.2  Language(s) usually spoken at home.

reported learning Mandarin, 7.8% reported Malay, and 2.2% Tamil, with 9.3% reporting Hokkien, 6% Cantonese, and 5.1% Teochew. In Figure 30.2 we indicate results of the languages usually spoken at home at the time of the survey, which reveal that 71.1% of students reported using English, compared to 61.6% for Mandarin. Students were allowed to select more than one language in response to this question. In terms of the bilingual or multilingual abilities of students, we found that 48.3% of students reported using only one language at home, while 38.6% indicated using two languages, and 9.9% reported using three languages. This is a useful finding, as it indicates that more than half of the students usually speak more than one language at home. We also directly surveyed students about their own perception of themselves as bilinguals (‘Do you consider yourself bilingual in English and another language?’), and 51.9% of the sample considered themselves to be ‘Very’ or ‘Completely’ bilingual, while only 1.8% of students considered themselves not bilingual at all. This indicates that a vast majority of those students who only reported using one language at home also indicated at least some knowledge of other languages. We were also interested to evaluate the extent of bilingualism across the universities. In Table 30.3, we present results for self-reported bilingualism by students and by university. We combined all percentages for students who judged themselves to be either ‘Completely’, ‘Very’, or ‘Somewhat’ bilingual. The totals by institution are as follows: 92.6% NTU, 92.6% NUS, 93.5% SUSS, 91.0% SIT, 86.4% SMU, and 91.5% SUTD. The lower percentage for SMU could be explained by SMU students’ reputation in the community as coming from English-dominant homes. In terms of EMI-preparedness and the language proficiency of students, and in particular, proficiency in English, the results for students’ self-reported proficiency in English are presented in 421

Kingsley Bolton et al. Table 30.3  Extent of bilingualism, by university Extent

NTU

NUS

SUSS

SIT

SMU

SUTD

Completely (%) Very (%) Somewhat (%) A little (%) Not at all (%)

20.3 38.7 33.6 5.5 1.8

21.0 31.5 40.1 6.8 0.6

17.4 36.6 39.5 5.8 0.6

21.0 27.5 42.5 4.8 4.2

20.8 29.2 36.4 12.3 1.3

12.7 30.9 47.9 6.1 2.4

N = 1,037 Table 30.4 Self-report of proficiency in English, by all students Extent

N

%

Very good Good Fairly good Poor Very poor

457 446 127 6 1

44.1 43.0 12.2 0.6 0.1

N = 1,037 Table 30.5  Students’ self-reported language mixing practices

Very often About half the time Sometimes Rarely Never Does not apply

With other students

%

178 153 315 218 168 5

17.2 14.8 30.4 21.0 16.2 0.5

N = 1,033

With professors 57 63 147 325 429 16

% 5.5 6.1 14.2 31.3 41.4 1.5

N = 1,033

Table 30.4, where a total of 87.1% of all students judged themselves to be either ‘Good’ or ‘Very good’ at English. Despite the self-reported nature of the questioning, it appears many students ­appear to be very proficient in English. With reference to proficiency in English by University, as indicated in Table 30.5, more ­students from NUS (87.7%) and SMU (84.4%) considered themselves ‘most proficient’ in ­English, ­compared with slightly lower percentages for SUTD and NTU, with the lowest percentages ­reported for SUSS and SIT at 64.5% and 74.8%, respectively. These results seem to suggest quite strongly that in terms of (bi/multilingual) language dominance, English is reported overwhelmingly as the dominant language by the vast majority of university students implying a sufficiently English proficient undergraduate student population. We next consider students’ experiences of EMI education in Singapore. 422

English-medium instruction in higher education in Singapore

Students’ experiences of EMI education In this section, we describe some of the relevant findings concerning students’ experiences with EMI at their respective institutions. One important question we considered was difficulties in communicating with teachers. A minority of 7.8% of students reported difficulties of some kind. From Figure 30.3 we can see how students reported on communication difficulties at their respective universities. Our findings demonstrate only two exceptions. At SMU, far fewer students reported any difficulties (2.6%), whereas at SUTD, a far greater number of students reported difficulties (14.5%). This suggests that a slight variation in terms of students’ experiences with EMI education. Students were also asked to provide explanations concerning the communication difficulties they had experienced with their professors, by filling in open-ended comments, provided in the questionnaire. There was some variation regarding the quantity in comments from various universities with notably fewer comments from some universities (such as SMU), and more from others (for example, NTU and NUS). Despite this, the most frequently cited reason for communication difficulty was that of understanding the teacher’s accent, especially if the teacher came from ­mainland China. Students were also asked to report on the problems associated with various communication tasks in their formal education. As shown in Figure 30.4, the task of ‘Writing (English-medium/ language) essays and reports’ and ‘Reading textbooks’ were perceived by students as the most difficult tasks they faced as part of their studies. However, it is also worth noting that a large percentage of undergraduate students reported ‘No difficulty’ at all, in handling tasks related to speaking, writing, listening, and reading.

The use of languages in students’ learning We were also interested in students’ linguistic behaviour when alternating between languages or mixing languages on campus, among one another. In this section, we report on the language 100%

7.8%

9.3%

92.2%

90.7%

NTU

NUS

4.7%

7.8%

2.6% 14.5%

80%

60% 95.3%

92.2%

97.4% 85.5%

40%

20%

0% SIM No

SIT

SMU

SUTD

Yes

Figure 30.3 Communication difficulties with teachers because of language problems, by university (N = 1037).

423

Kingsley Bolton et al. 70.0% 60.3% 60.0%

53.2%

50.5%

50.0%

45.9% 39.0%

40.0%

38.1% 33.3%

32.8%

30.0% 20.0%

15.2%

14.4% 7.2%

10.0%

6.5% 0.6% 0.0%

0.0%

Listening to lectures No difficulty

1.6% 0.1%

0.5% 0.0% Speaking in tutorials or seminars

Very little difficulty

Writing essays or reports

Some difficulty

0.8%

0.0%

Reading textbooks

A lot of difficulty

Unable

Figure 30.4  Undergraduate students’ perceived difficulty of communication tasks (N = 1032). Table 30.6  Language used when discussing academic matters in the classroom, by university

English Mandarin Malay Mixed

NTU (%)

NUS (%)

SUSS (%)

SIT (%)

SMU (%)

SUTD (%)

70.5 2.3 0.0 27.3

89.5 1.9 0.0 8.6

69.2 1.7 0.0 29.2

70.7 2.4 0.6 26.4

89.0 0.0 0.0 11.0

85.5 2.4 0.6 11.5

N = 1,037

mixing practices of students in their educational lives. As shown in Table 30.5, 32% of respondents stated that they ‘Very often’ or ‘About half the time’ mixed languages with other students, while 11.6% reported frequently mixing languages with their professors. This is an important finding that indicates how widespread practice of language mixing is on university campuses. As shown in Table 30.6, there is a difference in terms of the language mixing results that were reported for the six universities, with fewer students from NUS, SMU, and SUTD reporting mixing languages when discussing academic matters in the classroom.

Language choice and language use by Singaporean students The survey results presented earlier highlight that Singaporean university students are typically from homes where more than one language or language variety is spoken, and English is often not the first language learnt. Instead, Mandarin Chinese or another language or language variety is typically reported as their first language learnt. Our results also indicate that high proportions (86%–93%) of students seem to be bilingual, and reported high levels of proficiency in English, with 87% of respondents claiming to speak either ‘Good’ or ‘Very good’ English. With reference to their experiences of problems in the context of EMI education, only a minority (7.8%) reported difficulties with teachers because of language problems. Students also reported language mixing with varying degrees of frequency, with more occurring outside the classroom and in their personal lives.

424

English-medium instruction in higher education in Singapore

Overall, English-medium education in Singapore is evidently successful where we observe careful implementation of the city-state’s EMI policy. There is a documented high level of compliance with official (government and institutional) language policies. Recent research on the proficiency levels of English users across Asian nations further confirms the claim that Singaporean speakers of English (generally) have the highest levels of English proficiency compared with members of other societies across South Asia, Southeast Asia, and East Asia (Bolton & Bacon-Shone, 2020). These results also indicate that bilingualism and multilingualism is certainly the norm for most of these students, even for those students who regularly use English as a home language, but who are in regular contact with other languages and language varieties in the home setting. One important finding in our study is that many students do not speak only one language, for example, English, Malay, Mandarin, or Tamil as their usual language, but rather use more than one language or one language variety at home, with 48.5% of the sample reporting the use of two or more languages at home. It is also worth highlighting that nearly 78% of the sample indicated that the language they were most proficient in was English, compared to 19% choosing Mandarin Chinese, 0.9% Malay, and 0.2% Tamil. One might infer that one contributing factor here is the language policy throughout the Singapore education system, not least in higher education, where English as the dominant presence in lectures, tutorials and seminars, laboratory sessions, and workshops. All of these indicate a clear and rigorous implementation of the EMI language policy in Singapore’s higher education with an evidently high rate of success, as measured by the adoption of this policy at all levels of tertiary education, by administrators, support staff, faculty, and students. Concurrently, our results also indicate various patterns of language mixing, and, once students start discussing academic matters with one another inside and outside their classrooms, there appears to be a noticeable increase in the use of other languages, with some 32% of undergraduates stating that they regularly mixed languages with other students. In this context, it appears that the Chinese and Malay students typically engage in bilingual creativity and seem confident using multiple languages and language varieties when discussing aspects of their studies with one another. Here, English seems to be typically used when students are directly referring to aspects of their studies, and has a clearly dominant presence in such interchanges, while other languages (such as Mandarin Chinese or Malay) are less salient in such interactions (as is evident from previous studies, such as Bolton & Botha, 2019, 2021). This suggests that there is a strong impact of English as medium of instruction on the bi- and multilingual language repertoires of these students, where switches to academic terms and phrases are used more frequently as opposed to non-academic language use. However, we found that this type of language mixing mainly occurs in intra-ethnic communicative situations where students know one another (Botha, 2018, 2021). In inter-ethnic communicative situations, or when students do not know one another well, English (or a variety of Singapore English) is typically used. Language mixing in such contexts might potentially be described in terms of ‘translanguaging’, given the bilingual fluidity of these interactions. However, in Singapore, the specific history of language policies has tended to emphasise the boundaries between the four official languages (English, Mandarin, Malay, and Tamil) rather than reducing or blurring them (Bolton & Ng, 2014). Here, given the highly explicit nature of Singapore’s multilingual policy, one might infer that students retain a high level of awareness of the borders between languages, and are ‘focused’ rather than ‘diffuse’ in their linguistic behaviour (Le Page & Tabouret-Keller, 1985). In this respect, the Singapore context may provide a useful counter-example in challenging at least some of the rather sweeping claims made by advocates of a translanguaging approach to language mixing in multilingual contexts (Bolton & Botha, 2019).

425

Kingsley Bolton et al.

Conclusion The survey results presented above generally support the perception that EMI functions rather well in Singaporean higher education. A large majority of students across all six major tertiary institutions report very little difficulty in communicating with faculty, or using English for a range of academic purposes. For the majority of students at these universities, then, the system appears to be working remarkably well. The only caveat here, however, might be to recognise the highly competitive nature of the Singapore’s meritocratic educational system. The students sampled by our survey were, to some extent, the winners in the educational competition, with many other less successful students enrolling into such vocationally-oriented institutions as Institutes of Technical Education (ITEs). Nevertheless, Singapore scores high marks for societal educational attainment, considering that around 52% of the population (aged 25 and above) have some kind of tertiary qualification (such as diplomas or degrees), which, by Asian standards particularly, is quite outstanding. From a wider perspective, several key points can be derived from the survey of EMI in Singaporean higher education previously outlined. One very clear conclusion is that EMI in higher education is not a recent phenomenon in the Singapore context, nor is it largely motivated by the dynamics of globalisation or competitiveness in global university rankings. On the contrary, as discussed earlier, the motivations for EMI in universities and throughout all levels of education have a very specific localised history that dates back to the earliest years of colonial education. In the post-World War Two era, the formulation of language policies took on a new importance, as the colonial government began the process of extricating itself from the Malayan peninsula, and the promotion of English as a Malayan lingua franca received increasing official support. To some extent, therefore, the mandate of English as the sole medium of instruction throughout all levels of education in the post-1965 era may be seen as a continuation and extension of colonial language policies introduced in the early 1950s. Under the leadership of Lee Kuan Yew, however, the adoption of English as a ‘nationist’ language, in Fishman’s (1968) sense, in combination with the ‘mother-tongue’ policy, took on a new importance and significance. Within higher education, English was prized for its practical utility in building the nation’s economy, particularly in sectors such as finance, science, and technology. According to most measures, these policies have been highly successful, gaining Singapore’s universities international recognition, with NUS and NTU regularly ranking among the world’s very best institutions.

Acknowledgement The research project discussed in this chapter was supported by the Ministry of Education, Singapore, under its Academic Research Fund Tier 1 (Grant number MOE-T1-001-160–05).

Notes 1 An earlier article reporting on this research was published in the journal World Englishes (Botha et al., 2023). 2 From the historical record, it seems clear that Nanyang University’s failure was not simply due to questions of education policy, but rather because of wider political issues, as Lee Kuan Yew himself explained: From the start, it [Nantah] was doomed to fail. The tide of history was against it. […] Tan Lark Sye was a passionate believer in education, but he did not understand the larger geopolitical environment. He did not understand that Britain and the United States […] were not going to let pro-left-wing Chinese open up other young Chinese to the influence of their enemy, communist China. A university producing a generation of pro-China youths would facilitate China’s advance into Southeast Asia. (Lee, 2012, pp. 79–80)

426

English-medium instruction in higher education in Singapore

References Barlow, H. (1995). Swettenham. Southdene Sdn. Bhd. Bayly, C., & Harper, T. (2007). Forgotten wars: The end of Britain’s Asian empire. Allen Lane. Bolton, K. (2008). English in Asia, Asian Englishes, and the issue of proficiency. English Today, 24(2), 3–12. Bolton, K., & Bacon-Shone, J. (2020). The statistics of English across Asia. In K. Bolton, W. Botha, & A. Kirkpatrick (Eds.), The handbook of Asian Englishes (pp. 49–80). Wiley-Blackwell. Bolton, K., Bacon-Shone, J., Botha, W., Heah, C., Kathpalia, S. S. Li, S. Y., See, E. K., & Winder, R. V. P. (2016). The communication needs of students at Nanyang Technological University. LCC Working Papers, 2. Bolton, K., & Botha, W. (2017). English as a medium of instruction in Singapore higher education. In B. Fenton-Smith, P. Humphreys, & I. Walkinshaw (Eds.), English as a medium of instruction in higher education in Asia-Pacific: Issues and challenges (pp. 133–152). Springer. Bolton, K., & Botha, W. (2019). Multilingualism and language mixing among Singapore university students. In I. Liyanage & T. Walker (Eds.), Multilingual education yearbook 2019 (pp. 43–61). Springer. Bolton, K., & Botha, W. (2020). English in Asian universities. In K. Bolton, W. Botha, & A. Kirkpatrick (Eds.), The handbook of Asian Englishes (pp. 134–168). Wiley-Blackwell. Bolton, K., & Botha, W. (2021). Singapore English, language mixing, and vernacular speech. In R. Jain (Ed.), Multilingual Singapore: Language policies and linguistic realities (pp. 28–46). Routledge. Bolton, K., Botha, W., & Bacon-Shone, J. (2017). English medium instruction in Singapore higher education: Policy, realities and challenges. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38, 913–930. Bolton, K., Botha, W., & Kirkpatrick, A. (Eds.). (2020). The handbook of Asian Englishes. Wiley-Blackwell. Bolton, K., & Ng, B. C. (2014). The dynamics of multilingualism in contemporary Singapore. World ­Englishes, 33, 307–318. Botha, W. (2018). A social network approach to the use of particles in Singapore English. World Englishes, 37, 261–281. Botha, W. (2021). The functions of language mixing in the social networks of Singapore students. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 269, 203–226. Botha, W., Bolton, K., & Bacon-Shone, J. (2023). EMI (English-medium instruction) in Singapore’s major universities. World Englishes, 42, 447–464. Chew, P. G. L. (2013). A sociolinguistic history of early identities in Singapore: From colonialism to nationalism. Palgrave Macmillan. Chou, G. A-L. (2015). Transnational governances in higher education: New universities, rhetorics, and networks in postwar Singapore. European Education, 47, 260–273. Department of Statistics. (2016). Table 50 Resident working persons aged 15 years and over by highest qualification attained, ethnic group and sex. Retrieved from https://www.tablebuilder.singstat.gov.sg/publicfacing/createSpecialTable.action?refId=8230# Department of Statistics. (2020). Population trends, 2020. Retrieved from https://www.singstat.gov.sg/-/media/files/publications/population/population2020.pdf Fishman, J. A. (1968). Nationality. Nationalism and nation-nationism. In J. Fishman, C. Ferguson, & J. Das Gupta (Eds.), Language problems of developing nations (pp. 39–52). John Wiley & Sons Inc. Gopinathan, S. (1989). University education in Singapore: The making of a national university. In Ph. G. Altbach & V. Selvaratnam (Eds.), From dependence to autonomy (pp. 207–224). Kluwer Academic Publishers. Gopinathan, S., & Lee, M. H. (2011). Challenging and co-opting globalization: Singapore’s strategies in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 33, 287–299. Gupta, A. F. (1994). The step-tongue: Children’s English in Singapore. Multilingual Matters. Hendershot, V. E. (1941). An historical critique of the educational system of British Malaya (PhD thesis). University of Southern California, California. Jain, R., & Wee, L. (2019). Language education policy: Singapore. In A. Kirkpatrick & A. J. Liddicoat (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of language education policy in Asia (pp. 272–285). Routledge. Le Page, R. B. & Tabouret-Keller, A. (1985). Acts of identity: Creole-based approaches to language and ethnicity. Cambridge University Press. Lee, E. (2008). Singapore: The unexpected nation. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Lee, K. Y. (1966). Speech at University of Singapore. The role of universities in economic and social development. Retrieved from https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/lky19660207.pdf

427

Kingsley Bolton et al. Lee, K. Y. (2012). My lifelong challenge: Singapore’s bilingual journey. Straits Times Press. Leimgruber, J. R. E., Siemund, P., & Terassa, L. (2018). Singaporean students’ language repertoires and ­attitudes revisited. World Englishes, 37, 282–306. Lim, P. H. (2008). English and school libraries before the Second World War: A Singapore perspective. ­Singapore Journal of Library & Informational Management, 37, 61–80. Low, E.-L. (2020). English in Asian Schools. In K. Bolton, W. Botha, & A. Kirkpatrick (Eds.), The handbook of Asian Englishes (pp. 107–131). Wiley-Blackwell. Merewether, E. M. (1892). Report on the census of the Straits Settlements taken on the 5th April 1891. ­Singapore Government Printing Press. Ministry of Education. (2019). Education statistics digest. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/about-us/ publications/education-statistics-digest Nanyang Technological University. (2019). NTU facts and figures. Retrieved from https://www.ntu.edu.sg/ AboutNTU/CorporateInfo/FactsFigures/Pages/FactsandFigures.aspx National University of Singapore. (2020). Students and graduate statistics. Retrieved from http://www.nus. edu.sg/registrar/student-records/student-statistics OECD. (2011). Lessons from PISA for the United States: Strong performers and successful reformers in ­education. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264096660-en Pakir, A. (1991). The range and depth of English-knowing bilinguals in Singapore. World Englishes, 10, 167–179. Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language. Longman. Puccetti, R. (1972). Authoritarian government and academic subservience: The University of Singapore. ­Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy, 10, 223–241. QS. (2022). QS world university rankings 2022. Retrieved from https://www.topuniversities.com/universityrankings/world-university-rankings/2022 Rudner, M. (1994). Malaysian development: A retrospective. Carleton University Press. Sai, S. M. (2013). Educating multicultural citizens: Colonial nationalism, imperial citizenship and education in late colonial Singapore. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 44, 49–73. Sidhu, R., Ho, K. C., & Yeoh, B. (2011). Emerging education hubs: The case of Singapore. Higher Education, 61, 23–40. Siemund, P., Schulz, M. E., & Schweinberger, M. (2014). Studying the linguistic ecology of Singapore: A comparison of college and university students. World Englishes, 33, 340–362. Singapore Government. (2022). 1819 Singapore Treaty. Singapore Infopedia. Retrieved from https://­ eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_2014-05-16_133354.html Singapore Ministry of Education. (2015). Higher education division. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.sg/ about/org-structure/hed/ SingStat. (2020). Resident population by ethnic group, age group & sex. Retrieved from https://www.­singstat. gov.sg/find-data/search-by-theme/population/population-and-population-structure/visualising-data/ resident-population-by-ethnic-group-age-group-and-sex-dashboard Stockwell, T. (2005). Forging Malaysia and Singapore: Colonialism, decolonization and nation-building. In G. Wang (Ed.), Nation building: Five Southeast Asian histories (pp. 191–220). ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute. Teoh, K. (2008). A girl without talent is therefore virtuous: Educating Chinese women in British Malay and Singapore, 1850s–1960s (PhD thesis). Harvard University, Massachusetts. Vlieland, C. A. (1932). British Malaya: A report on the 1931 census and certain problems of vital statistics. Crown Agents for the Colonies.

428

31 ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN CAMBODIA Benedict Lin, Kingsley Bolton, Bophan Khan, and John Bacon-Shone Introduction The overwhelming majority of studies of English-medium instruction (EMI) in higher education (HE) has been in educational contexts in the developed world. In Macaro, Curle, Pun, An, and Dearden’s (2018) state-of-the-art survey of the literature, only a small minority (nearly all in Asia) has focussed on developmental contexts, namely those countries and territories in the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) list of the OECD Development Co-operation Directorate. Significantly, out of the 83 studies reviewed, only three concern a country in the DAC’s list of ‘Least Developed Countries’ (LDCs), namely Bangladesh.1 This chapter concerns another such nation, the Kingdom of Cambodia, a largely agrarian society that is the surviving remnant of the once powerful Angkor Empire, which spanned much of present-day mainland Southeast Asia between the ninth and thirteenth centuries (Chandler, 2008). Today, it occupies just a small fraction of this territory, sandwiched between two much larger neighbours, Thailand to the west and Vietnam to the east. In 2021, with a population of approximately 17 million, it had an estimated GDP per capita of just USD4200, making it one of the poorest nations in the Asian region (World Factbook, 2021).2

Historical background Cambodia has a long and complex history, which has been shaped by its agricultural economy, hierarchical social structures, the Hindu and Buddhist religions, and a horrific history of political madness and mayhem. Its origins may be traced to the settlement of the Khmer in the region in the second and third centuries CE. Conventionally, however, the start of Cambodia’s golden era under the famed Angkor or Khmer Empire is dated to the beginning of the ninth century. From the ninth to the fourteenth century, the empire subsumed the whole of present-day Cambodia as well as major parts of Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam, with its epicentre at the city of Angkor. It is widely believed that, around 1000 CE, this city was one of most extensive conurbations in the world, with around a million inhabitants in and around the city. Like other slave societies ruled by divinely endorsed God Kings and Emperors, including ‘ancient Egypt and […] the Maya civilization of medieval Guatemala’ (Chandler, 2008, p. 63), most of the population lived in the servitude of bonded labour and slavery (Figures 31.1 and 31.2). 429

DOI: 10.4324/9781003011644-35

Benedict Lin et al.

Figure 31.1  The Khmer (Angkor) Empire and Southeast Asia 900 CE.

430

English-medium instruction in higher education in Cambodia

Figure 31.2  Map of Southeast Asia today.

Following the fall of the Angkor kings in the fourteenth century, the centre of political power shifted from the Angkor region to that of the present capital Phnom Penh, and Cambodia began to participate in overseas trade with China and elsewhere. The country then experienced centuries of political dominance by its closest neighbours, Siam (present-day Thailand) and Vietnam (Tully, 2005). To escape subordination to Siam, King Norodom of Cambodia sought the help of the

431

Benedict Lin et al.

French, who had established a colony in present-day southern Vietnam, and the country officially became a French protectorate in 1863. The French governed with a light touch at first, but by the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, were levying extremely heavy taxes on the mass of the population, in an overwhelmingly agrarian economy. Norodom Sihanouk’s coronation as king in 1941 ushered in a new era in the country’s h­ istory. He would later emerge as a pro-independence leader, and someone who would play a major part in national politics over the next six decades. An avowed Francophile, he nonetheless convinced the French government to grant independence to the nation in 1953. Independence brought a brief period of relative peace and prosperity through most of the 1950s and 1960s, although it must be noted that at this time, there were other political players emerging, including various French-­ educated Marxist revolutionaries, amongst whom was the soon-to-be infamous Pol Pot (original name Sarloth Sar), who would lead the country into the darkest period of its history. Throughout a period dominated by the Vietnam War, Sihanouk’s politics was often confusing and ­contradictory, with shifting alliances with France, the United States, Vietnam, and China. Eventually, the ­kingdom was thrown into a civil war by a military coup in 1970, which deposed Sihanouk who went into self-exile in Beijing. Corruption was rife under the pro-American Prime Minister, Lon Nol, and the nation soon became a failing state, even as US bombing of the countryside reached new heights. This enabled the Communists to gradually gain control of most of the countryside, and in April 1975, Democratic Kampuchea (DK), the revolutionary faction that came to be widely known in the West as the Khmer Rouge, encircled and captured the capital city Phnom Penh and took control of the whole country. The horrors of the period that followed, the DK’s genocidal reign between 1975 and 1978, have been vividly depicted in numerous books and films, leaving an indelible legacy in contemporary Cambodia. The country’s physical and institutional structures were all but decimated, and as many as an estimated 2 million people (of a population around 7.7 million) perished due to illness, malnutrition, overwork, and murder (Chandler, 2008, p. 259). In their pursuit of an agrarian, socialist utopia, the DK were particularly brutal in targeting anyone with a higher level of education. In this period, it has been estimated that, apart from professionals such as doctors, lawyers, and engineers, 90% of the nation’s schoolteachers were murdered, and that, out of 1,000 university teachers, only 87 survived (Clayton, 1998). A Vietnamese military invasion in late 1978, in response to persistent border incursions by DK troops led to the toppling of the DK regime, which then retreated to the countryside. In January 1979, a Vietnamese-backed, pro-Soviet single party communist government was installed, but civil war among different political factions (including the DK) ensued over the next decade. For most of this period, the country remained relatively isolated internationally, with the United States, other Western nations, China, and countries in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) refusing diplomatic relations. In their mission, the Vietnamese army had enlisted the help of several former DK officers who had defected to the Vietnamese in 1977. Among these was Hun Sen, who became Prime Minister of the People’s Republic of Kampuchea (PRK) in 1985 and retained power until August 2023, when he was succeeded by his son, Hun Manet. Peace efforts led to the Vietnamese withdrawing from the country in 1989. Subsequently, the 1991 Paris Peace Agreements resulted in the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC) governing Cambodia directly from 1992 until 1993 to supervise democratic and free elections. A boom in the Cambodian economy resulted as UNTAC invested money and resources into Phnom Penh to support the new national government. By the time of their departure, UNTAC had spent a colossal 2 billion US dollars, and had also paved the way for developmental aid to pour in from countries such as Australia, France, Japan, the United States, and international agencies such as the Asian Development Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank, and 432

English-medium instruction in higher education in Cambodia

a multitude of non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Even now, three decades later, Cambodia continues to be a major aid recipient, with numerous aid agencies and NGOs continuing to operate in the country, though unfortunately, much of this aid has been diverted into the pockets of corrupt officials, usually at the highest levels of the civil service and government (Brinkley, 2011). In 1999, Cambodia was admitted into ASEAN, further cementing its re-integration into the regional and global community. Although there has been substantial economic growth since the 1990s, driven largely by tourism and an export-oriented garment industry (as well as the discovery of deposits of offshore oil), Cambodia remains one of the very poorest nations in the Asian region. Brinkley’s (2011) disturbing study of the corruption in the country notes that, in the early 2000s, an estimated 42% of Cambodia’s children suffered from stunted growth because of malnutrition, and that child mortality was very high compared with other Asian nations. Meanwhile, Hun Sen, the leader of the ruling Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) and Prime Minister, continued to employ all means possible to consolidate his power, including the alleged assassination and imprisonment of political enemies, manipulation of elections, and various measures to control the mass media before handing power to his son. It has thus been suggested that Cambodia, although theoretically a constitutional monarchy, is now ‘descending into dictatorship’, and according to a 2016 report by the NGO Global Witness, Hun Sen’s family has accumulated a ‘huge fortune’. The family, it is claimed, owns scores of businesses in key areas such as energy, mining and trading firms, and telecoms, thus, contravening the nation’s (admittedly weak) laws on corruption (Turton & Seangly, 2016). Over the last two decades, China, which historically has often had a strong geopolitical interest in Cambodia, has become the biggest foreign direct investment (FDI) contributor and foreign aid donor to the country. It has also become the Royal Cambodian Armed Forces’ closest military ally, during a period when Hun Sen is cutting ties with the United States and other Western governments (Croissant, 2018, pp. 198–199). In return for generous aid, Cambodia has supported Beijing’s claims to virtually all of the South China Sea and is one of the region’s most vocal supporters of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Indeed, numerous political analysts perceive Cambodia to be increasingly a ‘Chinese vassal state’, best demonstrated by the Chinese exploitation of the coastal city Sihanoukville, which has been transformed through the construction of apartments, casinos, and hotels for Chinese nationals, by Chinese companies. Although a special tribunal was set up to investigate the Khmer Rouge’s atrocities and to try their known perpetrators, only three Khmer Rouge leaders have ever been brought to account (BBC, 2018; Dunst, 2020). Thus far, Hun Sen’s strongman position appears to be firmly entrenched, not least through Cambodia’s chairing of ASEAN in 2022, which has provided him with an expanded stage to play the statesman at a regional level, even though some of his ASEAN partners have been disturbed by his ‘cowboy diplomacy’ in establishing relations with the Myanmar military (Mendelson, 2021).

The sociolinguistic background and English in Cambodia Like many of its neighbours, Cambodia has a self-evidently dominant ethnolinguistic community, the Khmer, who comprise approximately 90% of the population, with the Vietnamese, Cham, and Chinese being the most significant among 23 ethnolinguistic minority groups (Kosonen, 2019). The Khmer language is the national language and official working language. It is used not just by ethnic Khmer, but also as a second language for nearly all minority groups. Outside of Cambodia, besides approximately 1.3 million speakers in southeastern Thailand and more than a million speakers in southern Vietnam (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2021), there are otherwise only very modest numbers of expatriate Cambodia communities in Australia, Canada, France, and the United States who use the language (Moore & Bounchan, 2020). Khmer is a language in the Mon-Khmer 433

Benedict Lin et al.

branch of the Austro-Asiatic language family, and its writing system is based on a form of the Devanagari script (Campbell, 1995). Examples of written Khmer date from the seventh century CE, and Khmer culture and language have been heavily influenced by both Hinduism and Buddhism. Before and during the Angkor period, many Sanskrit terms were incorporated into Khmer, and poetic literatures in Khmer and Sanskrit developed. From thirteenth century onwards, Theravada Buddhism gained influence and Pali became a source of borrowing into educated Khmer. Before the country fell to the Khmer Rouge, French was the most prominent foreign language, having been introduced under French colonial rule, when it was widely used in administration and commerce (Clayton, 2006). After independence, the country embarked on a process of ‘Khmerization’ during which schools and other governmental institutions gradually phased out French. However, the language continued to have a strong presence in higher education, with many of the educated elite having received their tertiary education in French before independence, either in France or Vietnam. Along with other foreign languages, French was almost completely wiped out during the Khmer Rouge era, but the language experienced a brief spectacular resurgence in the early 1990s, with large enrolments of students in French classes at the Alliance Francaise, private language schools, universities, and public schools before a decline in favour of English (Clayton, 2006). Today, English is undoubtedly by far the most important foreign language, as well as the most used language of wider communication apart from Khmer. It is challenging to estimate exactly how many Cambodians know English. The Cambodian National Institute of Statistics’ (2013) population survey reported that 8% of the literate population knew both Khmer and English. This amounts to 5.2% of the whole population. Bolton and Bacon-Shone’s (2020) study of the statistics of English across Asia similarly estimate that 5% of Cambodians know and use English, while Moore and Bounchan (2020) suggest that 15% is likely a more accurate figure. In its 2021 report, Ethnologue gives a figure of 3.5 million users of English (Eberhard, Simons, & Fennig, 2021), which is more than 20% of the population. Such figures are remarkable, given that before the 1990s, the country had little exposure to English except briefly in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and then again only in the mid-1980s, with the establishment of the first aid-funded English teacher training project, the Cambodian English Language Training (CELT) project by the Quaker Services Australia (Clayton, 2008). It was the arrival of UNTAC in 1992 that ushered in a ‘new linguistic era’ where ‘English seems to have installed itself in an irrevocable manner’ (Clayton, 2006, p. 73). Officially, French and English were the designated co-equal working languages for UNTAC’s more than 20,000 staff. However, English quickly became the default in most day-to-day operations. At least some degree of proficiency in English would then have been required of most of the 60,000 plus Cambodians employed by the UN during the two-year period. A further impetus for the entrenchment of English was the country’s admission into ASEAN at the end of the decade. English is ASEAN’s sole official working language, and all its documents, meetings, conferences, and exchanges are exclusively in English, without translation. This requires Cambodian officials and representatives with abilities in both spoken and written English, and English has since then remained important for government ministries and their officials (Moore, 2021; Moore & Bounchan, 2020). Sweeping economic reform was a second catalyst for the spread of English. Previously a centrally planned state-controlled economy with foreign trade limited mostly to the Soviet bloc, the country embraced the market economy under the new post-1993 government and opened to private foreign investment and international trade. The resultant influx of foreign enterprises and explosion of international trade created a big demand for Cambodians with foreign language skills, and English was overwhelmingly the foreign language required, especially in management positions or positions requiring interactions with foreign guests, clients, and customers. Cambodia’s admission into 434

English-medium instruction in higher education in Cambodia

ASEAN, Moore and Bounchan (2020) observe, also normalised perceptions of the country and enabled it to open to mass tourism, further driving large numbers of Cambodians to learn English for jobs in the tourism and hospitality sector, where Ministry of Tourism (2018) figures indicate that visitor arrivals grew more than six-fold between 2004 and 2018. A third very important driver for the growth of English was developmental aid. The vast majority of the international agencies and multilateral organisations and foreign NGOs that arrived to provide such aid also used English as their working language. Many of these agencies continue to have a strong presence and influence in Cambodia today (Clayton, 2006; Moore, 2021; Moore & Bounchan, 2020). They provide employment to Cambodians with English proficiency, further entrenching the need for Cambodian government officials to know and use English in their interactions with these agencies.

English in Cambodia’s schools According to Mao (2015), it was only in 1989 that the teaching of English was introduced in schools in Cambodia. However, this is not accurate: under the pro-American Lon Nol government between 1970 and 1975, English started to be taught at the secondary school level (Igawa, 2008), before being entirely prohibited under the Khmer Rouge. Given the importance that English has gained since, however, it is unsurprising that as Mao reports, it is now overwhelmingly the foreign language most widely taught in schools. Traditionally, education in the predominantly Buddhist kingdom was conducted by monks in monasteries or wats and limited to boys. Such education promoted literacy in Buddhist texts, and Pali was widely taught (Campbell, 1995), with the focus being Buddhist principles, rules of propriety, and values such as the importance of work (Clayton, 1995). Under the French, in 1911, Khmer was mandated to be taught throughout the kingdom in the monastery schools. French was also introduced as the medium of instruction in the system of ‘modern’ Franco-Cambodian public schools established alongside the monastery schools. Thus, by the 1930s, there were three types of school, ‘the religious schools for Pali, the monastery schools for Khmer, and the public schools for French’ (Thong, 1985, p. 107). The Francophone public schools, however, remained few and only a very small number of Cambodian students (mostly male) enrolled, even after efforts by French to expand the number of schools and admit more students later in the colonial period. Thus, penetration of the French language remained limited. After independence in 1953, French continued to be the official medium of instruction from the upper levels of primary school onwards in the national public education system (Neau, 2003), which remained based on the French model and which expanded significantly, with the monastery schools being incorporated into the national system. It is likely that, however, Khmer was, in practice, much used in many classrooms. The process of ‘Khmerisation’ eventually led to French officially being replaced with Khmer as the medium of instruction in 1967, though it continued to be taught as a foreign language. Following the Khmer Rouge’s decimation of the education system and eradication of foreign languages, the Vietnamese-installed government dictated that either Vietnamese or Russian was to be implemented as a foreign language at the secondary school level, in a system based on the Vietnamese system. French and English continued to be prohibited until the end of the 1980s (Igawa, 2008), when, following the departure of the Vietnamese, there was a total reversal, and it was decided that French and English would be the primary foreign languages to be taught in schools, even though ‘there were very few teachers’ (Mao, 2013, p. 22). Post-UNTAC, the choice of either of the two languages at the secondary school level onwards continued to be official policy, although unsurprisingly, as asserted by Neau (2003), English soon became the most popular language. 435

Benedict Lin et al.

Since 2014, English has been a compulsory subject from the fourth year of primary school onwards (Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport, 2014). Despite this, most public schools do not actually teach the language, and, where they do, it is often poorly taught. Hence, ‘most Cambodian children still live in a rather monocultural and monolingual Khmer environment’ (Kosonen, 2019, p. 216). This can be attributed to the state of public education in Cambodia, which Moore and Bounchan suggest might best be described as in a ‘crisis’. They describe graphically thus the defects of the system, noting that half of schools lack running water and one-third lack toilets, class sizes are often as high as 50 students, corruption is rife, and ‘[t]eacher salaries are not sufficient to support a family’ (Moore & Bounchan, 2020, p. 661). Cambodians with adequate levels of English proficiency are thus unlikely to seek employment as teachers since they can easily find much better paying jobs. The unsurprising outcome of this is the mushrooming of private education, in a wide range of forms, including low-fee, medium-fee, and high-fee private schools (Brehm, 2021), especially in big urban centres such as the capital city Phnom Penh. In public schools, it is not uncommon that teachers offer themselves for private teaching sessions after hours for a fee, with groups of their own regular students. Private schools specialising in teaching English proliferate, along with those teaching other subjects such as computer literacy and mathematics, as a quick Internet search will reveal. A similar search also reveals a high number of international schools that offer full primary and secondary school education, nearly always in English, or bilingually in English and Khmer. These schools are often based on an American, British, Australian, Canadian, or Singaporean school curriculum. These international schools typically cater not only to the expatriate international community, but also to Cambodians with the means to pay annual school fees upwards of approximately USD3,000. As Moore and Bounchan highlight: One area in which private sector education has flourished is in its offerings of Englishmediated education. A decade ago, parents who could afford it would often send their children abroad to study in high schools and universities. […] Today there are many choices of education providers in the private sector ranging across all levels of education in Cambodia. The courses and programs offered in private sector education may be taught by Cambodians or expatriates, or a blend of the two. (Moore & Bounchan, 2020, p. 662) Clearly, this situation creates a kind of educational apartheid favouring those with financial means, exacerbating social class, and urban versus rural divides, even as the country continues to modernise. Its implications for EMI in higher education are also evident and need to be considered carefully.

The history of Cambodian higher education Higher education in Cambodia is a relatively recent development, having been generally neglected during the French colonial era. Only the children of elite and middle-class families could receive university education by going overseas, typically to France, as in the case of Pol Pot and other leaders of the DK revolutionary party. Nonetheless, the first higher education institutions (HEIs) were founded late in the French colonial period, namely the National Institute of Law, the National Institute of Politics, and the National Institute of Economic Sciences in 1947. It was only in 1960, seven years after independence, that the first full university, the Khmer Royal University (today the Royal University of Phnom Penh or RUPP) was established. In 1965, six other tertiary institutions were established: the People’s University, the Royal Technical University, the Royal University of 436

English-medium instruction in higher education in Cambodia

Agricultural Science, the Royal University of Fine Arts, the Royal University of Kompong Cham, and the Royal University of Takeo-Kampot (Williams, Kitamura, & Keng, 2016). Throughout this period, although French had been officially replaced by Khmer as the medium of instruction in schools by 1967, it remained the language of higher education until the country fell to the Khmer Rouge regime (Clayton, 2008; Pit & Roth, 2003). Higher education was entirely shut down under the Khmer Rouge, and the near total annihilation of university teachers and tertiary students meant that education following this dark period could only be revived with foreign aid, both technical and financial. As to be expected, the Vietnamese provided the initial assistance, with contributions also coming from the Soviet Union and other Eastern-bloc countries. Clayton (2006) describes how language policy in higher education was highly dynamic in this period, much dependent on who could and did provide the human and other resources which Cambodians lacked. For instance, French-speaking Vietnamese instructors taught French-speaking survivors of the democide at the first HEI to reopen in 1979, the Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy (now the University of Health Sciences), and at the Teachers Training College. Students at technical and agricultural universities, on the other hand, studied in Russian under Soviet professors after intensive first year learning of the language, while at the Economics Institute, Vietnamese professors offered content courses in their language. As Cambodians graduated from their own universities or returned from scholarships (mainly in Soviet bloc countries) to replace foreign teachers, the primary language of instruction gradually changed to Khmer. One rare and important foreign-aid initiative from outside Vietnam and the Soviet bloc was the Cambodian English Language Training Project (CELT), mentioned in an earlier section of this chapter. This was launched in 1985 at the then Phnom Penh University (now the RUPP) and funded by the Australian government (Moore & Bounchan, 2020). The project led to the development of the country’s first bachelor’s degree programme with English as the medium of instruction, a Bachelor of Education in Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL). It also sent many of its graduates to Australian universities for postgraduate courses, enabling the rapid localisation of English teaching expertise, both for the upper secondary and for the tertiary level (Clayton, 2006). Without this local expertise, it can be said, sustainable support for meeting the demand for English in the post-civil war era would be much weaker. In the immediate post-civil war period of the 1990s, following the withdrawal of Vietnamese and Soviet bloc assistance, language policies in higher education continued to depend on sources of foreign aid. As Clayton (2006) describes, even though there was general agreement that Khmer, the national language, should be the language of teaching for higher education, the continued lack of adequately qualified Cambodians meant that, temporarily at least, the foreign languages brought by donors needed to be used. The French, through various agencies, were the biggest contributors to higher education, with the two largest beneficiaries being the University of Health Sciences (UHS) and the Institute of Technology Cambodia (ITC) (Clayton, 2006; Sok & Bunry, 2021), the key medical and engineering universities, respectively. Such aid was typically conditional on the teaching and use of French and the language was consequently, in the early 1990s, the dominant medium of instruction in higher education. However, the use of French met with a series of protests between 1993 and 1995, with students, who saw the growing utility of English in the job market, demanding the use of English as a medium of instruction (surprisingly or otherwise, instead of Khmer) (Clayton, 2002). At the same time, ‘other international agencies began to arrive in the country with educational resources supportive of the English language’ and ‘collectively built an infrastructure to support English language learning’ (Clayton, 2006, pp. 192–193). This included running teacher training programmes and English language courses at universities. Notably, however, unlike the French, none of non-Francophone aid providers insisted on its use as a medium of 437

Benedict Lin et al.

instruction. Ultimately, even the French had to concede to the demands for English to be taught as a foreign language at the universities they supported, while still maintaining their insistence on all subjects being taught in French. As Cambodians gained capabilities to teach in higher education, French influence eventually waned, as Khmer took over as the main medium of instruction. By the end of the 1990s, English had become the foreign language of choice studied at universities, as it was in schools.

English in Cambodian higher education Since the late 1990s, there has been a significant growth in the number of both public and private HEIs throughout the country. According to official government statistics, by 2018, there were 121 HEIs, 77 being private institutions (Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport, 2019). However, very few of these universities meet international standards, and the QS university rankings organisation does not include any of Cambodia’s universities in its Asia rankings (QS, 2022). While Khmer is now indisputably the primary language of higher education, English plays an important role in many universities, and not only as the primary foreign language studied. Igawa (2008) noted that the Khmer language itself ‘had not been developed for the use in many fields of study’ (p. 348). More recently, Kosonen (2019) reports that standardisation and elaboration of the language is (still) ongoing in some disciplines. Chan (2016) also notes that efforts to translate textbooks and other academic material into Khmer have often been hampered by a lack of resources, and producing an accurate translation of even a single textbook is highly challenging. Thus, the scarcity of academic literature in Khmer, Kosonen argues, means that ‘the role of English may increase’ (p. 219) (since textbooks and other reading material would have to be provided in English), and ‘it is possible that English-medium programmes will increase’ (p. 224). Chan also suggests that the most recent vision statements and strategic plans of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport appear to imply a movement towards more use of English, through their emphasis on knowledge and skills for a globalised world and on striving to meet regional and international standards of higher education (Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport, 2014). In his case study of an unnamed leading university, Chan also found that although only one of the departments he studied explicitly declared English to be its medium of instruction, there appeared to be de-facto policies for at least some degree of EMI in practice throughout the university. Much evidence of this could be found, for instance, in information booklets and leaflets, as well as syllabus documents, which amongst other things, state minimal English language requirements for students; textbooks and teaching material, which are largely in English; and classroom observations which showed that English was used regularly in some form, even where the instruction was mainly in Khmer. It would not be unreasonable to assume that this would be representative of the situation in at least some other universities in the country. Nonetheless, there are very few universities that can be regarded as fully English-medium institutions. The Paññāsāstra University of Cambodia (PUC), a private institution fully accredited by the Cambodian government to award degrees at all levels, claims on its website to be the only university in Cambodia to offer instruction entirely in English (except for courses in Khmer culture and literature),3 although there is at least one other institution that likely is English-medium – the American University of Phnom Penh, which purportedly offers an American curriculum and whose faculty are overwhelmingly non-Cambodian.4 Both are private universities – all the public universities use Khmer as their primary medium of instruction, although some offer a limited number of officially declared EMI programmes. It is unclear from official documents and the research literature precisely how many of such are offered. Kerk and Tith (2013) give examples of 438

English-medium instruction in higher education in Cambodia

11 Master’s degree programmes and one undergraduate programme being conducted in English at the Royal University of Phnom Penh (RUPP), the oldest and arguably the most prestigious university. Sok and Bunry (2021) claim that EMI programmes have been increasing in recent years in the private sector, and that four public universities have EMI programmes, but more detailed information appears unavailable.

Studies of EMI in Cambodian higher education Limited published literature exists on English in Cambodian higher education, and even less that is directly and specifically about EMI at universities in Cambodia. In his work on the spread of English in Cambodia in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Clayton (2002, 2006) includes in-depth accounts of the forces that led to English superseding French as the primary foreign language studied in higher education, as described in the previous section. Little or no mention, however, is made about EMI being employed. Clayton, instead, highlights that, unlike the French, the various agencies that collectively provided aid for English language teaching (ELT) did not advocate EMI. However, their focus was on helping Cambodians, including those not in higher education, to develop the English language skills needed for the workplace and for international exchanges. Nonetheless, his work provides important insights into the early facilitation of EMI at universities through the support provided for English to become the dominant foreign language taught. At a micro level, Moore and Bounchan’s (2010) empirical study focussed on faculty and students’ perceptions of English at the country’s leading institution for developing ELT capacity, the RUPP’s Institute of Foreign Languages (IFL). Given that the population sampled comprised faculty and students in a BEd (TEFL) programme with a professional interest in the language, positive attitudes towards English would have been unsurprising. Nonetheless, it was striking that a significant number of students viewed English in Cambodia not just as a foreign language to be learnt but as a second language that was part of their everyday lives, used socially with friends and at work. In addition, some lecturers reported using English in most of their everyday communication, even at home. While the study’s participants likely comprised only members of a small (though growing) upper middle class, it would seem likely that they would promote the use of EMI. A later study by Hashim, Leong, and Pich (2014) employed a multimethod approach to investigate the demand for English at HEIs. Conducted mainly in a private university, but also drawing on conversations with a few informants from other universities both private and public, the study found, amongst other things, that most of the student participants took multiple concurrent degree programmes, most often including one in English language or ELT. Additionally, the participants saw English as serving a primary communication function, not just for speaking with foreign as well as Cambodian teachers, but also for accessing information from academic journals. Hashim et al. sought to explain these findings in relation to English possessing significant cultural capital in urban Cambodia. It is not difficult to infer from the findings and conclusions that a natural consequence would ultimately be an increased use of EMI in disciplines other than the study of English itself. More directly concerning EMI, Kerk and Tith (2013) conducted a small-scale empirical study investigating the implementation of an officially declared EMI bachelor’s degree programme, International Studies, at the RUPP. The authors reported that the programme had been established as early as in 2007, and that after a Foundation Year in which some courses were taught in Khmer, all classes were to be delivered in English. To be admitted, students had to pass an entrance examination conducted in English, covering both English proficiency and general knowledge about world affairs. The department’s current website5 indicates that the programme structure and admission requirements remain the same, and its predominantly English language 439

Benedict Lin et al.

Facebook account6 suggests that it is today a thriving programme whose students go on exchange programmes to the United States, Europe, and ASEAN, as well as participate in international seminars conducted in English. Kerk and Tith’s study involved interviews with eight undergraduates and one instructor, as well as classroom observations. A remarkable finding was that nearly all interaction among faculty and students – both in and out of the classroom – was in English, with occasional code-switching to Khmer occurring only when instructors realised that certain concepts were too difficult for the students to understand in English. One respondent even reported that ‘they use English not only in their classrooms, but also outside the classroom, having meals at the canteen or walking around the campus’ (p. 167). Nonetheless, the respondents reported that vocabulary (likely subject-related) and a lack of sufficient background knowledge of subject matter posed major challenges in both their reading and writing for academic purposes. Moreover, there was no specific focus on language during classes to help them address these challenges. Students used a variety of strategies of their own to address these challenges, including using bilingual dictionaries (which they found inadequate for the purpose), looking up supplementary material on the Internet, and holding group discussions to help each other, thus showing a strong commitment to not only acquiring disciplinary knowledge, but also to advancing their own English. Nonetheless, a major recommendation from the students was for lecturers to include language focussed activities, and for the programme to provide more English language support. Chan’s (2016) unpublished doctoral dissertation investigated EMI in relation to the medium of instruction policies, both official and de-facto, at an unnamed leading university in some detail. Some of its key findings and claims have been published in Chan (2021). His study examined (i) how Khmer and English are represented in policy documents, as well as how both languages are actually used in the classroom, (ii) how English language and EMI classes are positioned in the language ecology of the university, and (iii) how EMI policies are related to the wider sociopolitical context in Cambodia. His findings on how EMI is at the very least implicitly promoted have been reported in an earlier section of this chapter. Chan attributes such promotion to three key factors. The first is that, every year, hundreds of scholarships are offered to Cambodian students, both at the undergraduate and postgraduate level, and the most prestigious are from English-speaking countries. Even those from non-English-speaking countries (such as Japan, a major source of such aid scholarships), Chan notes, require students to have a high level of English proficiency, presumably in order to attend English-medium courses intended for international students. The second is that ASEAN’s use of English as its official working language makes it important for the university to produce graduates capable of functioning well in English. The last relates to aspirations to bring the university up to international standards and to internationalise. Chan also highlights the influence of international organisations such as the World Bank and consultants from countries such as the United States and Australia in formulating the government’s education policies, noting that the policy documents are often first prepared in English, then translated to Khmer. This assistance, he argues, creates the perfect conditions for the use and promotion of English (Chan, 2021, p. 42). Nonetheless, Chan points out, despite the emphasis on the importance of English in policy documents and by different policy actors, the levels of English proficiency of students and instructors need to be considered, since the country is still largely agrarian and exposure to English varies vastly between urban and rural populations. Hence, Khmer remains necessary. Additionally, policy documents explicitly promote the use of Khmer in higher education. Chan thus concludes that ‘[A]lthough English is playing an increasingly important role in higher education in Cambodia, it is not perceived as threatening the existence of Khmer in the ecology’ (Chan, 2016, p. 129). Chan further adds that ‘[i]n the current context of Cambodian higher education, academic programs may

440

English-medium instruction in higher education in Cambodia

benefit more from some forms of bilingual model for medium of instruction, in which both Khmer and English are used purposefully’ (Chan, 2016, p. 137).

Research on EMI at the Royal University of Phnom Penh (RUPP) The background to this research has previously been discussed in Lin, Bolton, Bacon-Shone, and Khan (2023), which reported on fieldwork conducted between 2018 and 2019 at the RUPP. This research project aimed to explore the realities of students’ EMI experiences, including their challenges and difficulties. It also sought to obtain a picture of the students’ use of English both inside and outside the classroom and to determine their attitudes to EMI. This involved a quantitative survey of 877 undergraduate students across both STEM and non-STEM disciplines, as well as follow-up interviews with 17 students. Nearly all the participants were of Cambodian nationality and stated Khmer as their ‘mother tongue’ or dominant language, indicating that even at this top public university, the student population is almost entirely domestic. Among the notable findings reported was that a significant proportion of the students used English in their everyday lives – almost 17% also spoke English at home and nearly 39% used at least some English with friends. It was also found that the majority used English quite extensively outside the classroom, for both academic and leisure activities, with at least half of them using English more than 75% of the time especially for online activities such as Internet searches, text messaging, online chats, and online socialising. The majority of the respondents also exhibited confidence in their general English proficiency, with nearly 60% perceiving themselves as being able to use English ‘quite well’ or better, and considering themselves to be at least ‘somewhat bilingual’. In the context of EMI courses, an even larger proportion expressed confidence, with close to 85% claiming that their level of English proficiency was either ‘Very good’, ‘Good’, or ‘Fairly good’ in meeting their needs. However, academic writing in English appeared to be rather challenging for the majority, with 62.9% finding it ‘quite difficult’ or ‘very difficult/impossible’. It was also found that Khmer-English language mixing (or ‘translanguaging’) by both faculty and students was an extensive feature in classrooms. Close to 90% of the survey participants indicated that their professors mixed language at least ‘Sometimes’, with a significant majority (56.2%) in fact reporting that the professors did so ‘Always’, ‘Very often’, or ‘About half the time’. Among the students themselves, the results are broadly similar: 83.5% of the respondents reported language mixing by other students at least ‘Sometimes’, while just under half (49.5%) indicated greater frequencies of at least ‘About half the time’. A very significant majority (71.3%) of the students surveyed agreed or strongly agreed with the use of English instruction at the RUPP, with only 3.5% disagreeing. In open-ended follow-up answers, the major reason offered for this was the necessity of using English language material such as textbooks and academic research articles. Many commented on the lack of textbooks and other resources in the Khmer language, pointing out the challenges of translating textbooks into Khmer as well as the lack of Khmer equivalents for technical language. The students interviewed also exhibited very positive support for EMI, citing ASEAN’s use of English, good job opportunities for those with English language skills, the global utility of English, and their belief that EMI will help to improve their command of English as key factors. Additionally, many of the interviewees pointed to their peers’ aspirations to undertake postgraduate studies abroad, typically in English-speaking universities in the United Kingdom, the United States, or Australia, or within Asia, such as in Singapore. Despite the general positivity towards EMI, the study also identified various concerns. To begin with, the survey results revealed that academic writing in English was rather challenging for the majority, with 62.9% finding it ‘quite difficult’ or ‘very difficult/impossible’. The interviews 441

Benedict Lin et al.

suggested that mastery over the technical terminologies of their academic subjects was also often very difficult, and more than a few of those interviewed alluded to varying English levels among their classmates. This highlighted how students who had studied only in public schools were typically ill-prepared to use English in their higher education. This not only led to the individual students facing difficulties in coping but also hamper classroom progress due to the need to meet the students’ different linguistic needs. Thus, as one student suggested, private school learning of English would seem to be at least a strong advantage, if not a necessity, not only to gain admission into the university, but also to cope adequately and perform well in tertiary-level EMI courses. On other specific matters of academic literacy, it was established that English was much more required for reading and writing than for speaking and listening. The survey asked students to indicate the frequency at which they had to use English for different types of academic tasks and purposes, and as Table 31.1 demonstrates, more than 63% of the students had to read in English more than half the time for four out of seven listed types. Similarly, a clear majority (at least 57%) had to write in English at least half the time for three out of six listed text types (Table 31.2). In contrast, a much smaller majority indicated a frequency of at least half the time for listening in English in the three common contexts listed, while only a minority (less than 30%) reported speaking in English with the same frequency for the four different purposes listed (see Tables 31.3 and 31.4). A point of interest in Tables 31.1 and 31.2 is the frequent use of English for PowerPoint slides by both faculty (those read by students) and students (those written by students). Indeed, in the interviews, many of the students reported that usually instructors’ slides for lectures and students’ slides for presentations were almost entirely in English, even when oral delivery was mostly in Khmer. This was also observed in classroom visits during the project. It is unsurprising, given the reported Table 31.1 Proportion of students reading each text type in English ‘Very often’ or ‘Half the time’ Text type

%

PowerPoint slides Textbooks Course handouts Book chapters Case studies Academic articles Full-length books

69.0 65.2 63.5 63.5 55.0 46.5 42.8

N = 830–849 Table 31.2 Proportion of students writing in English for each text type ‘Very often’ or ‘Half the time’ Text type

%

Presentation slides Emails to professors Reports Case studies Academic essays Proposals

70.8 57.4 57.2 49.3 47.9 32.8

N = 835–856

442

English-medium instruction in higher education in Cambodia Table 31.3 Frequency of listening in English by ­context (Very often/Half the time) Text type

%

Lectures by professors Seminars by professors Student presentations

52.7 51.2 51.5

N = 856–867 Table 31.4 Proportion of students speaking in English for different purposes ‘Very often’ or ‘Half the time’ Text type

%

Discussing academic matters with other students in the classroom Asking professors questions in the classroom Socialising with other students Asking professors questions outside the classroom

29.5 27.9 26.7 15.9

N = 853–861

dearth of academic literature in Khmer, that students read frequently in English for other types of texts. However, the use of English in the slides perhaps suggests that both teachers and students might otherwise not be able to capture key academic concepts and arguments effectively in Khmer, whether due to current state of development of the language itself for academic purposes or for other purposes. It is also noteworthy that the students used English with high frequency in emails to their professors, who are nearly all Cambodian. More saliently for their academic learning, it is clear from Table 31.2 that overall, the students were required to do a substantial amount of writing in English, even though Khmer is the dominant language of classroom oral interaction. In fact, in the interviews, some of the students reported writing nearly all their assignments and tests or examinations in English. The motivations for this bear further exploration, but the fact that, as mentioned in the previous section, more than three out of five of the students found writing in English challenging is thus a major concern, since it is likely that much of the students’ writing would form a major part of assessment. In terms of academic reading in English, although their most frequent need (apart from reading their lecturers’ PowerPoint slides) was to read their textbooks, it seems encouraging that less than one-third of the students (31.6%) indicated they needed help with this. It would appear that one strategy used by those who needed help was to find material in Khmer to read: 62.5% of the students indicated that they also read Khmer texts for courses in which English was used, and more than two-thirds reported that they could find such literature. However, the nature of the reading material available in Khmer is unclear, although it seems unlikely that much would be specifically academic at the level of higher education. It would be worth investigating how the literature in English and Khmer complements each other in the students’ academic reading. In the interviews, many of the respondents reported using strategies similar to those outlined by Kerk and Tith (2013) to overcome difficulties reading their textbooks and other academic material, namely, use of bilingual dictionaries, online resources on the Internet, and group discussions. Specifically, quite a few of the students mentioned watching YouTube videos in English that illustrate, 443

Benedict Lin et al.

for instance, scientific or engineering concepts, or recorded academic lectures in English in their disciplines from universities in English-speaking countries, which they also found on YouTube (sometimes, but not always, at the direction of their teachers). Interestingly, one or two students reported that they found the latter often easier to understand than lessons instructed in English by their own professors. The study also compared the survey results for STEM and non-STEM survey respondents and found considerable differences between STEM and non-STEM students’ experiences in EMI. In general, the STEM students used far less English. For instance, a far lower proportion of the STEM students than the non-STEM students indicated that more than half the time, they read textbooks in English (56.2% in contrast to 72.6%), wrote reports in English (50.2% in contrast to 62.8%), listened to lectures in English (38.5% in contrast to 64.5%), and asked their professors questions in English in class (15.1% in contrast to 38.4%). This appears to contrast with EMI in HE in most reported contexts, where EMI is more likely to be implemented in STEM rather than non-STEM disciplines. The STEM students also appeared to face greater challenges in using English. In contrast to 56.8% of the non-STEM students, 71.2% of the STEM students found writing about their discipline in English ‘Quite difficult’ or ‘Very difficult or Impossible’, while while nearly 40% compared with just over 22% of the non-STEM students claimed that it was ‘Very difficult or Impossible’ to understand lectures in English. Nonetheless, given that there appears much less use of English in the STEM disciplines than in the non-STEM disciplines, this may be less of an immediate issue. However, for STEM students aspiring to postgraduate studies overseas, both their relatively lower exposure to the use of English as well as the difficulties they report suggests that they may be ill-equipped to do so. The interviews also indicated wide variations in the use of English in classroom oral interaction. The STEM students reported that while they needed to do most of their reading and writing in English, their professors spoke almost entirely in Khmer, except when referring to and explaining technical terms, with one student explaining that this was necessary due to the limited English proficiency of most of his classmates. The non-STEM students from International Studies, on the other hand, claimed, as did Kerk and Tith’s (2013) subjects, that both professors and students did, that both professors and students spoke almost fully in English during lessons, while other non-STEM students, such as those doing business and management studies, appeared to suggest significant language mixing by both. ­Finally, numerous students also alluded in their interviews to undertaking more than one b­ achelor’s degree programme (either in the same university or at different universities), usually including one in English language or ELT. This suggests that such a situation is common in Cambodia, given Hashim et al.’s (2014) similar findings in a private university.

Distinctive features of EMI in Cambodian higher education It is important to note that the limited research on English language education and EMI in Cambodian higher education has primarily focussed on leading public universities (especially at the RUPP). One noteworthy exception is Hashim et al.’s (2014) investigation of English language demand at a private university. Overall, precise data on matters such as the number of private and public universities offering officially declared EMI programmes and the number of students undertaking such programmes is hard to establish, especially in the absence of official government statistics. Consequently, further study is needed to establish a more complete picture and understanding of EMI in this context, especially regarding its use in private universities and in other public universities. Nonetheless, three broad points might be noted. 444

English-medium instruction in higher education in Cambodia

First, although the Cambodian government has no official policy regarding languages other than Khmer in higher education, the promotion of English and EMI is implicit both at the governmental level and at the institutional level. Apart from being most important or popular foreign language studied, English is vital, and in many cases, even a necessity for accessing knowledge in various fields. This is due to a lack of academic resources in the Khmer language, which in its present state of development still does not possess the academic grammar and vocabulary for many modern disciplines, especially in STEM fields. In any case, even if this were not the case, translation of material such as textbooks into Khmer, or indeed, the writing of textbooks in Khmer, faces resource challenges that make it currently non-viable. Universities therefore have little choice but to use foreign textbooks and academic material, and overwhelmingly, these are in English. Given the country’s Francophone history, and the role of French aid in post-civil war higher education revival, the alternative to English language material would be academic material in French. In fact, a few universities such as the Institute of Technology Cambodia, ostensibly the leading engineering university, continue to use French-medium instruction and French language material in their degree courses. However, the realities of who provides aid today in a country that continues to rely heavily on foreign aid, English as global lingua academia, and the simple overwhelmingly greater availability of English language academic material determine that such material dominates. Second, beyond the necessity of using English language academic material, there are strong incentives in terms of greater employment prospects with international companies or organisations in Cambodia and opportunities for postgraduate studies overseas. This has led to widespread ground-up support from students and faculty for increased learning and use of English in their studies. In broad terms, EMI is seen as important for improving their English, apart from contributing to knowledge acquisition in their disciplines. This perhaps explains why, apart from just reading in English for their studies, the students at the RUPP also write their assignments and examinations in English. The few existing studies so far show that there is overall, a very positive attitude towards EMI among university students in Cambodia. As this previously unreported excerpt from an interview in Lin et al.’s (2023) study sums up: Yes um to my idea to my point of view I think, in the future, if English is using in at the university, it’s good. Like like I have mentioned that uh like like we still use Khmer but we if we all use English, we can improve our English knowledge. Especially if we want to go like exchange programme, or we want to gain more knowledge about outside the country or we want to gain the document of study about the other research, we need English, and if we use English, our English will be good and then it more easier for us to find like to to find something to develop our uh ability and to develop our country too. (SP, bioengineering undergraduate, RUPP) Third, it is crucial to understand and define EMI in Cambodia in a broad sense. Only a few programmes at public universities are explicitly labelled as ‘EMI’, and at the RUPP, only four undergraduate programmes bear this designation. Yet the need to use English language material in most disciplines at many universities, often coupled with requirements for students to write assignments or deliver presentations in English, implies that these are all at least to a degree ‘Englishmedium’. Most discussion of EMI appears to assume that ‘instruction’ refers to oral instruction in the classroom – even Richards and Pun’s (2023) typology of different forms of EMI suggests that ‘instruction’ is necessarily oral, even where it involves bilingual or ‘parallel language’ strategies. The case of Cambodia suggests a broader conception of EMI where ‘instruction’ includes students being required to learn through reading and writing. Consequently, ‘EMI’ would be defined to 445

Benedict Lin et al.

include any form of teaching and learning mediated through English, whether in the spoken or written form. Within this broader conception, EMI in Cambodian universities can be observed to be operationalised in varied ways. Private institutions like the PUC or AUPP, which declare themselves to be or are seemingly EMI institutions likely conduct most teaching and learning in English, especially where they cater to international students from expatriate families in Cambodia and well-to-do Cambodian students who have attended EMI schools abroad or at one of the international schools in Phnom Penh. At public universities, EMI often necessitates language mixing, ‘translanguaging’, or ‘parallel language’ practices to at least some degree. As Chan (2016) suggests, there is some form of Khmer-English bilingual model for medium of instruction. At one end, there are programmes such as International Studies at the RUPP, conducted almost entirely in English. However, it is inevitable that at least some classroom oral interaction involves Khmer, for instance, among students when carrying out group discussions. At the other end, STEM courses very likely see minimal oral instruction in class in English, but English is extensively used in reading and writing.

Problems associated with EMI The continued use of Khmer in parallel with English is a necessary consequence of one of the major challenges facing EMI implementation – the unequal access to English prior to university that results from a broken public school system with largely ineffective and sometimes non-existent teaching of English. In classes with students of varying levels of English proficiency, Khmer may be used quite often just to translate or explain textbook material that is in English to those less able to read and understand for themselves, thereby, hindering other students’ overall progress in acquisition of disciplinary knowledge. This perhaps partly accounts for the country’s universities continuing to be well below international standards. Unequal earlier access to English also potentially exacerbates social stratification and socioeconomic inequalities. Those students that seem to do best in the current system are largely those with family means who have either attended bilingual or English-medium international schools or learned English over a few years at private language schools. They are more likely to gain entry to higher education, where evidence of a stated level of English proficiency is often an advantage, and in some cases even a requirement for admission, especially for prestigious programmes such as International Studies at the RUPP. They are also more likely to cope better and perform well, and consequently have better prospects for their individual futures. Many universities – both private and public – attempt to address these problems with a Foundation Year programme that includes English as a mandatory course, as a quick scan of the English version of their websites reveals. Additionally, at the RUPP and likely at many other universities, all undergraduate students continue to attend English language courses throughout their degree programmes. However, to date, there has been no known investigation of the nature of such programmes, and of whether they support the students’ academic learning needs.

Conclusion Given the strong and growing influence of China in Cambodia, the Chinese language may become an increasingly attractive foreign language. It remains to be seen whether this will pose a challenge to the pre-eminence of English as the preferred foreign language, whether Cambodian students will be attracted to study in the People’s Republic of China, and whether Chinese might become a possible medium of instruction at the country’s universities. For the foreseeable future, however, given the various factors discussed in this chapter, EMI programmes, of various kinds, 446

English-medium instruction in higher education in Cambodia

are likely to continue to grow. Ideally, however, issues related to social inequality in this context should be addressed, so that students from all social classes might have better access to English to equip them for university studies. Also, given the evident necessity of bilingual approaches to EMI instruction, there is a need to determine the best practices for such approaches, and to provide instructors with training in the relevant pedagogical skills. The case of Cambodia also provides rare and useful insights into EMI in higher education in developmental contexts. Whereas EMI in other contexts is partly motivated by factors related to internationalisation and international rankings, the dynamics of EMI in Cambodia are largely the product of domestic forces, including the need to use English language materials for university learning and teaching, the desirability of English in employment, and the opportunities offered for further studies in Anglophone countries. It is also important to consider the wider history of the country, where three quarters of the population still live in the countryside under conditions that until recently had barely changed for hundreds of years. Today, Cambodia remains a dysfunctional society rife with corruption, still recovering from the trauma of Khmer Rouge democide. In this context, rightly or wrongly, the English language is associated with the perceived benefits of the wider Asian region, the international world, and personal as well as national development.

Acknowledgements Work on this chapter was supported by the Ministry of Education, Singapore, under its Academic Research Fund Tier 1 (Grant number RG164/17NS). The authors’ study on EMI at the RUPP reported in this chapter received ethics approval from the Nanyang Technological University’s Institutional Review Board (NTU-IRB Reference: IRB-2018-07-034).

Notes 1 https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/least-developed-country-category.html. 2 An earlier article reporting on this research was published in the journal World Englishes (Lin et al., 2023). 3 http://www.puc.edu.kh/index.php/academics. 4 https://www.aupp.edu.kh/. 5 http://www.rupp.edu.kh/ifl/international/. 6 https://www.facebook.com/Dept.InternationalStudies/.

References BBC. (2018). Cambodia profile – Timeline. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific13006828 Bolton, K., & Bacon-Shone, J. (2020). The statistics of English across Asia. In K. Bolton, W. Botha, & A. Kirkpatrick (Eds.), The handbook of Asian Englishes (pp. 49–80). Wiley-Blackwell. Brehm, W. (2021). Cambodia for sale: Everyday privatization in education and beyond. Routledge. Brinkley, J. (2011). Cambodia’s curse: The modern history of a troubled land. Public Affairs. Cambodian National Institute of Statistics. (2013). Cambodia inter-censal population survey 2013 final ­report. National Institute of Statistics. Campbell, G. L. (1995). Concise compendium of the world’s languages. Routledge. Chan, V. (2016). Medium-of-instruction policies in higher education in Cambodia (PhD thesis). University of Texas at San Antonio, Texas. Chan, V. (2021). Cambodia language-in-education policy in the context of ASEAN economic integration and the internationalization of higher education. In K. M. Bailey, & D. Christian (Eds.), Research on teaching and learning English in under-resourced contexts (pp. 31–44). Routledge. Chandler, D. (2008). A history of Cambodia. Westview Press.

447

Benedict Lin et al. Clayton, S. (2008). The problem of ‘choice’ and the construction of the demand for English in Cambodia. Language Policy, 7, 143–164. Clayton, T. (1995). Education and language-in-education in relation to external intervention in Cambodia, 1620–1989 (PhD thesis). University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Clayton, T. (1998). Building the new Cambodia: Educational destruction and construction under the Khmer Rouge, 1975–1979. History of Education Quarterly, 38, 7–8. Clayton, T. (2002). Language choice in a nation under transition: The struggle between English and French in Cambodia. Language Policy, 1, 3–25. Clayton, T. (2006). Language choice in a nation under transition: English language spread in Cambodia. Springer. Croissant, A. (2018). Cambodia in 2017: Descending into dictatorship? Asian Survey, 58, 194–200. Dunst, C. (2020). Xi’s fake history lesson for Hun Sen. Foreign Policy. Retrieved from https://foreignpolicy. com/2020/03/10/xi-jinping-fake-history-lesson-hun-sen-china-cambodia-khmer-rouge/ Eberhard, D. M., Simons, G. F., & Fennig, C. D. (Eds.). (2021). Ethnologue: Languages of Cambodia (24th ed.). SIL International. Online: http://www.ethnologue.com Encyclopedia Britannica. (2021). Khmer language. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/ Khmer-language Hashim, A., Leong, Y. C., & Pich, P. T. (2014). English in higher education in Cambodia. World Englishes, 33, 498–511. Igawa, K. (2008). English language and its education in Cambodia, a country in transition. Shitennoji ­University Bulletin, 46(1), 343–369. Kerk, C. N., & Tith, M. (2013). The enactment of English-medium instruction (EMI) undergraduate program in Cambodia: Students’ voices. International Journal of Innovation in English Language, 2, 159–175. Kosonen, K. (2019). Language education policy in Cambodia. In A. Kirkpatrick, & A. J. Liddicoat (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of language education policy in Asia (pp. 216–228). Routledge. Lin, B., Bolton, K., Bacon-Shone, J., & Khan, B. (2023). EMI (English-medium instruction) in Cambodian higher education. World Englishes, 42, 405–423. Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J., & Dearden, J. (2018). A systematic review of English medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching, 51, 36–76. Mao, S. (2015). Education and policy on English language in Cambodia. In T. W. Bigalke, & S. Sharbawi (Eds.), English for ASEAN integration: Policies and practices in the region (pp. 22–33). Universiti Brunei Darussalam. Mendelson,A. (2021). Cambodia’s ‘cowboy diplomacy’in Myanmar isolatesASEAN. Aljazeera. Retrieved from https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/12/22/cambodias-cowboy-diplomacy-in-myanmar-isolates-asean Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport. (2014). Guideline for teaching English at primary schools 2014. Phnom Penh Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport. (2019). Cambodia’s education 2030 roadmap. Phnom Penh Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport. Ministry of Tourism. (2018). Tourism statistics report year 2018. Ministry of Tourism, S ­ tatistics and Tourism Information Department. Retrieved from https://amchamcambodia.net/wp-content/­uploads/2019/04/ Year_2018.pdf Moore, S. H. (2021). Research leadership of returned overseas TESOL scholars in Cambodia. World ­Englishes, 42, 292-307. Moore, S. H, & Bounchan, S. (2010). English in Cambodia: Changes and challenges. World Englishes, 29, 114–126. Moore, S. H, & Bounchan, S. (2020). English in Cambodia. In K. Bolton, W. Botha, & A. Kirkpatrick (Eds.), The handbook of Asian Englishes (pp. 649–666). Wiley-Blackwell. Neau, V. (2003). The teaching of foreign languages in Cambodia: A historical perspective. Language Culture and Curriculum, 16, 253–268. Pit, C., & Roth, H. (2003). English language teaching development in Cambodia: Past, present and future. In W. K. Ho, & R. Y. L. Wong (Eds.), English language teaching in East Asia today (pp. 111–129). Times Academic Press. QS. (2022). QS Asia University Rankings 2022. Retrieved from https://www.topuniversities.com/universityrankings/asian-university-rankings/2022 Richards, J. C., & Pun, J. (2023). A typology of English-medium instruction. RELC Journal, 54, 216–240.

448

English-medium instruction in higher education in Cambodia Sok, S., & Bunry, R. (2021). Internationalization of higher education in Cambodia: Toward an agenda for higher education development. International Journal of Comparative Education and Development, 23, 193–211. Thong, T. (1985). Language planning and language policy of Cambodia. In D. Bradley (Ed.), Papers in ­South-East Asian linguistics (No. 9, pp. 103–117). Pacific Linguistics. Tully, J. (2005). A short history of Cambodia: From empire to survival. Allen & Unwin. Turton, S., & Seangly, P. (2016). Inside the Hun family’s business empire. The Bangkok Post. Retrieved from https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/special-reports/1029801/inside-the-hun-familys-business-empire Williams, J. H., Kitamura, Y., & Keng, C. S. (2016). Higher education in Cambodia: Expansion and quality improvement. In Y. Kitamura, D. B. Edwards Jr., C. Sitha, & J. H. Williams (Eds.), The political economy of schooling in Cambodia: Issues of quality and equity (pp. 167–186). Palgrave Macmillan. World Factbook. (2021). Cambodia. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/ cambodia/

449

32 ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN CHINA Kingsley Bolton, Werner Botha, and Wei Zhang

Introduction Since China’s opening to the world in the post-Mao era from the 1980s onwards, the teaching and learning of English has spread through all levels of education in the People’s Republic of China. However, the continuing conundrum of English-language education remains, and this is that, notwithstanding the many millions that have studied English to some extent, how is English actually used in mainland China? In other terms, where in China is English used for intranational purposes, within Chinese society? The answer appears to be that English finds application in certain business and commercial sectors, primarily for dealing with international trade, while, otherwise, English largely remains a ‘foreign’ language, in the classic sense of the term (He, 2017). An exception to this generalisation is provided by the domain of education, where proficiency in English has become an important requirement in most schools and universities (Bolton, Botha, & Zhang, 2020, 2024; Bolton & Graddol, 2012; Zhang, Bolton, & Botha, 2020). Moreover, in recent years, many tertiary institutions have begun to offer English-medium instruction (EMI) programmes of various kinds, although many of these are referred to as ‘bilingual programmes’. English-medium programmes in higher education have often been seen as innovative and modern. However, the historical reality is that the English language and EMI in higher education has had a long and often forgotten history in Chinese society (Bolton, 2003; Bolton & Botha, 2015).

The history of English-medium instruction (EMI) in China’s universities The English language has had a surprisingly long history in China, dating from the early ­seventeenth century, through the ‘pidgin English’ era of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, to the ­Republican age of the early twentieth century and to the contemporary present (Bolton, 2002, 2003; Bolton & Botha, 2015). Today, China’s universities are typically seen as very modern institutions, and many faculty and students are only vaguely aware of the origins of the nation’s university system, and the fact that English-medium universities and colleges were first established in China in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The key institutions of that time were the Protestant ‘Christian colleges’ established by various US missionary organisations.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003011644-36 450

English-medium instruction in higher education in China

These 13 Protestant colleges included St John’s University in Shanghai (from 1879), Hangchow University (1897), Soochow University (from 1901), Shantung Christian University (‘Cheeloo’ University, from 1902), Lingnan University (‘Canton Christian College’, from 1903), the University of Shanghai (1906), University of Nanking (1910), West China Union University (1910) at Chengdu, Yenching University (at Beijing, from 1912), Fukien Christian University (1915), Ginling College (1915), Hwa Nan Women’s College (at Fuzhou, from 1921), and Hua Chung University (at Wuhan, from 1927). Many of these universities have survived to the present, including Zhejiang University (which has incorporated Hangchow), Suzhou University, Shandong University, Sun Yat-sen University (Lingnan University), Nanjing University, Huaxi Medical University (West China Union University), Peking University (which is located on the previous Yenching campus), and Hwa Zhong University. Many of the colleges taught through the medium of English, although this policy was not uniform across all institutions, where practices varied. At several colleges, there were parallel language streams of study, and all included the study of Chinese language and literature to a greater or lesser degree of emphasis. Arguably, the best known of the English-medium colleges was St. John’s University in Shanghai, which, under the missionary leadership of Dr Francis Pott gained a reputation as ‘the English training center of China’ (Xu 1994, p. 22). Not all Christian colleges were enthusiastic about the promotion of English. At Shantung University, the missionary educators Calvin and Ada Mateer insisted on the use of Chinese as a teaching medium, motivated by the worry that a knowledge of English would divert their students from religious studies into business and commerce (Corbett, 1955). These institutions survived the Second World War, but, after the ascent of the communist party in 1949, all foreign missionaries were expelled from China, and higher education was reorganised under the control of the government. In retrospect, Erh and Johnston (1998) state that the Protestant colleges were ‘pioneers of modern education in China’, and that they ‘took leading roles in various fields, including scientific education, medical and dental education, and agricultural education’, noting that: The colleges therefore played an important part in the introduction into China of modern science, contributing to the development of a scientific terminology in Chinese and the training of scientists, especially in the fields of biology and parasitology, industrial chemistry, and physics. […] In 1949 there were four medical schools among the thirteen Protestant colleges and universities and about ten percent of all medical practitioners in China were graduates of these schools. (Erh & Johnston, 1998, p. 13) China’s Christian colleges were typically established based on the US liberal arts model, which were American institutions, rather than Bristish. These colleges were not only religious in orientation but also proselytisers for the values of a modern education, known for their strengths in arts and social science, basic science, medicine, as well as subjects such as agriculture and journalism (Hayhoe, 1996). One of the best known of these colleges in southern China was Lingnan University in Guangzhou, whose campus today is home to Sun Yat-sen University, one of China’s leading tertiary institutions. Lingnan University had its origins in two preceding institutions, the Christian College in China (1888–1903) and Canton Christian College (1903–1926). In the mid-1920s, at the time of growing Chinese nationalism, it was then renamed Lingnan University (from 1926 to 1952). In 1952, it was then merged with another Guangzhou institution to form Sun Yat-sen University, although it still occupies the original Canton Christian College campus. Contemporary visitors to the Sun Yat-sen 451

Kingsley Bolton et al.

campus today often comment on the beauty of the original tiled buildings of the university, the classic Chinese ornamental design of the buildings, and the tree-lined campus generally. Despite its classic ornamental features, the campus design was the work of New York architects, Charles W. and Arthur Stoughton, graduates of the Architectural School of Columbia University. Similarly, an American architect, Henry Murphy, designed the campus of Yenching University in a similar ornamental style during its construction between 1915 and 1926. The university was situated on the site of the Jui Wang Garden, a former summer garden not far from the Yuan Ming Yuan, the imperial summer palace that was destroyed by the British and French in 1860. The university was not only an English-medium university, but prided on its commitment to scholarship and teaching in both languages: Yenching students were expected to become bilingual, as required courses were offered in Chinese and English. In the republican years, a premium was put on English competence, in political, economic, and intellectual circles, and Yenching known for its excellent ­training in the language. But it became equally famous for its program in Chinese Studies and the scholarly publications in Chinese of the Harvard-Yenching Institute. Its undergraduate ­curriculum over thirty years resembled its western liberal arts model, with requirements in both Chinese and Western literature, philosophy, history, and the natural and social sciences. (West, 1976, p. 91) Yenching University was established through the amalgamation of four Christian schools, including the Methodist Peking University, North China Union College, North China Union Women’s College, and the North China Education Union. During the nationalist period, Yenching gained a reputation as a bicultural and elitist English-medium university. However, after the ascent of the Communist Party, it became a target of the government. In 1952, Peking University (previously the National University of Peking) moved in to occupy the campus, and the arts, social sciences, and natural sciences were incorporated into Peking University (Rosenbaum, 2015, p. 4). The historical background to these two institutions is interesting for at least two reasons. First, it sheds light on the forgotten origins of the modern university system in contemporary China, as exemplified by the histories of Lingnan University (Canton Christian College) and Yenching University. Second, some of our own empirical research on English in China’s universities today has been conducted in these two institutions, as is discussed later in this chapter.

EMI policies in Chinese higher education today Whatever the origins of English-medium higher education in the late nineteenth century and the Republican period before the Second World War, since 1949, national higher education policies have been under the control of the Chinese government. Since the 1990s, EMI policies have been linked to a number of initiatives promoting the internationalisation of higher education, including Project 211 (1995), Project 985 (1998), the Double First-Class Program (2017), and the ‘Belt and Road’ initiative (2015). More specifically, in 2001, the Ministry of Education (MOE) declared a policy of promoting EMI in 5–10% of university courses, and, in 2007, the MOE announced a ‘bilingual teaching model course construction project’, which set out to create 500 bilingual courses in Chinese universities (Rose, McKinley, Xu, & Zhou, 2020, pp. 5–7). By the 2010s, there were at least three different types of English-medium programmes in ­operation in universities in China. First, there were programmes designed to attract international students to Chinese universities in such subjects as business, engineering, and medicine. Second, 452

English-medium instruction in higher education in China

there were programmes conducted partly or largely in English with the objective of providing domestic Chinese students with an international education, which in many cases overlapped with the first category of programmes. Third, there were those programmes delivered at international ‘transnational’ universities with branches in China, including Nottingham University in Ningbo, Xi’an-Jiaotong-Liverpool University in Suzhou, and New York University Shanghai. This push towards English in many ways symbolised the optimism of the 2000s, when China gained entry to the WTO and seemed keen on opening up to the world. As Li (2021) notes, ‘English is almost synonymous with China’s reform and opening-up policies’, which ‘transformed an impoverished and hermetic nation into the world’s second-biggest economy’. In the last few years, however, there have been increasing signs that English has been losing favour among policymakers. In 2020, the MOE banned primary and junior high schools from using overseas textbooks; in 2021 new restrictions on tutorial schools were introduced; English-language books are now reportedly discouraged at some universities, and during the COVID-19 pandemic, it was claimed that ‘English has now become one of the signs of suspicious foreign influence’ (Li, 2021). Before the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a significant number of overseas students studying in the universities in China. In 2019, approximately 333,000 foreign students enrolled in China’s higher education institutions, falling short of the MOE’s apparent aim of attracting 500,000 foreign students by 2020 (MOE, 2020; Sharma, 2011). Most international students attending Chinese universities study Chinese-language programmes, although an increasing number have been attracted to programmes such as engineering and medicine. These courses are also being promoted as English-medium programmes, with entire degree programmes offered from undergraduate to postgraduate levels through the medium of English (Botha, 2016). At the time of writing, it is unclear what form official policies will take after China moves away from its ‘zero-COVID’ policies and some form of normality will return to Chinese society. At present, movement into and out of China is severely restricted, with the number of international students currently in the country being only a fraction of the pre-COVID totals. However, language policies in Chinese higher education are not only the matter of government-level decisions, but also subject to decision-making at the institutional level, through macro top-down policymaking from senior managements, mesolevel decisions at college or school level, and micro level decisions made by frontline teachers (Rose et al., 2020, p. 10). Policymaking with regard to EMI in China might then be seen in terms of a four-level hierarchy, as illustrated in Table 32.1.1 Regardless of the recent reversals in government policy, it is still evidently the case that various forms of EMI education have taken hold in Chinese universities and colleges across the country in the last two decades. This is evidently supported by the research literature on this topic, which suggests that, despite shifts in official policies, the demand for English-medium education from parents, children, professors, and even some institutions is likely to remain, unless the national government decides to close China to the world on a permanent basis.

Table 32.1  EMI policymaking and implementation in Chinese higher education Level of policy/implementation

Decision makers and actions

Supra-macro level Macro level Meso level Micro level

National government attitudes and policies Policy implementation from university managements College, school, and department-level decisions Strategies of teachers and students in the classroom

453

Kingsley Bolton et al.

Literature review: EMI in China’s universities Over the last 20 years, numerous studies have examined EMI in Chinese higher education. ­However, these studies have varied considerably in depth and scope. In addition, they have also varied in the use of nomenclature, with various studies reporting on aspects of ‘bilingual’, ‘CLIL’ (Content and Language Integrated Learning), and ‘international’ initiatives, in addition to ‘EMI’ programmes.

Reviewing EMI research in China from 2013 until the present Given the large number of articles published on this topic in recent years, for our purposes in this chapter, we limited the scope of our review to books and international journal publications from the previous 10 years (2013–2022). To our knowledge, at the time of writing, only two booklength studies on EMI in mainland China have appeared, that is English-Medium Instruction in Chinese Universities: Perspectives, Discourse and Evaluation (2017) by Zhao and Dixon (Eds.) and English-Medium Instruction as Local Practice: Language, Culture and Pedagogy by Han (2023). Zhao and Dixon (2017) present a collection of articles on EMI in Chinese universities. Among these, Yang (2017) and Wei, Feng, and Ma (2017) found that students were not motivated to learn English, while Xu (2017) reported that students studying through the medium of English held ‘less-positive attitudes’ towards EMI. Chang (2017) and Tong and Tang (2017) discuss issues of accuracy and proficiency in lectures, while Li (2017) noted that there was a lack of interaction between students and teachers in EMI classes. Finally, Yu and Liu (2017) highlighted the need for students to be exposed to both spoken and written academic discourse. Han (2023) is a single-authored volume discussing the background to EMI in China, pedagogical practice, teacher engagement, and translanguaging. The data for this study was collected at a university in southern China, where there were EMI programmes in various disciplines, including biochemistry, computer science, engineering, marketing, mathematics, medicine, and physics. Data were collected through a questionnaire survey, observation, and interviews. The findings of this study suggest that code-mixing and switching (‘translanguaging’) played an important role among those teachers less proficient as well as those more proficient in the English language. In the review of the literature presented in this chapter, we concentrate on journal articles and research reports published in the years 2013–2022 (Appendix 32.1). In the survey of this literature over the past 10 years, we initially identified a total of 34 research articles dealing with the topic of EMI in China’s higher education. Of these, we were most interested in those studies that had collected original empirical data, and after excluding non-empirical studies, we were left with a total of 24 articles. Details of these articles are included in Appendix 32.1 of this chapter. Possibly the most up-to-date study of EMI in higher education across China is the 34-page report provided by Rose et al. (2020). In this report, the authors set out to study EMI policy and implementation practices at a wide range of leading universities in China, involving the scrutiny of 93 EMI policy documents, fieldwork at eight universities, interviews with 26 stakeholders, and surveys of 152 EMI teachers and 561 EMI students. Three key findings emerging from their research are as follows: (i) there had been a shift from ‘bilingual programmes’ towards English-only and mixed programmes; (ii) bilingualism and multilingualism was a normal feature of EMI classrooms; and (iii) English was the main language of course delivery, but most discussions in the classroom took place in Chinese. Additionally, the report revealed that internationalisation was a major driver of policy, language major had become devalued, EMI programmes were believed to lead to better academic and career prospects, but there were concerns that EMI delivery negatively impacted the quality 454

English-medium instruction in higher education in China

of courses. Finally, the report concluded with various recommendations to improve assessment, methodology, flexible models of EMI delivery and workload, and language support structures for students (Rose et al., 2020, pp. 9–29). Their report includes only a limited amount of information concerning the specific sites of investigation (only a few universities in the study are identified), with no space for the voices of individual students and teachers, and ultimately provides only a thin ­sociolinguistic contextualisation of current initiatives in higher education. Nevertheless, it does succeed in i­dentifying a range of issues and trends highly relevant to EMI in China today. In addition, it is also worth examining the other 23 studies outlined at the end of this chapter. What is striking in these research reports is the diversity of the disciplines that have adopted v­ arious types of EMI education, including business studies, computer science, economics, ­engineering, English studies, film production, hospitality and tourism, humanities, international trade, ­language courses, law, mathematics, medicine, music, political science, science, and ­ social sciences. In brief, taken as a whole, this body of work points to the diverse nature of EMI in China in the 2010s. However, most of these reports lack space for the individual voices of ­students participating in these EMI programmes. Partly as a corrective measure, in the following sections, we ­present two case studies from Sun Yat-sen University and Peking University, where the ­perspectives of students themselves are highlighted.

Two case studies of EMI in Chinese higher education Whereas the preceding section has dealt with previous research on this topic by other scholars, in this section of the chapter, we report on empirical research conducted by the authors of this chapter.

Case study 1: Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou A sociolinguistic study was conducted at Sun Yat-sen University (SYSU) in Guangzhou in 2012–2013, involving 236 undergraduate, postgraduate, and international students. The results shed light on the use of English by students within the institution, with particular reference to their exposure to the language in courses that were designated as ‘English medium’. One difficulty was the lack of official policy at the university governing such programmes. In 2013, various department websites promoted English as a medium of instruction, while recently these statements have been removed.

SYSU students’ exposure to English in their formal education The results of Botha’s (2013) research indicated that SYSU students were not frequently exposed to English in their education. However, the language was, to varying degrees, used as a medium of instruction at the university. The English language was most prevalent in the social sciences and business studies. It is evident that SYSU undergraduates do not frequently hear spoken English in their lectures. However, exposure to English at SYSU varied according to field of study, as shown in Tables 32.2–32.4. The highest exposure to English was observed in the Social Sciences, where 16.6% of students indicated that either ‘all’ or ‘almost all’ of their lectures were presented in English, and 25% r­ eported that ‘about half’ of their courses were conducted in English. Undergraduate students in the School of Business also reported hearing English in their classes, with 8.6% claiming that ‘most’ or ‘all’ of their lectures were in English, and 21.7% of students reporting that ‘about half’ of their lectures were in English. Conversely, minimal exposure to English was found in the 455

Kingsley Bolton et al. Table 32.2  Reported exposure to English-medium lectures by discipline (Botha, 2013) Faculty

All/almost all (%)

About half (%)

Almost none/ none (%)

School of Business (N = 23) Social Sciences (N = 24) School of Medicine (N = 17) School of Physics and Engineering (N = 38) School of Mathematics (N = 24)

8.6 16.6 0.0 7.8 0.0

21.7 25.0 0.0 7.8 8.3

69.5 58.3 100.0 84.2 91.6

Table 32.3  Reported exposure to English and Putonghua in class at SYSU (Botha, 2013) Faculty

All/almost all (%)

About half (%)

Almost none/none (%)

English (N = 118) Putonghua (N = 124)

  7.6 96.7

26.2   3.2

66.1  0

Table 32.4  Reported use of English and Putonghua on the SYSU campus (Botha, 2013) Faculty

All/almost all (%)

About half (%)

Almost one/none (%)

English (N = 115) Putonghua (N = 118)

 8.6 88.9

37.3   6.7

53.9   4.2

School of Physics and Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine, with almost all of the students reporting ‘very little’ or ‘no’ exposure to lectures in English in these programmes. Students were also asked to specify the proportion of their lectures that were conducted in English and Putonghua, and these findings are presented in Table 32.4. From the table, it is evident that students reported limited exposure to English in their classrooms, with only 8.6% of students claiming to hear English ‘all’ or ‘almost all’ of the time, while 88.9% of students reportedly heard Putonghua very frequently. Surprisingly, 37.3% of students claimed to hear English ‘about half’ of the time during their class. The survey data in Tables 32.2–32.4 indicate that although ­Putonghua is the most frequently used language in educational settings on the SYSU campus, English is, to some extent, used as an instructional language, within specific contexts, and appears to be ­restricted to certain academic units, as well as certain fields of study. At SYSU, Putonghua is the most widely used language on campus, with just over 95% of ­students using it ‘all’ or ‘almost all’ of the time (see Table 32.4). However, some 37% of students also reported using English ‘about half’ of the time. It was found that 97.6% of students had a ‘fair’ to ‘excellent’ level of proficiency in Putonghua. Additionally, 40 different Chinese ­languages/ dialects were reportedly spoken by undergraduate students as a home language, with only 22.8% ­speaking Putonghua as a home language. In terms of academic reading, it was found that the amount of English reading varied by academic unit, with the most exposure occurring in the Social Sciences and the School of Business. Students from the School of Physics and E ­ ngineering also appeared to be required to read a significant amount of English course materials. In terms of ­academic writing, very little English writing was required from any academic unit at SYSU. 456

English-medium instruction in higher education in China

SYSU students’ attitudes towards EMI Students at SYSU were asked about their attitudes towards EMI at their university. A total of 73% agreed that SYSU would be more international if courses are taught in English. Several ­students were interviewed in focus groups and their responses revealed nuanced and often ­conflicting ­perceptions regarding the use of English in education at the university. Some students found the use of English challenging, while others felt it was important and necessary. Some students r­ eported difficulties when studying specialised subjects in English after being accustomed to studying in Putonghua. The student in Extract 1 below described the challenges she faced when studying algebra in English. Extract 32.1 (Adapted from Bolton & Botha, 2015) In last semester we use English book…English textbook as the as Abstract Algebra…uh…this lesson…and it brings me much difficulty to learn it I: [but that’s just numbers, isn’t it?] (laughter) S: …yeah…but uh this lesson is difficulty...is difficult itself and uh...I must uh…understand ­English and [uh] then I must understand the..uh..the ding yi… O: [principles] S: uh…the principles meaning…so I must uh…I have two [X X] to go… [yeah] ah…so it’s very difficult I: [very difficult?] S: [yeah] I: Were you successful? Did you pass? S: uh...pass but the score is very low I: So, if you only studied in Chinese, do you think your score would have been higher? (Laughter) O: I think so S: Do you think so? I: Yeah, uh...because I bought a Chinese textbook myself…and I think the theory is much more easier to understand S = Sandy (undergraduate female student, aged 20, School of Mathematics); I = Interviewer; O = Other S:

The student above explained that she was required to read one of her prescribed textbooks on algebra in English. From her response, it was clear that she experienced difficulties studying her course material through English. This student also described one of the coping strategies that many students at SYSU used, that is buying Chinese-language editions of their prescribed textbooks. Despite this, many students also thought that the use of English at SYSU was important, arguing that it was preferable to use English as a teaching medium for some subjects: I think, on one hand, some courses should use English because different courses have its different specialties. And I think […] it depends on what the course you’re taking because some course may be in the European it will be developing very well and as for anthropology, especially for anthropology, I think anthropology in China is not so good. Or maybe in mainland China it’s not so good and if we use the medium of English as a medium of teaching language I think it’s better because it developed very well European or America. (Undergraduate female student, aged 21, Social Sciences) 457

Kingsley Bolton et al.

Botha’s (2013) results indicated that the ideologies of ‘internationalism’ and ‘modernity’ were embedded in the expressed attitudes of many of the students he interviewed, even though such ideologies were only partly or vaguely articulated.

Case study 2: Peking University, Beijing The second case study that the authors of this chapter have conducted was at Peking University, where one of the authors is a faculty member. Again, as was the case in the earlier SYSU study, it was difficult to find any clearly-stated policy on EMI at the university, and there were no official policy statements on the university website. Notwithstanding this, it is the case that, at various times, the university has distributed lists of ‘English-taught’ undergraduate courses to overseas universities with whom it has exchanged agreements. One such list was retrieved from the website of Melbourne University, which identified a total of 159 courses that used English as the language of instruction. The distribution of such courses by college/school is outlined in Table 32.5. As ­illustrated in Table 32.5, the greatest number of English-medium courses were found in the School of Foreign Languages. However, given the fact that most of these courses were concerned with English language and linguistics, they cannot be represented as typical ‘English-medium’ courses in the classic definition of the term. If we then disregard the School of Foreign Languages, we can see that the remaining EMI courses are spread across disciplines at the university, with the greatest number in the Guanghua School of Management, School of Economics, and Department of History. Table 32.5  Peking University ‘English-taught’ undergraduate courses (2021) School

Number of courses

School of Foreign Languages Guanghua School of Management School of Economics Department of History School of Physics School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science College of Engineering College of Chemistry and Molecular Engineering School of Life Sciences School of International Studies College of Environmental Sciences and Engineering National School of Development School of Psychological and Cognitive Sciences School of Journalism and Communication School of Earth and Space Sciences Graduate School of Education School of Mathematical Sciences Department of Chinese Language and Literature School of Archeology and Museology Law School Department of Information Management School of Urban and Environmental Sciences School of Arts

34 22 11 10 9 8 7 7 7 7 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1

458

English-medium instruction in higher education in China

Interview data from Peking University (mid-2022) In our study, we interviewed 13 students enrolled in a range of officially-designated EMI courses, including computer science, economics, history, international studies, law, mathematics, management studies, and physics. However, after conducting a number of initial interviews, we decided to focus on students in the Guanghua School of Management, who arguably had the most experience of EMI courses. In mid-2022, we interviewed six of these students (four females, two males) online, in order to investigate their experiences of and attitudes to EMI education in their discipline. These interviews were conducted using a Zoom interface, with each interview typically lasting around 40 minutes. Students were asked a range of questions concerning the use of spoken English in the classroom, the use of written English, language mixing, the difficulties faced by students, and their attitudes to using English in their studies. The responses of students to such questions are summarised in the following section.

The use of spoken English in EMI courses at Peking University The students reported that the English-medium courses included topics on corporate finance, financial accounting, financial risk and management, international finance, macroeconomics and microeconomics, and security analysis and investment. They explained that some of these courses were mandatory, but others were offered in both English and Chinese, so that: There are actually two types of English courses, so one, the first type like mandatory courses, stuff like that. Like, for example, accounting, macroeconomics and microeconomics. There are also a few [optional] courses, so these courses will have Chinese version and English version. […] they’re like, you can just choose to take it or not, like some of these […] optional courses. (I6, female, 22, Marketing, third year)

The proportion of courses taught mainly through English The interviewees were asked what percentage of their courses were taught mainly through English, and there was a great deal of variation in their answers. One student reported 50–80% of activities using English: Most of our classes are taught in English. Some of the classes, teachers can speak English and they will teach us in English, and others we have English PPT, and we have English materials for study, and English homework and English examinations. […] At a spoken level, I think maybe as a percentage will be 30% or 40%. (I1, female, 21, Finance, third year) They explained an important feature of the Guanghua School of Management, which usually involved a relatively large number of foreign students taking courses in the school, including those from Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, and Spain. Since 2020, however, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of foreign students in the school has dwindled. They also highlighted a limited number of foreign teachers in the school and that most of their Chinese teachers had PhD degrees from the Unite States or Europe.

459

Kingsley Bolton et al.

The use of spoken English in the classroom The students’ reports indicated that, once again, there was a good deal of variation in how spoken English was used in the classroom. Some courses were taught predominantly through English, according to one finance student who had just graduated: I think most courses delivered in English, they are purely English. The professors use textbook in English and they also their slides are almost all purely English […] we don’t think it’s very difficult to learn the theory in English. And our teacher they can just interact with us very naturally in English, but sometimes they also use some Chinese because of some terminology, maybe it’s very difficult to understand in English, so they will use a little Chinese so that we can better understand it. (I2, male, 21, Finance, fresh graduate) Other students, however, reported even more language mixing not only in officially-designated English-medium courses, but also in Chinese-medium programmes: Okay, so basically there are a lot of courses that officially adopt English lectures, so the teachers, they just speak English in front of us when they are giving questions and giving lectures, and then we respond also in English. And also since there are a lot of international students in those courses so basically we interact with each other using English. […] And also sometimes in courses that officially say that they are taught in Chinese, the teachers they make all the slides in English and we also use all the terminologies in English without translating them, so there are a lot of like officially Chinese classes that are also taught in oral English. (I5, female, 21 Marketing, fourth year)

The use of written English in the classroom Most students reported little difficulty in dealing with written English. In a number of cases, even though Chinese-language materials were available, students reported preferring English-language sources: I think a lot of textbooks are actually written in English, especially in my major like management and economics, they involve a lot of terminology which are not translated very well in Chinese. So our teachers they prefer just speaking them in English and the slides are in English, or even though some are in Chinese they will like annotate in a lot of English. And also the textbooks are in English, sometimes the teachers will provide us with Chinese versions, but personally, I myself find it very hard to read in Chinese because the terminologies are translated very badly, so I prefer to read it in English. (I5, female, 21, Marketing, fourth year) Students also reported that English was widely used in examinations, although, very often, they were permitted to answer in either English or Chinese, although one student estimated that ‘50% of the students will use English’, because ‘we don’t know how to express the terminologies in Chinese maybe, so we tend to use English’ (I3, female, 20, Finance, second year).

460

English-medium instruction in higher education in China

Difficulties faced by students Again, responses on this issue varied somewhat. One report suggested that students managed rather well, given that it was generally those with a higher level of proficiency in the language that chose to take EMI courses: So firstly, that person that might be poor in English will choose the Chinese version of the class and, although their speaking might be poor, but because they can get into university, their written English is at least good[…] I think they could manage quite well. […] I don’t see any cases like having problems on the language side, mostly are on the course themselves, yeah. (I4, male, 21, Finance, fourth year) However, another student pointed out that for some freshmen, EMI courses did present a challenge: Well, I would say I think there are five to ten per cent of my classmates are not really good at English, so for them, courses in English they will try their best to choose some easier courses, like it’s easier to understand, or the professor is not so strict with your performance. And I think there are also like thirty to forty per cent of my classmates they’re okay with English, but sometimes they can’t understand the professor, […] but they will ask other people. (I6, female, 22, Marketing, third year) A third student explained that one’s proficiency in English could also be attributed to their previous education students had received, noting that ‘students from remote areas like villages or provinces that are not developed, they have more difficulties, but I’m not saying that everyone from Beijing or Shanghai are better, because it also depends on your ability and efforts before’ (I5, female, 21, Marketing, fourth year).

Attitudes to English-medium instruction (EMI) The interviewees’ attitudes to EMI at Peking University were generally quite positive, as indicated by this comment from a second-year finance student: I think they’re great because I think since the textbooks that we are recommended to read are all English textbooks, I think, actually learning these courses in English can provide us with better understanding of these subjects, but these English classes are not so popular among our undergraduate students because I think, for example, my roommates they just won’t choose these courses, because they are not so confident about their English. But for me, […] after the first month I think I can just take these courses easily. (I3, female, 20, Finance, second year) Another student reported that such courses were useful for her as she was intending to pursue a career in academia: I think English is, of course, very important, not only [for] my education, but in my entire life because […] English is actually used everywhere in the world, so it helps me to interact with like people from different countries, even though they’re from, like I said, Germany or 461

Kingsley Bolton et al.

Brazil or somewhere like Japan. […] English is also important for me to pursue a path in the academia, because like the best journals, they’re always in English, and if you want to be a prestigious scholar in like international world it also requires you to write in English, speak in English and publish in English. (I5, female, 21, Marketing, fourth year) A third student noted that some of the difficulties were challenging, but, despite this, there were many benefits from studying in English: I think it’s very beneficial, because we can not only gather technique […], but also we also improve our English when we take the English courses. And for the students who major in finance and management, maybe it’s more important than other majors because we will get some jobs about finance and management, maybe we will have many chance to speak English and use English in our work, so I think take many courses in English at Peking University is very good. (I2, male, 21, Finance, fresh graduate) Overall, when talking to these students, it was difficult not to be impressed by their evident proficiency in English, and also their positive attitudes to learning, as well as their high ambitions for their future careers on graduating from Peking University. One of the female interviewees had already completed an internship with an international European fashion company, while one of the male interviewees participated in a discussion sitting in the office of an international American bank in Hong Kong, where he was then working as an intern. Obviously, students such as these who have studied at one of the most prestigious universities in the nation are not entirely typical of all students in tertiary EMI programmes, but, nevertheless, it could be argued that the attitudes of these young people, in aspiring to connect with the international world are emblematic of those of so many young educated people in China today. What was also noticeable about the Peking University interviews was that the level of proficiency of most of the management school students was clearly much higher than that of the Guangzhou students interviewed nearly a decade earlier. One reason for this might be relative status of the two universities, given that SYSU is less highly ranked than Peking University, or it may be due to other reasons, including the accelerated spread of English in higher education, or simply, and most likely, because of the very different samples of students interviewed.

Conclusion This chapter sets out to survey EMI in higher education in China. Despite its contemporary focus, it begins with a concise, partly forgotten, history of western higher education in China in the late nineteenth century and the first-half of the twentieth century. The chapter proceeds to discuss the formulation of English-medium policies in China from the 1990s to the present, before presenting a detailed literature review, which is presented in summative form in the Appendix to this chapter. The following sections of the chapter then deal with two case studies, one from SYSU in Guangzhou and one from Peking University in Beijing, where the actual opinions and voices of students are foregrounded. A number of points might be made about our discussion of EMI in contemporary China. First, it is noteworthy that there have been so many studies of EMI in Chinese higher education in recent years, and that research of this kind has achieved a high degree of popularity, not least in the COVID years of 2020–2022, when 11 of the 24 articles listed in the 462

English-medium instruction in higher education in China

Appendix were published. Despite the increasing frequency of such articles, however, one might query precisely how useful such studies are, given that many of these provide only a thin description of the institutions and contexts where such studies have been carried out. For example, only two of the 24 articles actually name the institutions where research was carried out, and in most studies only a minimal description of students’ disciplines and lived experiences are presented. Another issue relates to the changing landscape of education and educational policy within mainland China. The vast majority of research articles hitherto published focus on the halcyon years of the early 2000s and mid-2010s, when the nation was opening to the world and its universities were buoyed by similar aspirations. In the last five years or so, there have been various policy pronouncements pointing to an increasingly wary official attitude to ‘foreign forces’, with which, for whatever reasons, the English language and English-language education are somewhat guilty by association. Whether this will affect policymaking going forward remains to be seen. At the time of writing, China seems be moving away from its zero-COVID policy towards opening the country once more to international travel and trade. Despite the political winds of geopolitics, pitting the Chinese government against the west, it seems doubtful that the nation’s universities will abandon English entirely. After all, so many Chinese academics today were educated overseas at English-speaking universities, and China’s universities now produce a large percentage of STEM research articles published in international journals. Proficiency in English is now seen as an essential part of education for the aspiring middle classes as well as the ruling classes, who often send their children overseas to the most prestigious universities in North America, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere. In the final analysis, however, EMI education is not simply a matter of domestic education planning and language management, but also a barometer of national political policy and China’s engagement with the international world.

Note 1 Some commentators, including Rose et al. (2020), suggest a three-tier model of EMI policy and implementation. However, our suggestion would be that a three-tier representation of policy would crucially omit the role of national governments in shaping policies and attitudes, not only in China, but in many Asian societies where governmental language policy is seen as a crucial strand of nation building, as in Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and almost every other Asian nation as well.

References Bolton, K. (2002). Hong Kong English: Autonomy and creativity. Hong Kong University Press. Bolton, K. (2003). Chinese Englishes: A sociolinguistic history. Cambridge University Press. Bolton, K., & Botha, W. (2015). English in China’s universities: Past and present. World Englishes, 34, 190–210. Bolton, K., Botha, W., & Zhang, W. (2020). English in China. In K. Bolton, W. Botha, & A. Kirkpatrick (Eds.), The handbook of Asian Englishes (pp. 503–528). Wiley-Blackwell. Bolton, K., Botha, W., & Zhang, W. (2024). English in China. In K. Bolton (Ed.), The Wiley encyclopedia of world Englishes. Wiley-Blackwell, in press. Bolton, K., & Graddol, D. (2012). English in China today. English Today, 28(3), 3–9. Botha, W. (2013). English-medium instruction in China’s universities: External perceptions, ideologies and sociolinguistic realities (PhD thesis). University of South Africa, Pretoria. Botha, W. (2014). English in China’s universities today. English Today, 30(1), 3–10. Botha, W. (2016). English and international students in China today. English Today, 32(1), 41–47. Chang, C. (2017). English-medium instruction in a medical school: Managing classroom discourse. In J. Zhao & L. Q. Dixon (Eds.), English-medium instruction in Chinese universities: Perspectives, discourse and evaluation (pp. 79–104). Routledge.

463

Kingsley Bolton et al. Corbett, C. H. (1955). Shangtung Christian University (Cheeloo). United Board for Christian Colleges in China. Dai, Y., & Wu, Z. (2021). ‘You are missing a note’: English-medium instruction in music master classes. English Today, 37, 58–64. Erh, D., & Johnston, T. (1998). Hallowed halls: Protestant colleges in old China. Old China Hand Press. Galloway, N., & Ruegg, R. (2020). The provision of student support on English medium instruction programmes in Japan and China. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 45, 1–14. Han, J. (2023). English medium instruction as a local practice: Language, culture and pedagogy. Springer. Han, Y. W., De Costa, P. I., & Cui, Y. Q. (2016) Examining the English language policy for ethnic minority students in a Chinese university: A language ideology and language regime perspective. Current Issues in Language Planning, 17, 311–331. Hayhoe, R. (1996). China’s universities 1895–1995: A century of cultural conflict. Garland. He, D. (2017). The use of English in the professional world in China. World Englishes, 36, 571–590. He, J. J., & Chiang, S. Y. (2016). Challenges to English-medium instruction (EMI) for international students in China. English Today, 32(4), 63–67. Hu, G., & Lei, J. (2014). English-medium instruction in Chinese higher education: A case study. Higher Education, 67, 551–567. Hu, G., Li, L., & Lei, J. (2014). English-medium instruction at a Chinese University: Rhetoric and reality. Language Policy, 13, 21–40. Jiang, L., Zhang, L. J., & May, S. (2019). Implementing English-medium instruction (EMI) in China: Teachers’ practices and perceptions, and students’ learning motivation and needs. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22, 107–119. Kong, M., & Wei, R. (2019). EFL learners’ attitudes toward English-medium instruction in China: The influence of sociobiographical variables. Linguistics and Education, 52, 44–51. Lei, J., & Hu, G. (2014). Is English-medium instruction effective in improving Chinese undergraduate students’ English competence? International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 52, 99–126. Li, M. (2017). Evaluation of learning outcomes in an education course: Does it work? In J. Zhao, & L. Q. Dixon (Eds.), English-medium instruction in Chinese universities: Perspectives, discourse and evaluation (pp. 147–164). Routledge. Li, M. (2018) The effectiveness of a bilingual education program at a Chinese university: A case study of social science majors. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21, 897–912. Li, Y. (2021). ‘Reversing gears’: China increasingly rejects English, and the world. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/09/business/china-english.html Macaro, E., & Han, S. (2020). English medium instruction in China’s higher education: Teachers’ perspectives of competencies, certification and professional development. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 41, 219–231. McKinley, J., Rose, H., & Zhou, S. (2021). Transnational universities and English medium instruction in China: How admissions, language support and language use differ in Chinese universities. RELC Journal, 52, 236–252. MOE. (2020). Overview of educational achievements in China in 2019. Retrieved from http://en.moe.gov.cn/ documents/reports/202102/t20210209_513095.html Rose, H., McKinley, J., Xu, X., & Zhou, S. (2020). Investigating policy and implementation of English medium instruction in higher education institutions in China. British Council. Rosenbaum, L. (Ed.). (2015). New perspectives on Yenching University, 1916–1952: A liberal education for a new China. Brill. Sharma, Y. (2011). China: Ambitious plans to attract foreign students. University World News. Retrieved from https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=201103120920083 24 Song, Y. (2019). English language ideologies and students’ perception of international English-medium-instruction (EMI) Master’s programmes: A Chinese case study. English Today, 35(3), 22–28. Song, Y. (2021) ‘Uneven consequences’ of international English-medium instruction programmes in China: A critical epistemological perspective. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 42, 342–356. Song, Y., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2020). Translingual practices at a Shanghai university. World Englishes, 39, 249–262. Tong, F., & Tang, S. (2017). English-medium instruction in a Chinese university math classroom. In J. Zhao, & L. Q. Dixon (Eds.), English-medium instruction in Chinese universities: Perspectives, discourse and evaluation (pp. 128–144). Routledge.

464

English-medium instruction in higher education in China Wang, W., & Curdt-Christiansen, X. (2019). Translanguaging in a Chinese-English bilingual education ­programme: A university-classroom ethnography. International Journal of Bilingual Education and ­Bilingualism, 22, 322–337. Wei, R., Feng, J., & Ma, Q. (2017). College students’ perspectives on English-medium instruction and their English learning motivational intensity. In J. Zhao, & L. Q. Dixon (Eds.), English-medium instruction in Chinese universities: Perspectives, discourse and evaluation (pp. 45–58). Routledge. West, P. (1976). Yenching University and Sino-Western relations, 1916–1952. Harvard University Press. Xie, W. Y., & Curle, S. (2022) Success in English medium instruction in China: Significant indicators and implications. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25, 585–597. Xu, E. Y. (1994). Religion and education: St John’s University as an evangelizing agency (PhD thesis). Princeton University, New Jersey. Xu, H. (2017). College students’ attitudes toward English-medium instruction and the English language. In J. Zhao, & L. Q. Dixon (Eds.), English-medium instruction in Chinese universities: Perspectives, discourse and evaluation (pp. 60–75). Routledge. Yang, X. (2017). Balance of content and language in English-medium instruction classrooms. In J. Zhao, & L. Q. Dixon (Eds.), English-medium instruction in Chinese universities: Perspectives, discourse and evaluation (pp. 23–44). Routledge. Yu, H., & Liu, M. (2017) English-medium instruction classroom discourse in a liberal arts school: History recontextualized. In J. Zhao, & L. Q. Dixon (Eds.), English-medium instruction in Chinese universities: Perspectives, discourse and evaluation (pp. 105–127). Routledge. Yuan, Z. M., & Li, C-n. (2021). Investigating English-medium instruction for international students in China. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2021.1965614 Zhang, M., & Pladevall-Ballester, E. (2021). Discipline-specific language learning outcomes in EMI programs in the People’s Republic of China. Language and Education, 35, 357–374. Zhang, M., & Pladevall-Ballester, E. (2022). Students’ attitudes and perceptions towards three EMI courses in mainland China. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 35, 200–216. Zhang, W., Bolton, K., & Botha, W. (2020). English in the People’s Republic of China. In C. L. Nelson, Z. Proshina, & D. R. Davis (Eds.), The handbook of world Englishes (2nd ed., pp. 266–280). Wiley-Blackwell. Zhang, Z. (2018). English-medium instruction policies in China: Internationalisation of higher education. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 39, 542–555. Zhao, J., & Dixon, L. Q. (Eds.). (2017). English-medium instruction in Chinese universities: Perspectives, discourse and evaluation. Routledge.

465

Appendix 32.1 See Table 32.6. Table 32.6  Published journal articles and reports of EMI in Chinese universities (2013–2022) Author(s)

 4 Han, De Costa, & Cui (2016)  5 He and Chiang (2016)

Methodology

Student disciplines

Investigation of student experiences and educational reality.

Questionnaire research (236 respondents) and qualitative interviews (11 students).

To describe an undergraduate Englishmedium programme in business studies. To investigate whether EMI participation increased English proficiency. To investigate the attitudes and experiences of Uyghur minority students at a university in Jiangsu province. To investigate the difficulties of international students in EMI programmes.

Interviews with 10 students and five teachers.

Various types of EMI education, Business studies; often lacking official policies. hospitality and tourism; computer science; law; medicine. Business studies The contradiction between EMI policies and practices.

Study of 64 second- and Business studies third-year students using the College English Test level 6 (CET 6). Interviews with 23 Unspecified participants (students, teachers, and administrators). A survey of 60 international students at a university in South China.

Unspecified (international students)

Major findings

Location Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou Unspecified

That the EMI programme was not effective in improving students’ English proficiency.

Unspecified

That Uyghur students were marginalised in their study of English, compared with ethnic Han Chinese students.

Unspecified university in Jiangsu province

Students reported difficulties with teachers’ instructional styles and language proficiency.

Unspecified university in South China (Continued)

Kingsley Bolton et al.

466

 1 Botha (2013, 2014); Bolton and Botha (2015)  2 Hu and Lei (2014); Hu, Li and Lei (2014)  3 Lei and Hu (2014)

Aim of study

Table 32.6 (Continued) Author(s)

Methodology

 6 Botha (2016)

To investigate the EMI experiences of international undergraduate medical students.

A questionnaire survey of Medicine 35 international medical (international students, supplemented students) by individual interviews.

 7 Li (2018)

To investigate the A questionnaire survey of effectiveness of a 53 third-year students, bilingual social sciences interviews, and a programme. language test.

 8 Zhang (2018)

To investigate language ideologies, language management, and language policies at three universities.

 9 Wang and To investigate Curdttranslanguaging in Christiansen an undergraduate (2019) business management programme. 10 Song (2019) To investigate the ideologies of students on an EMI Masters programme in political sciences.

Student disciplines

Social sciences

The study analysed policy statements, conducted interviews with administrators, teachers, and students, as well as classroom observation.

Unspecified (local and international students)

Classroom observation, 33 interviews and document collection.

Business studies

Student interviews (15) and classroom observation of mainland and international students.

Political science

Major findings

Location

Unspecified stateThat many international students run university were dissatisfied with quality in Guangzhou, of the programme, citing the South China variable English proficiency of teaching staff as well as rote learning methods. That the bilingual course improved Unspecified university in students’ English proficiency, Northwest but that students reported China difficulty in mastering the content of the bilingual course. That more attention be paid to Shanghai Maritime language policies in particular. University, Tsinghua University, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics That code-switching and codeUnspecified ‘key’ mixing frequently took place. university in central China That there were generally positive Unspecified attitudes/ideologies towards English as a lingua franca in this programme. (Continued)

English-medium instruction in higher education in China

467

Aim of study

Table 32.6 (Continued) Author(s) 11 Kong and Wei (2019)

12 Jiang, Zhang and May (2019)

15 Macaro and Han (2020)

16 Rose et al. (2020)

Methodology

To investigate the attitudes A survey of 282 students of students to EMI at in EMI programmes at six Chinese universities. six Chinese universities, advertised through social media. Recorded classroom To investigate attitudes observations, interviews and strategies of subject and a questionnaire teachers, as well as survey. students’ motivations and needs in an undergraduate EMI medical programme. Questionnaire surveys To investigate the of students (702) and language and academic teaching staff (28) skills support given in Japan and China, to students in EMI supplemented by group programmes in Japan interviews. and China. Questionnaire surveys of To investigate the issues 133 students, as well of competencies, as 12 semi-structured certification and interviews. the professional development of EMI teachers in China. The analysis of 93 To investigate policies policy documents towards, as well as the from 63 universities, implementation of EMI 26 interviews, and a at various levels of survey of students (561) higher education. students and teachers (152).

Student disciplines

Major findings

Location

Business studies; engineering; humanities; science; social sciences Medicine

That there were generally favourable attitudes toward EMI, with reported proficiency improvements as well as career benefits. That there were mixed results in terms of teaching and learning.

Unspecified six universities

Economics; English studies

The results indicate that there was a wide range of support measures available, although these varied according to location.

Unspecified

Humanities; language courses; mathematics; medicine; science; social sciences Unspecified

That teachers generally show positive attitudes to EMI certification, where available.

Unspecified

Unspecified

That lectures in EMI courses were Unspecified typically given in English, but discussions usually took place in Chinese.

(Continued)

Kingsley Bolton et al.

468

14 Galloway and Ruegg (2020)

Aim of study

Table 32.6 (Continued) Author(s)

Methodology

Student disciplines

Major findings

Location

To investigate translingual practices among Masters students taking an EMI programme.

Interviews with 20 students in the department of political sciences.

Political science

Unspecified university in Shanghai

To investigate how English is used and perceived in an EMI undergraduate music masterclass. 19 McKinley, To compare transnational Rose and university EMI Zhou (2021) programmes with those of other mainland Chinese universities. 20 Song (2021) To investigate the epistemic frameworks of EMI programmes from a critical perspective.

Questionnaire survey of 147 students, supplemented by video recording of three classes. Interviews with 26 policy stakeholders at two transnational universities and six other universities. Student/instructor interviews and classroom observations in an EMI Master’s programme in political science.

Music

That both Chinese and international students engage in a wide range of translingual practices, involving language mixing and switching. That students had most difficulties with specialised terminology, as well as accents and speech rate.

21 Yuan and Li (2021)

The analysis of policy statements; interviews with faculty and administrators; classroom observations; and a student questionnaire (24 respondents) at one university.

17 Song and Lin (2020)

18 Dai and Wu (2021)

469

To analyse Chinese EMI programmes in terms of language ideology, language management, and language practices.

Unspecified

Political science

Various findings in relation to admissions, language support, and language use.

That students’ epistemic frameworks were shaped by the linguistic capital of English and the cultural capital of Americanised academic norms and discipline-specific knowledge. Business studies; That macro-level ideologies are in computer science; line with national development engineering and provide a foundation for meso-level management.

Unspecified music conservatory

Unspecified

Unspecified university in Shanghai

Unspecified

(Continued)

English-medium instruction in higher education in China

Aim of study

Table 32.6 (Continued) Author(s) 22 Zhang and PladevallBallester (2021)

470 24 Zhang and PladevallBallester (2022)

Methodology

Student disciplines

To investigate language learning outcomes in two EMI programmes related to film production and international trade. To investigate the relationship between students’ perceived success in EMI and their actual success in EMI.

Questionnaire survey to 144 students; disciplinespecific vocabulary and writing tests; English proficiency tests; and classroom observations. Survey questionnaire (106 respondents), examination data, and semi-structured interview data (29 respondents) from undergraduate students studying business management. The study involved a questionnaire survey of 141 students.

Two unspecified Film production; That the quantity of EMI universities in international trade exposure, the attention paid Xi’an to English by the teacher, and higher prior English proficiency are important factors in ensuring the success of EMI programmes. Unspecified Business studies That there is a significant university in relationship between perceived southern China success and academic success, and that there was a similar relationship between English proficiency and academic success.

To investigate students’ attitudes towards EMI programmes in the fields of international trade, film production, and project management.

Major findings

Film production; That students’ attitudes became international trade generally worse at the end of semester, and that students were less positive about the benefits of EMI at this point in their studies.

Location

Unspecified

Kingsley Bolton et al.

23 Xie and Curle (2022)

Aim of study

33 ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN INDONESIA Christopher Hill, Kingsley Bolton, and John Bacon-Shone

Introduction This chapter provides an overview of issues related to English-medium instruction (EMI) in contemporary Indonesian higher education.1 It begins with a detailed account of the sociolinguistic context, providing insight into the emergence of Bahasa Indonesia as the dominant language of the post-colonial nation, embodying the Javanese phrase Bhinekka Tunggal Ika, which translates into ‘Unity through diversity’. Since gaining independence in 1946, the country has undergone complex historical and social changes, and the complexity of its history is mirrored in the complexity of its linguistic profile, with more than 700 living languages, alongside major regional languages and a myriad of local languages spread across the archipelago.

The sociolinguistic context Indonesia is a society characterised by extreme diversity, comprising 4,000 islands, spanning 3,400 miles along the equator between Australia and Southeast Asia. The nation has approximately 400 ethnic groups, of which the two largest, the Javanese and Sundanese, account for around 40% and 15% respectively. There are also smaller ethnic groups such as Batak (4%), Malay (3%), Madurese (3%), Betawi (3%), Minangkabau (3%), Buginese (3%), Bantenese (2%), Banjarese (2%), Balinese (2%), Acehnese (1%), Dayak (1%), Chinese (1%), and Sasak (1%). With a population of more than 270 million, it is the world’s fourth most populous nation, where some 87% of citizens are Muslim, 10% are Catholic or Protestant, 2% Hindu, and around 1% Buddhist. Following the downfall of the dictator Suharto in 1998 and a return to parliamentary elections, Indonesia has become the world’s third-largest democracy (Hefner, 2018; Suryadinata, 2018). Although traditionally an agrarian society, Indonesia is becoming increasingly urbanised with around 55% of its population now living in cities, and a GDP per capita of 11,812 US$, placing it in the mid-range of Asian societies, slightly below China and Sri Lanka, but above the Philippines and India (Bolton, 2020).

Early history Archaeological evidence suggests that the islands were inhabited by homo erectus or ‘Java man’ more than 1 million years ago. The first modern people to reach the archipelago were the 471

DOI: 10.4324/9781003011644-37

Christopher Hill et al.

Melanesians, whose descendants still live in the areas of East Nusa Tenggara, southern Maluku and New Guinea. The vast majority of Indonesians, however, are of Austronesian descent, and their ancestors are believed to have migrated to the archipelago from Taiwan around 2000–3000 BCE. Over time, a patchwork of societies developed in various regions typically organised as separate empires and kingships. Possibly as the result of contact with Indian traders, many of these rulers eventually took on the trappings of Indian hierarchies, even adopting the titles of raja or maharaja. While historical sources from the early centuries of the contemporary era are scarce, it appears evident that various artefacts from the eighth and fifteenth centuries provide evidence of the ‘Indianization’ of key aspects of archipelago society at that time, including discoveries in Java, Sumatra, and East Kalimantan of Sanskrit inscriptions, sculptures of Buddhist and Hindu gods, the design of temples constructed between the eighth and ­fifteenth centuries, versions of Indian epics in local languages, forms of dance and music, placenames, and the large body of Sanskrit vocabulary in languages spoken today in the Indonesian archipelago. For several centuries, there were a succession of Buddhist-Hindu influenced states, including the trading empire of Srivijaya, which, from Palembang, established extensive trade with China and India from the seventh to twelfth centuries. One celebrated memorial from this era is Borobudur, the largest Buddhist temple in the world, which was built in Central Java between 760 and 830 CE (Taylor, 2003, pp. 21, 37). It is believed that the first Muslims who arrived in the archipelago were Indian traders and Arab merchants, who had begun arriving in Sumatra in the ninth century. By the thirteenth century, outposts of these traders were established in the trading centres of the islands. The conversion of various kingships and states to Islam was somewhat piecemeal at first, starting in the far north of Sumatra in the mid-fifteenth century. It later spread through various port cities in Java around 1,500, followed by Aceh in 1515, Madura in 1528, southern Sulawesi in 1605, and the large Javanese kingdom of Mataram in 1641 (Taylor, 2003, p. 66). The history of Islamic conversion, real or imagined, continues to influence contemporary society in important ways, as Taylor (2003) explains: Indonesia’s Islamic past is a heritage of stories, legends, and traditions: of miracles explaining how kings converted, of Muslim holy men whose feats of magic eclipsed the powers of Hindu and Buddhist priests, of heroes of Islamic literature and also of local heroes who embarked on journeys across Indonesian oceans and through Indonesian forests in quest of self-knowledge and a kingdom they would rule as sultan and caliph. This Islamic past infuses stories chanted in Malay, Buginese, and Javanese; it informs puppet theater; it permeates holy sites where Indonesia’s Muslim saints are buried. (Taylor, 2003, p. 75)

The colonial era The first European colonialists were the Portuguese, who established a fort and trading post in Malacca (Melaka in Malay) in 1511. They then established trading posts in various locations in the Molucca (Maluku) Islands, but by the end of the sixteenth century retained a presence only in Flores, Solor, and Timor. The Dutch East India Company or VOC (Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie) arrived in the islands in 1596, and by 1619 had founded the city of Batavia (which was renamed ‘Jakarta’ in 1942). The Dutch, like the Portuguese, were originally attracted to the 472

English-medium instruction in higher education in Indonesia

islands by spices such as cinnamon, cloves, nutmeg, and pepper, and the VOC later introduced a range of other cash crops, including cocoa, coffee, sugar, tea, tobacco, and rubber. By 1800, however, the VOC became bankrupt, and, as a result, its colonial settlements were taken over by the Dutch government to form the Dutch East Indies (Nederlands-Indië). The term ‘Indonesia’ allegedly dates from a British coinage in the 1850s, but most nineteenth century Dutch scholars preferred to use the term Nederlands-Indië or Maleische Archipel ‘Malay Archipelago’ (van der Kroef, 1951, p. 168). Throughout the nineteenth century, colonial Dutch rule was a patchwork affair and was never a unitary state, given that ‘sultanates headed by Indonesian kings existed inside its boundaries, alongside territories headed by Dutch administrators’. Even as Dutch modernity, with its roads and railways and other inventions, changed society, strong distrust between the communities ensured that ‘Dutch and Indonesian competed in scorn for each other inside the one colony’ (Taylor, 2003, p. 2400). As with the VOC, moreover, a major motivation for Dutch colonialism was the gain yielded from the cultivation and trade of such crops as coffee, indigo, and sugarcane, so that ‘[b]y the middle of the nineteenth century remittances from the East Indies […] were almost a third of all state revenues in the Netherlands’ (Hannigan, 2015, p. 136). An important shift in attitudes came in 1901, when the colonial government heeded the counsel of Dutch reformers residing in the colony. These reformers advocated for a new ‘Ethical policy’ aimed to improve education, healthcare, and standards of living for the Netherlands’ subjects in the East Indies. As a result of this policy, Dutch education began to proliferate throughout the archipelago. Although it did not extend to the masses, it did, at least, allow some children from the middle and upper classes the opportunity of a Western education. One notable young man who entered the Bandung Institute of Technology in 1921 to study architecture was Kusno Sosrodihardjo, better known as Sukarno. He later emerged as a leader of the nationalist movement against colonial rule. Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, Sukarno led the Indonesian National Party (PNI or Partai Nasional Indonesia) and campaigned for Indonesian independence. During World War Two, Sukarno supported the Japanese in exchange for their encouragement for his nationalist activities. In August 1945, two days after the surrender of the Japanese, Sukarno declared the independence of the Republic of Indonesia. However, in 1946, large numbers of Dutch soldiers returned to the country in an attempt to re-establish colonial rule. Between 1946 and 1949, there was an armed struggle between nationalist forces and Dutch troops. Eventually, after pressure from the United States, the Dutch relinquished control of Indonesia in 1949, and Sukarno became the first President of post-independent Indonesia.

Post-independence Indonesia The first years of Indonesia’s independence were marked by political instability. Sukarno argued that Western-style democracy was not suitable for Indonesia, and advocated a system of ‘guided democracy’ which involved a compromise between his own national party and the communist and Islamic political parties. From the mid-1950s, Sukarno played a leading role in the anti-imperialist ‘Non-Aligned Movement’, which brought together President Nasser from Egypt, Nehru from India, Tito from Yugoslavia, and Nkrumah from Ghana. In 1957, Sukarno nationalised 246 Dutch companies and expelled 40,000 Dutch citizens, and introduced a number of measures banning business activities by Chinese. In 1960, Sukarno disbanded parliament and replaced it with a new system where half the members were appointed. To counter-balance the power of the military, Sukarno relied on the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI). In 1960, he declared his government to be based on Nasakom, which united three ideologies: nasionalisme (‘nationalism’), agama (‘religions’) and komunisme (‘communism’). In 1964, Sukarno started an anti-American campaign and 473

Christopher Hill et al.

appeared to lean towards the communist bloc, forming a new alliance with China, North Korea, North Vietnam, and Cambodia. The opportunity to force Sukarno out of power came in October 1965, where an abortive military coup, the details of which remain the subject of much mystery, took place in Jakarta. It was then that Major General Suharto took control of the army, and gained power. In the following weeks, the army and Islamic organisations conducted a campaign to root out and execute members of the communist party, leftist organisations, and members of the Chinese community. In the following months, there were massacres throughout Indonesia, and between half a million and 1 million people died, and a further million were imprisoned. Eventually, in January 1967, Sukarno stood down as President for life, and Suharto became Acting President. Sukarno died three years later in June 1970. In retrospect, there appears little doubt that the United States played an active role in the coup. At a time when the United States was being drawn into the Vietnam war, it was thought geopolitically necessary to intervene, where, at the time, the PKI was the third-largest party of its kind in the world, after China and the Soviet Union (Bevins, 2017). Suharto was President for 31 years from the coup against Sukarno in 1967 until he himself was forced from power in 1998. After gaining power, Suharto instituted a new policy known as the ‘New Order’ but Suharto has been seen by many as both a corrupt dictator and ‘mass murderer’ (Pilger, 2008). With the support of the United States and other Western nations, Suharto opened the door to Western investment and multinational companies who wanted access to the country’s minerals, oil, lumber, and other raw resources. In 1975, he ordered the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, which resulted in its occupation by the Indonesian army until 1999, as well as around 200,000 deaths of Timorese, out of a population of around 700,000. The corruption of the Suharto family was legendary and it is alleged that Suharto and his family embezzled between 15 billion and 35 billion US dollars during his rule (Transparency International, 2004). Suharto’s downfall came shortly after the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis. In May 1998, thousands of university students occupied the parliament building and demanded his resignation, and on May 21, 1998, Suharto stepped down from power.

Indonesia in the twenty-first century B. J. Habibie, a German-trained engineer, assumed office as the third President of the nation in 1998 following Suharto. However, he was soon succeeded by Abdurrahman Wahid, who served as the fourth President from 1999 to 2001. Wahid was subsequently replaced by Megawati Sukarnoputri (the daughter of Sukarno), who was fifth President from 2001 until 2004. In 2004, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) was elected as the sixth President of Indonesia and held power from 2004 to 2014. SBY was succeeded by Joko Widodo (also known as Jokowi), the seventh and current President of Indonesia, who has won two elections against a diehard Suharto loyalist. Widodo came to power as a reformist with a vision of developing Indonesia into an advanced nation, but has since faced numerous challenges domestically, including pressures from the army as well as Islamic conservatives. After his re-election in 2019, his reputation has faded somewhat, with one commentator suggesting that Jokowi is now ‘struggling with the fundamental contradictions of the sprawling, diverse Indonesian nation’ and that ‘[l]ike Indonesia, Mr Widodo is caught between democracy and authoritarianism, Islam and pluralism, openness and protectionism’ (Bland, 2020).

Languages and language policies Indonesia is home to a total of 710 living languages, and to 14 indigenous languages that are now extinct (Ethnologue, 2023). It is calculated that 74% of the population can speak Bahasa 474

English-medium instruction in higher education in Indonesia

Indonesia, and, of these, only 16% are first language (L1) speakers, while the rest have learnt Indonesian as a second language (Ethnologue, 2021). In the 1920s, Bahasa Indonesia was chosen by early independence leaders to become the national language, and was formally adopted as such after the declaration of independence in 1945. As this was a lingua franca based on Malay, it was intended from the beginning that Bahasa Indonesia or, simply, ‘Indonesian’ would serve as a unifying purpose and not give an advantage to any particular political group or region. The national language remains the most important language of society today, and is a compulsory subject for all primary and secondary students, a requirement for entrance into public universities, and the main medium of instruction in the majority of higher education institutions. Some local languages, notably Javanese and Sundanese, have been used at various levels of education in primary and junior secondary school. However, many local languages have been marginalised, partly by the perceived need for the national language, and partly by the promotion of English (Kohler, 2019). English was introduced at secondary level in 1967, and by the late 1980s had become the preferred foreign language in the vast majority of schools. It was introduced as a primary school subject in 1990, and some schools even began using English as a teaching medium for science subjects. In 2003, a rather controversial system of International Standard Schools (Rintisan Sekolah Bertaraf Internasional) was established, where all such schools adopted English-language textbooks and used English as the primary medium of instruction. However, there was considerable pushback against this system, and in 2013, the Constitutional Court decided that such a system was discriminatory in privileging the wealthy, and the experiment was largely disbanded. The 2004 Competency-based Curriculum (Kurikulum Berbasis Kompetensi) stipulates that, in state schools, English should be taught as a local content subject, with two 35-minute classes per week in primary school. The 2004 law ‘clarified the place of English’ but did little to assist its implementation as it ‘[…] had no curriculum or teaching materials and instead, due to decentralisation, schools were expected to develop these locally’ and today ‘the status and quality of teaching English in primary schools has been, and remains, mixed’ (Kohler, 2019, p. 292). In 2015, a new curriculum was introduced, that at primary school, affirmed the status of Indonesian as a core subject along with a local language, decided by the school. According to this, English remains an ‘extra-curricular activity’, but schools with suitably qualified teachers are encouraged to offer it. At secondary school, Indonesian and English are required subjects. Kohler summarises the current situation at the tertiary level as one where generally ‘Indonesian is the dominant medium of instruction although the push towards internationalisation has led to an increase in courses taught in English and some expansion of the range of foreign languages including Japanese and Korean’ (Kohler, 2019, p. 293). Language policies in higher education related to English have been somewhat unclear, and it is apparent that different universities have adopted different practices. Simbolon (2018) notes that EMI in Indonesia has been implemented in a variety of different ways over the last 20 years, although the terms ‘bilingual classes’ or ‘international classes’ are often preferred, for various reasons. Simbolon also highlights the lack of clarity concerning policies on EMI in higher education: In Indonesia, currently there is no specific written regulation of EMI in higher education. […] the inclusion of English language instruction in the higher education curriculum is supported by [the 2012] Law, which advises universities to adopt one foreign language in the universities. […] The most current articulation of EMI practice in higher education institutions in Indonesia was raised by the Indonesian Menristekdikti in 2015 [Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology]. (Simbolon, 2018, p. 113) 475

Christopher Hill et al.

Simbolon further explains that on this occasion the Minister chose to talk about an EMI programme as a ‘bilingual curriculum’, and elsewhere used the terms ‘dual language program’ and ‘bilingual curriculum’ (p. 113).

Literature review The issue of EMI in Indonesian tertiary education is of rather recent origin, but, in recent years, several empirical studies have been conducted, which have typically investigated the responses of students and teachers to various forms of EMI instruction in higher education.

Studies of student and teacher responses to EMI Dewi (2014a) carried out qualitative interviews by email with 32 Indonesian students and university teachers to investigate two main research questions, namely (i) how Indonesian students and teachers viewed English in relation to communication, and (ii) whether they perceived English to affect their religious and ethnic identities. The findings revealed generally positive attitudes to English, with some respondents indicating that English might be used with other Indonesians in academic situations, as well as more broadly being typically used for communication with foreigners. Only one respondent believed that English had a negative effect on their identity while the majority of respondents believed that English was ‘related to the West’, but that this did not influence Indonesians in a negative fashion. A second study by Dewi (2014b) set out to investigate (i) whether or not English was seen as a form of imperialism and (ii) whether or not English influenced national or religious identities. Dewi interviewed 43 university administrators, faculty, and students at nine universities in Yogyakarta, and conducted a questionnaire survey with 305 respondents. Her findings indicated that ‘both staff and students of the nine Yogyakarta universities feel that English does not deteriorate their identity as Indonesians’ (Dewi, 2014b, p. 23). Dewi also suggested that ‘English competence provides Indonesian speakers of English with a “distinctive Indonesian identity”, a particular identity which is different from ordinary representations of the Indonesian language for national identity for English international communication’, and further added that ‘[t]he concept of identity needs to be allowed to develop in a flexible manner rather than being rigidly bound with national identity’ (pp. 23–24). Finally, Dewi concluded that her findings indicated that ‘English is thought to have a positive impact on people’s religious lives’ (p. 24). Floris (2014) investigated the views of students and teachers regarding the use of EMI at a large private university. A total of 382 students studying a range of disciplines took part in the survey, which was supplemented by classroom observation and interviews with teachers and students. Floris’ findings revealed that many students had difficulties in understanding spoken English and English-language teaching materials, and a clear majority were in favour of Indonesian rather than English as a medium of instruction. Interestingly, most teachers stated that they were happy in using English, and that their competence in the language was sufficient for the task. They also explained that they frequently code-switched in class to explain key concepts to students, because the adoption of EMI was hindered by the low proficiency of students at this university. Floris concluded that ‘both the students and teachers recognise the importance of English and the use of the language as a medium of instruction’, but ‘the majority of the students feel burdened when they need to respond in English’, and ‘have insufficient English ability to cope with the material of the content subjects’ and ‘the language barrier seems to affect the students’ academic performances’ (p. 57). Simbolon’s (2018) study (mentioned earlier) investigated (i) lecturers’ and administrators’ perspectives on EMI at the university, and (ii) the current policy of the university 476

English-medium instruction in higher education in Indonesia

to EMI. The results indicated that many teachers and administrators recognised the importance of English. However, the institutional policy on this issue was very unclear, there was a ‘lack of clarity of the arrangement of the implementation of EMI’, and the guidance for EMI ‘was likely to be conveyed orally [by the senior management] (through meetings and speech delivery) because there was no written evidence for this recommendation of EMI practice at the university’ (p. 123). Hamied and Lengkanawati (2018) investigated EMI at a teacher education college in Indonesia, where all subjects were taught through English. There were three research questions: (i) What policies were adopted as regards EMI? (ii) How competent and confident were the teachers? (iii) Were the students proficient enough in English? The paper commented fairly positively on the programme, although it did mention some concerns about its implementation. The researchers judged that the students responded quite well, as: [d]espite the fact that the overall students’ proficiency in English was not particularly accurate, the observed classroom interactions and other communicative transactions were run in an impressive, smooth flow of pedagogical steps and teaching-learning engagement [… and] we had an overall impression that classes were full of lively, interactive teaching-learning activities. (Hamied & Lengkanawati, 2018, p. 64) Less positively, they also cautioned that ‘the teachers’ linguistic competency in an EMI setting needs improvement’ (p. 66). The study by Pritasari, Reinaldo, and Watson (2019) focussed on the use of English as the medium of instruction at School of Business and Management at Bandung Institute of Technology, where officially all programmes are delivered through the medium of English, although there have been ‘considerable difficulties in implementing this decision’ (p. 2). The research issues for this study were (i) to investigate the level of English competence needed by students, (ii) to assess the current level of student ability, and (iii) to suggest measures to improve proficiency in English at the school. The research used a mixed-methods approach, including observations, interviews, and the analysis of essays, translations, and test results. Their informants included 14 students, three administrators, and five teachers. Their findings included the result that many students were not able to perform satisfactorily in English, even if they met the minimum requirements for entry. As far as the current level of student ability was concerned, the researchers concluded that most students only reached the equivalent of 535–575 in TOEFL, roughly equivalent to 6 in IELTS. They also concluded that more support was needed in the way of discipline-specific and ESP teaching for students. Sahiruddin, Junining, and Prawoto (2020) report on a survey of 58 students in a bilingual programme in a ‘non-English department’, where students were asked about their preference for a monolingual English programme as opposed to a bilingual programme. The results indicated that the ‘bilingual instruction approach’ was much preferred by students, and the researchers concluded that ‘one of the reasons is due to students’ limited proficiency’ as the ‘[l]ow level of English proficiency to some extent inhibits or impedes students’ ability to understand and comprehend teachers’ explanation in English’ (p. 208). Sela and Luke (2020) investigated EMI instruction delivered by 52 lecturers and 52 students at the private Bina Nusantara University (BINUS) in Jakarta. The research questions they asked were (i) how essential is English for communication in the 4.0 era, (ii) how to successfully implement EMI in the 4.0 era, and (iii) what challenges are faced by lecturers in implementing EMI. Their findings suggested that adopting EMI was ‘essential for sustaining communication in the era of “4.0”’ (p. 402). Despitasari (2021) focussed on one primary research issue, how ‘international class’ students in a private higher education institution perceive the importance of EMI. For this study, data was collected 477

Christopher Hill et al.

from 70 students studying a business communication course at the university using an online survey. The results indicated that the students responded positively to the EMI programme in their institution, understanding the importance of English for their learning and careers, and expressing satisfaction with the implementation of the EMI policy at their university. Doloksaribu and Simanjuntak (2021) investigated an EMI programme in the Faculty of Economy at Universitas Advent Indonesia (UNAI), using a qualitative approach and interviewing 10 informants taking the EMI programme. Overall, this study concluded that the programme had produced positive results and that it helped ‘prepare students for international business communication’ (p. 241). Doctoral dissertations on this topic also include Zentz’s (2012) ethnographic study of English learners at a Central Java university; and Simbolon’s (2016) investigation of university teachers’ attitudes to the implementation of EMI.

Studies of language policies In addition to the empirical studies discussed in the preceeding sections, a small number of studies have focussed on the formulation and implementation of language policies, with reference to higher education. Kohler’s (2019) chapter on ‘Language education policy in Indonesia’ surveys educational policy from the pre-colonial era to the recent past, with a primary emphasis on primary and secondary education. Other studies related to language policy and policy implementation include those by Zein (2020), Zein, Sukyadi, Hamied and Lengkanawati (2020), and Simbolon (2021). Zein’s (2020) book-length study of Language policy in superdiverse Indonesia, mainly examines the analysis of policies related to indigenous languages, the national language, and regional languages, while also offering an interesting commentary on English. In particular, Zein argues that the language should no longer be referred to as ‘English as a foreign language’ (EFL) but rather ‘English as a lingua franca’ (ELF), which better reflects the sociolinguistics of the times, and the effects of globalisation: First, English is currently playing a much greater role in the lives of Indonesians. Though English is generally not spoken in the workplace, many companies require applicants to demonstrate English proficiency. […] Meanwhile, those graduating from overseas tertiary institutions are usually offered higher salaries than local graduates. This creates a situation of linguistic duopoly where competence in both English and Indonesian has become socially normative for securing prestigious employment. (Zein, 2020, p. 46) If English is required for communication, it is often for interacting with other Asians, so that ‘cross-cultural interactions between Indonesians and their ASEAN counterparts make the most realistic setting for most Indonesians, rather than the traditionally defined “native speakers” of English from England or the United States’ (Zein, 2020, p. 48). Zein et al. (2020) provide a detailed review of English-language education in Indonesia, which also includes a short discussion of EMI, which emphasises that ‘the implementation of EMI must take into consideration the multilingual and multicultural nature of Indonesia, both from the point of view of teaching methods and teaching materials’ and that ‘[i]n a community with rich cultural values, EMI contents could be modified to cater to those cultural values’ (p. 512). Simbolon (2021) investigated the current implementation of EMI in a number of universities in Indonesia. The research questions related to (i) how EMI programmes were implemented; and (ii) what specific supports were available for EMI students and lecturers. This research was conducted in 2017 by email, with 15 universities responding to the invitation to participate. The study came up with a number of interesting findings, including the fact that the term ‘English-medium instruction’ was 478

English-medium instruction in higher education in Indonesia

used by only 7% of institutions, whereas 53% of institutions used the term ‘bilingual class’, and 40% used the term ‘international class’.

Methodology The methodology presented here discusses the methods used in this project with reference to two separate phases of data collection, with reference to (i) data collection at BINUS in 2018; and (ii) interviews with 17 university teachers from various universities across Indonesia, which were conducted online in early 2021.

Phase One: BINUS research project (2018) The data collection for Phase One of this project took place in February and November 2018, at BINUS. BINUS is well-known for its English-medium programme. It is important to emphasise that EMI education is only a small part of BINUS’ educational footprint, as the vast majority of its university programmes are delivered through the medium of Bahasa Indonesia at 10 campuses spread across the cities of Jakarta, Bandung, Malang, and Semerang. In 2022, BINUS held a world university ranking of #1001–1200 and was ranked #220 amoung universities in Asia (Binus University International Office, 2022; QS Quacquarelli Symonds Limited, 2022). Within Indonesia, BINUS is the highest ranked private university (QS Quacquarelli Symonds Limited, 2022). The overarching research issue was to investigate the implementation of EMI at BINUS University, while specific research questions were to investigate (i) the language backgrounds of students participating in the BINUS EMI programme; (ii) the difficulties these students faced studying in an EMI system; (iii) their use of languages inside and outside the classroom, and (iv) their attitudes to EMI education. The primary method of research utilised a printed questionnaire survey instrument. The questionnaire was fairly lengthy, comprising a total of 73 items, and was designed in bilingual form with all survey questions written in both English and Indonesian. A total of 458 undergraduates responded to the questionnaire. After the data was collected, it was then sent to the Social Sciences Research Centre at The University of Hong Kong, where the data was checked for consistency and codified.

Phase Two: Interviews with university educators (2021) Phase Two of the project took place in early January 2021, during which one member of the research team interviewed educators from 17 universities situated throughout the Indonesian archipelago. These educators were interviewed using a standardised questionnaire in semi-structured fashion to allow for wide-ranging discussion. The results of this stage of the research are presented later in this chapter.

Results from the BINUS project Questionnaire survey A total of 458 undergraduate students responded to the questionnaire, which represented 38.9% of the total active undergraduate population of 1,180, who were studying EMI programmes at the time of the survey in 2018. Most of the respondents to the survey were taking the vast majority of their university courses in English rather than Indonesian. The students were taking a range of subjects, including Business (54% of the sample), Computer Science (16%), Economics and Communication (15%), Design (8%), Humanities (4%), and Information Systems (3%). Around 479

Christopher Hill et al.

55% of respondents were male, and 45% female, which was rather close to the percentages for the university as a whole (53% male compared to 47% female). An overwhelming majority (93%) reported that they were born in Indonesia, while the others (7%) were born elsewhere, with the same percentages claiming Indonesian compared to foreign nationality.

The language backgrounds of students Students were asked a number of questions concerning their language backgrounds before studying at university, including their ‘mother tongue’. For this question, respondents were able to answer with more than one language. The majority of the sample (78%) claimed the national language as their mother tongue, but there were also smaller totals claiming various regional languages as mother tongues (including Javanese, Sundanese, Makassarese, Sasak, Madurese) as well as Chinese (7%) and English (7%). Among the respondents, 17% of them selected more than one language as their ‘mother tongue’ (Table 33.1). Students were also asked which languages other than their mother tongues were used at home. Remarkably, 45% of students reported using English at home, and a further 33% reported using a variety of Chinese, which strongly suggests that a large percentage of the students in our sample were from Indonesian-Chinese backgrounds. They were also asked about the languages they usually spoke with friends, and the results for this question are outlined in Table 33.2. It is noticeable that some 52% of the sample reported using English with friends. The survey also included a question on whether students judged themselves to be bilingual in English. Among those who responded, 35.9% claimed to be either ‘Completely’ or ‘Very’ bilingual, while another 45.8% considered themselves ‘Somewhat’ bilingual. A smaller percentage of students, 18.2% felt that they were only ‘A little’ or ‘Not at all’ bilingual. In addition, the majority of these undergraduates stated that they had a high level of proficiency in the English language, with 25.5% claiming to know English ‘Quite well’, 51.3% ‘Well’, and 15.4% ‘Very well’ (N = 454). Table 33.1  Claimed ‘mother tongue’ of students Language

%age

Indonesian Javanese Chinese variety English Sundanese Makassarese Sasak Madurese Minahasa Minangkabau Betawi Bugis Palembang Malay Acehnese Balinese Batak Mandailing Jambi Malay

78.7 9.9 7.0 7.0 2.9 2.6 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.3 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

N = 456

480

English-medium instruction in higher education in Indonesia Table 33.2 Language(s) usually spoken with friends Language

%age

Indonesian English Chinese variety Betawi Makassarese Sundanese Minangkabau Balinese Jambi Malay Minahasa Batak Simalungun Bugis Palembang Malay

90.6 52.2 4.4 1.3 1.3 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2

N = 456

Students’ experiences of EMI In order to understand students’ experiences in contending with EMI, they were asked a range of questions concerning their encounters with the English language at university. The respondents were asked about the proportion of their English-medium classes that were delivered in spoken English. Among the respondents, 46% indicated that 100% of their classes were conducted in spoken English, another 41% indicated that 75% of their classes were delivered in English, while 9% indicated that 50% of their classes were delivered in spoken English and just 3% indicated that 25% or less of their classes were conducted in spoken English. The students’ were also asked whether their English proficiency met their needs in their EMI courses. The majority of students (65%) felt their English proficiency met their needs either ‘Very well’ or ‘Well’ in their English-medium courses. Another 32.3% believed that their English proficiency met their needs ‘Fairly well’. Only 1.6% of respondents felt their English proficiency met their needs ‘Poorly’ or ‘Very Poorly’.

Reading and writing in the EMI programme Students were asked several questions about the perceived difficulty of reading academic texts and writing academic materials. Furthermore, their responses to these questions generally reflected a degree of proficiency in English among this group of undergraduates. A total of 82.2% of students stated that they found the task of academic reading either ‘Very easy’ or ‘Quite easy’. Students were also asked about the types of academic texts that they needed most help with reading. The participants indicated that academic articles (46.5%) and case studies (38.4%) to be the texts that they needed most assistance with. In the case of writing academic English, 75.3% claimed that they found it ‘Very easy’ or ‘Quite easy’ to write about their discipline in English. The students were also asked about the writing tasks they needed most help with. A large proportion (58.3%) claimed that academic essay writing was the task they needed most support with. This was followed by proposals (43.1%), reports (40.3%), and case studies (26.0%), respectively. 481

Christopher Hill et al.

Speaking English in the EMI programme The majority of students, 71.6%, indicated that they had no difficulty speaking English in their English-medium courses, while a minority, 15%, stated that they did have difficulty speaking English in their EMI courses. Students were also asked about the extent to which they needed to improve their English communication skills to get the best results from their EMI courses. As illustrated in Table 33.3, a total of 67.4% of undergraduates responded that they needed to improve their English communication skills ‘Very much’, ‘A lot’, or ‘Quite a lot’, while 32.6% replied that they needed to improve their English communication skills only ‘A little’ or ‘Not at all’. For some, this result might seem contradictory, in the sense that it tends to contradict previous responses concerning self-reports of English proficiency. Another interpretation would be that, although most students in this group report few difficulties in studying through EMI, even highly-proficient students regard themselves as L2 users of the language, for whom improvement on a cline of bilingualism is always possible.

Mixing languages in the EMI programme Students were asked a range of questions related to language mixing by their teachers as well as by the students. Of those who responded, 15% of students reported that their teachers mixed languages ‘About half the time’ or ‘Very often’. When it came to student behaviour, the estimates of language mixing were much higher, with a total of 57% of students stating that other students mixed languages ‘Always’, ‘Very often’, or ‘About half the time’. In addition, students were also asked about their own habits of language mixing, with a total of 66% of students reported mixing languages ‘Always’, ‘Very often’, or ’About half the time’.

The use of English by students outside the EMI classroom Students were asked about their use of English in their spare time, and the results for this are presented in Table 33.4. From this table, it is clear that many students in the sample report use English in their spare time for a wide range of leisure activities, including Internet searches, video games, travel and reading, online socialising, clubs/hobbies, online chats, messaging and socialising with friends.

Table 33.3  Perceived need to improve English communication skills Extent

%age

Very much A lot Quite a lot A little Not at all Total

 10.0  21.9  35.5  29.0   3.6 100

N = 442

482

English-medium instruction in higher education in Indonesia Table 33.4  Students’ use of English outside university Activity

Always/75% of the time

Internet searches Gaming Travel Reading Social media Clubs/hobbies Online chats Messaging Socialising with friends

82.5 77.5 68.7 59.4 46.9 43.8 40.8 35.7 33.9

N = 432–441

Interpreting the BINUS survey results Overall, the survey results indicated that the students taking EMI courses at BINUS generally claimed rather high levels of proficiency in English, and were coping rather well with the demands of their studies, even though the major medium of instruction was English. A total of 92% of these undergraduates claimed to speak English ‘Quite well’, ‘Well’, or ‘Very well’, and 82% reported that they were ‘Somewhat’, ‘Very’ or ‘Completely’ bilingual. The students also reported relatively fewer difficulties in studying through the English language. However, the majority, 67.4%, felt they needed to further improve their English communication skills to obtain better results in their EMI courses. The general impression given by such results was of a cohort of students rather adept at using English for academic purposes, who also reported using English widely in their personal lives. One rather obvious reason for these results was that the university is a private fee-paying university, and that its students are typically drawn from middle-class and upper-class backgrounds. Many of the BINUS students also come from private international high schools, and are, thus, by no means typical of the wider student population in Indonesian higher education. We can also infer from the results on language backgrounds that a substantial number of students come from Chinese Indonesian backgrounds. The entry requirements for admission to the EMI programmes at BINUS require a TOEFL score of 550 or higher and a TWE score of at least 4.0, with international students making up 4.3% of the annual intake at BINUS (BINUS University International, 2022; Times Higher Education, 2022). Additionally, the university offers international scholarships with a minimum IELTS 6.0 across all components or equivalent (QS Quacquarelli Symonds Limited, 2022). Finally, international faculty make up 5% of the faculty at BINUS (Binus University International, 2021). From our interactions with local faculty at the university, we observed that a large percentage had received PhD qualifications from overseas universities including the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada.

Interview results with Indonesian educators Data collection and respondents Phase Two of the research, as detailed in this chapter, took place in January 2021, when we interviewed 17 Indonesian educators through online Zoom interviews. Originally, our plan was

483

Christopher Hill et al.

to conduct face-to-face interviews, but the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 made this impossible. Suitable interviewees were identified through the researchers’ academic networks, as well as through scrutiny of the research literature, and potential informants were invited by email to participate in discussions about EMI in Indonesian higher education. The interviewees were from a wide range of public and private institutions in a number of different locations throughout Indonesia (Table 33.5). Table 33.5  Educator interviewees Interviewee

Gender

Location of university

Status

Position

 I1

Female

Bandung, West Java

Private

 I2

Male

Makassar, South Sulawesi

Private

 I3  I4

Female Female

Surabaya, East Java Yogyakarta, Central Java

Private Public

 I5

Female

Malang, East Java

Private

 I6

Female

Surabaya, East Java

Private

 I7

Male

Surabaya, East Java

Private

 I8

Female

Padang, West Sumatra

Public

 I9

Female

Pontianak, West Kalimantan Public

I10

Male

Makassar, South Sulawesi

Public

I11

Female

Jakarta, West Java

Public

I12

Female

Kudus, Central Java

Private

I13

Female

Public

I14

Male

I15

Male

Semarang, Central Java Yogyakarta, Central Java Bandung, West Java

Lecturer in the Department of Industrial Engineering Lecturer in Education in the Faculty of Teacher Training and Education Lecturer in the English Department Professor of English in the Department of English Language Education Lecturer in the Department of English Lecturer in the Department of International Business Management Senior Lecturer in the Department of International Business Management Senior Lecturer in the English Department Associate Professor in the Department of Marine and Fisheries Associate Professor in the Department of English Language Education Lecturer in English in the Faculty of Humanities Lecturer in the English Education Department Associate Professor in the English Language Department Lecturer in the English Department

I16

Male

Bandung, West Java

Public

I17

Male

Mataram, West Nusa Tenggara

Public

Public Public

484

Professor in the Department of English Education Professor in the Department of English Education Senior Lecturer in the Department of English

English-medium instruction in higher education in Indonesia

Interview topics During the semi-structured interviews with educators, a range of topics were discussed. These included the terminology used in EMI in Indonesia, language policies, programme implementation, the language abilities and language attitudes of students and teachers, and the popularity of EMI programmes in the nation’s universities. The answers to these questions are summarised in the subsequent results section.

Interview results Terms for EMI in Indonesia In the discussions with the educators, it was evident that the term ‘English-medium instruction’ was used very rarely. Instead, the most common terms used by them were ‘international class’ or ‘international programme’ (at 10 universities), or ‘bilingual approach’, ‘bilingual class’, or ‘bilingual programme’ (at six universities).

Government and university policies on EMI One matter which was highlighted in the discussions with educators was that many thought that the policy of the national government was somewhat unclear, and a number of teachers discussed the difficulties involved in interpreting policies. In the extract, the educator suggests that, in practice, universities had to interpret policy very liberally: The government has a policy that all universities should open international classes, but that the medium of instruction should be the Indonesian language, not English language. […] but in practice, I think in the majority of universities, the international classes are classes welcoming overseas students, as well as some Indonesian students, but the delivery language is English. (University educator)

The implementation of EMI It became evident talking to the educators that the implementation of EMI varied greatly from university to university, and those tertiary institutions often took a very pragmatic approach to adapting EMI to the needs of the institution, and to the needs of the students, as seen in the following comments by I4: We had a policy of introducing kind of a school of international standard […] but we changed the programme into a kind of smart class in which English is used, but it was bilingual, you know, half English half Indonesian, but the students are very motivated in using English. I have talked to the lecturers – they are very patient in well meeting the student needs. If the students say it’s okay to use English, then that’s okay, but if it’s too much burden for them, then they say, ‘please switch into Indonesian’. But if the substance is easy enough, and, you know, no problem of new vocabulary, etc. they are happy using English. (I4, Female, Professor, Department of English Language Education, Yogyakarta)

485

Christopher Hill et al.

Some educators mentioned that the international programmes at their universities had also been established in response to internationalisation and the need to provide English-medium courses for incoming students: The university wants us to have more international collaborations in which you have to use English as a medium of instruction to teach those foreign students, and also to have international programmes. We have five or so international programmes, although the students and the teachers, most of them are Indonesians but they are for foreign students who stay at the university for about a semester, and join those kinds of programmes. (I3, Female, Lecturer, English Department, Surabaya) Of the 17 institutions discussed, two colleges offered little or no English-medium instruction, other than courses taught through English in the English department. Nevertheless, it was clear that most universities did offer bilingual or international classes, at the very least, in two or three subjects. Across the 17 universities, these included accountancy, biology, economics, education, engineering, geography, industrial engineering, information systems, information technology, management, mathematics, mechanical engineering, medicine, pharmacy, physics, politics, science, and social science.

The English-language abilities and attitudes of students The teachers’ judgements of the students’ proficiency in English was generally that the students’ English-language abilities varied considerably, as reported by I6: To join the international class, everyone can actually join as long as they have the very basic English. That’s why there is quite a gap between the good students and the weak ones. And I tried to speak with them outside the class or sometimes in the class, and it is obvious that the ones who haven’t got English in their high school, like delivered in international school, they are struggling and they often use Bahasa Indonesia literally word by word translated into English, which is very odd. But I have to appreciate their will and still encourage them. (I6, Female, Lecturer, Department of International Business Management, Surabaya) Despite this, some teachers did claim that standards of English were generally on the rise at their university, as in the report from I3: I think it’s getting better particularly in the Faculty of Economics. […] The students are good, you know, expressing themselves in English […] They can talk, you know, the content, mathematics, business management, everything in English – talking to the teachers in English outside and inside the classroom. (I3, Female, Lecturer, English Department, Surabaya) The teachers also reported that students’ attitudes towards English were generally positive, even among some of the weaker students, as noted by I15: Generally, I can say that their attitude is positive. […] Mostly they consider that English is a very important language. It is needed for international communication, it is needed to learn

486

English-medium instruction in higher education in Indonesia

science and technology, it is needed for us to become global citizens […] but the weaker students will still consider English difficult to learn. (I15, Male, Professor, Department of English Education, Bandung)

The English-language abilities and attitudes of teachers Additionally, the educators we interviewed typically responded that the English proficiency of teachers at their universities varied a great deal, as noted by I11: The senior lecturers […] didn’t have to be able to use English in their career. Even in writing, the push toward international publication happened maybe 10 or 15 years, recently. In the past, to become a professor, you don’t actually have to have an international publication, you can just publish locally, nationally and you can become a professor. […] Now, for the junior lecturers, I’m not saying that all of them are fluent in English, but I think they are more confident in using the language because, you know, the exposure and they consume more media, you know, using English. (I11, Female, Lecturer, English Department, Jakarta) Others, however, reported very positively on the English abilities of teachers, not only for teaching, but also for writing research articles, as suggested by I4: The bilingual teachers, especially those who […] graduated from Australia, from America, from UK, you know, they have been trained during their study abroad, though, of course, they have to maintain, especially academic English writing. But in speaking, you know, it’s no problem at all. And the very young lecturers who just came back, and they are very productive in research, they have published, you know, in international journals and I think it’s a relief, you know, I am, as the older generation, I’m relieved to see that. (I4, Female, Professor, Department of English Language Education, Yogyakarta)

The popularity of EMI Responses to this question varied somewhat among the interviewees. For some, the answer seemed to be clearly in the affirmative, not least for reasons linked to internationalisation, as depicted in I16’s comments: I think it’ll be growing with different types of programmes, especially now higher education institutions are encouraged to cater to international students. And therefore, the consequence of which is the programme should be conducted in English. The second thing is in terms of cooperation between universities, and we are assessed on the basis of cooperation with, let’s say, one of the best 100 universities in the world. So then we are encouraged to have a programme on our campus which could not only cater students from within Indonesia, but also from abroad. (I16, Male, Professor, Department of English Education, Bandung)

487

Christopher Hill et al.

Another educator, I10, commented that younger academics entering the profession typically had documented abilities in English, while at the same time acknowledging the need to balance the use of English and Bahasa Indonesia at university level. For the new generation, for the new recruitment of the lecturers right now, one of the criteria is they should be able to have certain competencies in English, or they need to prove that they have English competence through publication. […] In the coming in next 10 or 15 years, I can see those all the young lecturers who will dominate will be bilingual or multilingual. […] So there is a divide between those who are pro-internationalization and those who are maintaining Bahasa Indonesia. But I guess for myself, we can use both at the same time. (I10, Male, Associate Professor, Department of English Language Education, Makassar)

Conclusion This chapter has examined two rather different research projects, which we referred to above as Phase One and Phase Two of the research. In Phase One, we conducted fieldwork in Jakarta, mainly using quantitative methods to investigate undergraduate responses to EMI at a private university, BINUS. The results of this survey showed that students came from a wide range of language backgrounds, and generally shared a high level of proficiency in English. They typically reported low levels of difficulty in studying in their EMI programme, and revealed a high level of code-switching and code-mixing (‘translanguaging’) inside and outside the classroom. The students also reported largely positive attitudes to EMI education, and 77% stated that they ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ to English-medium instruction. Our research at BINUS indicated that the undergraduate students reported few problems when participating in EMI programmes. However, given the social characteristics of this group, one cannot generalise these results to all EMI programmes in the country. As noted earlier, the students at this institution were not representative of most tertiary students in Indonesia. Many mentioned having attended private schools, and many also reported using English (45%) and Chinese (33%) at home. In addition, the private university they attended (BINUS) has a reported appeal to parents and children from middle and upper-class backgrounds. Recognising that the results of the BINUS research could not be taken to be representative of higher education as a whole, we believed it vital to extend the study to a much greater range of institutions. Accordingly, in early 2021, we conducted a series of interviews with educators from many regions of Indonesia. In these interviews, various academics (Lecturers, Senior Lecturers, Associate Professors, and Professors) gave us a great deal of information about EMI in their institutions. These interviews provided a number of interesting insights. For example, it became evident that the term ‘English-medium instruction’ was rarely used in the Indonesian context. Instead, the preferred term, in most institutions, was ‘international class’ or ‘bilingual class’. Second, it was clear from the interviews that teachers on the frontline had a pragmatic approach to using English in the classroom, and, that the use of English was often supplemented by code-switching and code-mixing. Teachers also commented on the English proficiency of students, noting that this varied greatly, and was influenced by social class as well as geographical location. Similarly, with regard to the English proficiency of teachers, it was reported that this typically varied according to age, with younger faculty having fewer problems in using English. Finally, despite the problems of EMI, there was a general agreement that various forms of ‘EMI’ education, as in bilingual and

488

English-medium instruction in higher education in Indonesia

international classes, were likely to continue, given the government’s continuing promotion of internationalisation in higher education.

Acknowledgement The research project discussed in this chapter was supported by the Ministry of Education, Singapore, under its Academic Research Fund Tier 1 (Grant number RG64/18(NS)).

Note 1 An earlier article reporting on this research was published in the journal World Englishes (Bolton, Hill, Bacon-Shone, & Peyronnin, 2023).

References Bevins, V. (2017). What the United States did in Indonesia. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/the-indonesia-documents-and-the-us-agenda/543534/ BINUS University International. (2021, June 28). BINUS University is listed as the only university with a 5-star rating in the top universities in Indonesia. Retrieved from https://io.binus.ac.id/2021/06/28/binusuniversity-is-listed-as-the-only-university-with-a-5-star-rank-in-the-top-10-universities-in-indonesia/ BINUS University International. (2022, June 13). Binus University International: Method of education delivery. Retrieved from https://curriculum.binus.ac.id/binus-international-education-program/2/ BINUS University International Office. (2022). Global recognition. Retrieved from https://global.binus.ac.id/ about-bcc/global-recognition/ Bland, B. (2020, September 22). Dream state: Widodo struggles to build his vision for Indonesia. Financial Times. Retrieved from. https://www.ft.com/content/322c7f9b-310a-4c4f-ae6e-598328f59028 Bolton, K. (2020). Modernity, globalisation and Asian Englishes. In R. A. Giri, A. Sharma, & J. D’Angelo (Eds.), Functional variations in English: Theoretical considerations and practical challenges (pp. 17–32). Springer Nature. Bolton, K., Hill, C., Bacon-Shone, J., & Peyronnin, K. (2023). EMI (English-medium instruction) in Indonesian higher education. World Englishes, 42, 424–446. Despitasari, N. W. P. (2021). Students’ perception of English medium of instruction (EMI) in Indonesia: A case study in a business communication course in a private higher education institution (HEI). Journal of Arts & Humanities, 10(4), 40–50. Dewi, A. (2014a). Perception of English in relation to communication and identity: A study of Indonesian lecturers, teachers, and tertiary students. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 24, 1–21. Dewi, A. (2014b). Is English a form of imperialism? A study of academic community’s perceptions at Yogyakarta universities in Indonesia. Asian Englishes, 15(1), 4–27. Doloksaribu, N., & Simanjuntak, D. C. (2021). Students’ perspective and experience on the use of English as medium of instruction in introduction to business class: A qualitative interview study. PROJECT (Professional Journal of English Education), 4, 230–243. Ethnologue. (2021). Ethnologue: Languages of Indonesia (24th ed.). SIL International. Ethnologue. (2023). Indonesia. Retrieved from https://www.ethnologue.com/country/ID/#summary Floris, F. D. (2014). Learning subject matter through English as the medium of instruction: Students’ and teachers’ perspectives. Asian Englishes, 16(1), 47–59. Hamied, F. A., & Lengkanawati, N. S. (2018). Case study: EMI in Indonesia. In R. Barnard & Z. Hasim (Eds.), English medium instruction programs: Perspectives from South East Asian universities (pp. 55–69). Routledge. Hannigan, T. (2015). A brief history of Indonesia. Tuttle Publishing. Hefner, R. W. (2018). Indonesia at the crossroads: Imbroglios of religion, state, and society in an Asian Muslim nation. In R. W. Hefner (Ed.), Routledge handbook of contemporary Indonesia (pp. 3–30). Routledge. Kohler, M. (2019). Language education policy in Indonesia: A struggle for unity in diversity. In A. Kirkpatrick & A. Liddicoat (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of language education policy in Asia (pp. 286–297). Routledge.

489

Christopher Hill et al. Pilger, J. (2008). Suharto, the model killer, and his friends in high places. Retrieved from http://johnpilger. com/articles/suharto-the-model-killer-and-his-friends-in-high-places Pritasari, A., Reinaldo, H., & Watson, C. W. (2019). English-medium instruction in Asian business schools: A case study. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 40, 1–13. QS Quacquarelli Symonds Limited. (2022). Bina Nusantara University (BINUS). Retrieved from https:// www.topuniversities.com/universities/bina-nusantara-university-binus#p2-rankings Sahiruddin, J. E., & Prawoto, S. (2020). The implementation of English as a medium of instruction in an Indonesian EFL setting. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 456, 205. Sela, S. T., & Luke, J. Y. (2020). English as medium of instruction implementation for communication and sustainability in 4.0 era. Ethical Lingua: Journal of Language Teaching and Literature, 7(2). https://doi. org/10.30605/25409190.219 Simbolon, N. E. (2016). Lecturers’ perspectives on English medium instruction (EMI) practice in Indonesian higher education (EdD thesis). Curtin University, Perth. Simbolon, N. E. (2018). EMI in Indonesian higher education: Stakeholders’ perspectives. TEFLIN Journal: A Publication on the Teaching & Learning of English, 29, 108–128. Simbolon, N. E. (2021). English medium instruction (EMI) practice: Higher education internationalization in Indonesia. Englisia: Journal of Language, Education, and Humanities, 8(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.22373/ ej.v8i2.8961 Suryadinata, L. (2018). Ethnic groups and the Indonesian nation-state. In R. W. Hefner (Ed.), Routledge handbook of contemporary Indonesia (pp. 43–53). Routledge. Taylor, J. G. (2003). Indonesia: Peoples and histories. Yale University Press. Times Higher Education. (2022). BINUS University. Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/ world-university-rankings/binus-university Transparency International. (2004). Global corruption report 2004. Pluto Press. van der Kroef, J. M. (1951). The term Indonesia: Its origin and usage. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 71, 166–171. Zein, S. (2020). Language policy in superdiverse Indonesia. Routledge. Zein, S., Sukyadi, D., Hamied, F. A., & Lengkanawati, N. S. (2020). English language education in Indonesia: A few of research. Language Teaching, 53, 491–523. Zentz, L. (2012). Global language identities and ideologies in an Indonesian university context (PhD thesis). The University of Arizona, Arizona.

490

34 ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN JAPAN Glenn Toh

Introduction English-medium instruction (EMI) in Japan is a complex subject, especially in a country that lacks an English-speaking hinterland. In Japan, Japanese has historically been the principal language of instruction, supported by a nation-statist cultural politics which remains influential in policymaking and implementation. Such politics have been the source of struggles over long-standing issues like school curricula and textbook content or in the present case, the use of what is perceived as a foreign language as instructional medium. To understand EMI in Japan, it is necessary to examine the following key concerns: (1) the cultural politics of English as a non-Japanese language, with implications for the way English is taught; (2) government policies and initiatives relating to internationalisation; (3) issues and challenges vis-à-vis knowledge, meaning-making, inclusivity, diversity, and their implications for academic inquiry in English; and (4) ways in which institutions, where content subjects are taught in English, conceptualise and put EMI into practice. To understand the emergent and extant issues surrounding EMI in Japan, prevailing discourses surrounding relevant policies and practices must be carefully analysed. The approach taken in this chapter to analyse these discourses and their underlying ideologies is based on the recognition that: (1) ideologies are in practice ‘ways in which meaning (or signification) serves to sustain relations of domination’ (Thompson, 1987, p. 519), and (2) discursive acts of legitimation, dissimulation, fragmentation, and reification are ways in which ideologies can be perpetuated (Thompson, 1987). By so recognising their strategies and inner workings, ideologies which are not immediately apparent can be made visible in situations where they: (a) legitimate certain particularised meanings as being valid and worthy of support; (b) dissimulate or conceal relations and social processes of asymmetry; (c) divide or fragment different groups in order to accentuate difference, and (d) reify a transitory, fluid, or negotiable state of affairs as being natural, permanent, and timeless (Thompson, 1987). In similar vein, Eagleton (1991) recognises that ideology can also promote beliefs favourable to an existing domain of power; naturalise dominant values to make them self-evident; and exclude or obscure alternative forms of thought or social reality. This approach creates the space to explore how different values and ideologies can gain a foothold in epistemologies, beliefs, and practices relating to the following areas: (i) The appropriation and treatment of English in Japan, and consequently (ii) the ways in which the language is taught, 491

DOI: 10.4324/9781003011644-38

Glenn Toh

with particular attention to curricular and pedagogical domains. With reference to these two issues, it is clear that beliefs about ‘internationalization’ are important considerations for attention and analysis. Furthermore, a full understanding of these issues can be gained not only from the published literature, reflecting the latest intellectual conversations, but also from the institutional sites and spaces where the underlying assumptions on which EMI decisions are based can be better understood. The first sections of this chapter are devoted to the examination of published literature, particularly works discussing professional viewpoints and unfolding developments imbricating the adoption and implementation of EMI, while subsequent sections examine institutional (web) sites and spaces and what they reveal about specific areas of EMI within these institutions. In sum, the chapter seeks to bring to bear assumptions and ideologies as they relate to EMI in order to understand their inner workings and enactments, in this case, given the particularities of competing discourses in which the cultural politics of change-versus-status quo contribute to inherent tensions and complexities. Considering the nature of these complexities, it remains possible for EMI to be regarded with caution by certain quarters of the political establishment, especially by those who are of the view that globalisation of itself poses a threat to values that are identifiably Japanese (Yamagami & Tollefson, 2011). In all the undertakings of inquiry in this chapter, one is reminded of the following observation from noted educator, Paulo Freire: Knowledge of reality is essential for developing self-consciousness and a subsequent increase of knowledge. But if it’s to be authentic, this act of knowing always requires the unveiling of its object. (Freire, 1985, p. 168) The work of unveiling the object of the present study is to achieve a better understanding of EMI in Japan in a manner that is commensurate with the complexity of its aims, purposes, agendas, and underpinnings.

Primordial conceptualisations of Japaneseness and English Japan’s motivation to internationalise arose from opinions among policy makers that misperceptions of Japan brought on by trade wars with America had to be ameliorated or managed by means of opening up Japan to a form of internationalisation that would act as an antidote to Japan’s ‘misunderstood image in foreign countries’ (Aspinall, 2013, p. 83). Particularly, in order that ‘hearts and minds in America’ (p. 83) would be made to better understand Japanese ways, English was interpolated into this unique form of internationalisation as a means by which Japanese viewpoints could then be explained (Aspinall, 2013; Burgess, Gibson, Klaphake, & Selzer, 2010; Hashimoto, 2013; Kubota, 2002; Seargeant, 2009; Toh, 2019). According to Kubota (2002), this form of internationalisation was, in fact, a move or convergence towards Japan-centredness. Debates concerning internationalisation and the nature of Japan’s relations with the world have been traced to a 200-year period in history in which Japan was in a state of self-imposed isolation as a means of protection from colonisation (Burgess et al., 2010; Seargeant, 2009). Even today, aspects of the ‘protectionist and ideologically regulated character’ of Japan’s dealings with the rest of the world has been regarded as being ‘rooted within this history of self-isolation’, epitomised in the construction of the artificial island of Dejima in Nagasaki harbour where foreign residents were interned (Seargeant, 2009, p. 70). Willis (2008) considers ‘the image/reality of Dejima’ to still be relevant even though Japan has entered the twenty-first century, particularly as ‘a metaphor of external relations and internal prejudices’ (p. 240; also see discussion on Osaka University’s Human 492

English-medium instruction in higher education in Japan

Science EMI programme later). While internationalisation has been regarded as an inverted or self-referencing way of promoting Japaneseness (Kubota, 2002; Seargeant, 2009), one of its noted consequences has been the growth of an influential body of literature ‘promoting the idea of nationalist uniqueness’ (Seargeant, 2009, p. 73). This body of literature, called nihonjinron (‘principles of Japaneseness’) literature, is known for the way its attempts to define what it means to be Japanese have resulted in essentialised characterisations of Japanese identity and society (Befu, 2001). Such essentialism obscures what are, in fact, situated ‘notions constructed via ideologies of modern nation-state building and maintenance’, notions that treat, for example, the Japanese language as a bounded unit or entity (Doerr, 2014). Adherents of nihonjinron, however, seek to affirm the basis of their beliefs in naturalistic reasonings that suggest the influence of oversimplified forms of apriorism, a ‘Japanliness’ as ‘the crux of Japanese culture’ tied into primordial affiliations with soil, climate, geography, and cultural life (Befu, 2001, p. 33). As will be noted, assertions of Japanese uniqueness in nihonjinron literature and the way in which English, as the supposed antithesis of Japaneseness, is relegated indexically to non-Japanese spaces, will have an impact on such demands as would invariably have to be placed on it as a medium for academic instruction.

The treatment and appropriation of English To better understand the challenges facing current EMI initiatives in Japan, it is crucial to provide some background on how English is taught, perceived, and adopted. The following sections focus on Japanese perceptions of internationalisation and how they influence the teaching and learning of English. It will become apparent that certain aspects of the treatment and appropriation of English in Japan are supported by policy and institutional structures which make it inherently challenging for the language to also be regarded as a medium for serious academic and/or disciplinary inquiry.

Anomalies relating to English as exotica and ornament Seargeant (2009) describes British Hills, a theme park and leisure complex in mainland Japan, as ‘a fully realized simulation’ of ‘an authentic English-speaking environment’ (p. 87). However, beyond its role as an English-speaking leisure complex complete with hotel facilities, Bristish Hills is, in fact, an education outfit, owned by the same Japanese company that also operates a university of international studies. In this capacity, British Hills packages ‘a leisure brief’ with one that is supposedly educational by having students ‘feel fully immersed in an English-speaking environment’, albeit one that resonates with that of an experience of ‘an exotic culture’ (Seargeant, 2009, p. 87). The choreographed aspects of such a more-English-than-England environment includes buildings shipped over from the United Kingdom, imported furniture and fittings, ‘Cadburys chocolate, teddy bears [and] tea’ sold in the souvenir shop, as well as native English-speaker teachers and hospitality staff (Seargeant, 2009, p. 88). Seargeant (2009) considers such choreography to be ‘an extreme example’ of ‘the way in which English is perceived within Japan’ (p. 88). British Hills epitomises an ornamentalised yet trivialised form of English language education that precisely for this reason makes it viable as a commercial undertaking that renders ‘authentic’ English as a commodified product. If its association with a resort and cultural theme park like British Hills relegates English to the margins of life in Japan, the concept of learning to communicate in English may also be reduced to episodic bits of rarified experiences such as going on a homestay in faraway United States. Marketed perfectly as the ideal experience for learning to speak in English, homestays are supposed to portray or mimic how English is supposed to be used with real people in real life. In New horizon 493

Glenn Toh

English course (Book 2), a high school textbook published by Tokyo Shoseki and approved for use in Japanese state schools, a homestay experience in all its ephemerality is where students learn, if only for a brief moment in their lives, to speak out in English for themselves and to make their own beds. Collocating the speaking of English with the rarity of bed making is perhaps not to be viewed as incidental to the fact that Japanese rarely sleep on beds but on futons and that bed making is not part of a Japanese individual’s daily routine. As foreign or unfamiliar as the making of beds and the speaking in English for oneself would be, language relating to the cleaning of one’s bathroom or doing one’s own laundry, would also not exactly be of the type which one would associate with being ready for engagement with academic content. This same concept of the homestay experience is revealed in a later section (see discussion on mistaking reductionism for innovation) to be repackageable for the teaching of English in higher education. What may in fact be the assumption is that English in Japanese high schools and English at university can be merged seamlessly and conflated unproblematically, in other words, collapsed into being part of one and the same experience of mastering sundry forms of conversational English – via activities atypical of life in Japan.

Problems regarding the teaching of English and its role in academia English is documented to have played a symbolic role of appeasement in what became known as the ‘Ron-Yasu’ Summit, when Japanese Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone and American President Ronald Reagan met in 1986 (Aspinall, 2013; McConnell, 2000). The actual form of Japan’s gift of appeasement came in the shape of the JET (Japan Exchange and Teaching) programme, which Aspinall (2013) observes to be one initiative that needs to be examined closely if recent attempts to improve the level of English in Japan are to be understood. It is told that the initiative to employ unqualified graduates from native English-speaking countries in Japanese schools to assist with the teaching of English was one in which the Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA) and not the Ministry of Education (MOE) played a significant role in making possible, while the latter was seen originally to have no direct influence (due in part to its own reluctance) over the concatenation of factors and events that led to the launching of the programme (Aspinall, 2013). These events illustrate the at times anomalous and equivocal manner in which English instruction in Japan becomes embroiled in rival agendas that may not necessarily have an educational focus (Aspinall, 2013; McConnell, 2000). In this particular matter, the MOE not only failed to gain firstmover advantage but was also compelled to play second fiddle to the policy moves made by the Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Aspinall, 2013). The sequence of events unfolded in the following manner. When relations between the United States and Japan became strained on account of trade imbalances, the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) sought a new way ‘of influencing hearts and minds in America’ by way of giving ‘foreign young people a chance to see the country for themselves’ (Aspinall, 2013, p. 83). While this nascent idea for appeasement eventually became Japan’s ‘gift’ to the Americans in the 1986 summit, the proposal in good faith to have young Americans assist in solving the problem of poor English skills was an expedient one for ministries like the MOHA, looking to increase the exposure of staff at local government level to the English language (Aspinall, 2013; McConnell, 2000). With the support of the Prime Minister’s Office, the MOFA and MOHA were able to overcome opposition from the MOE (Aspinall, 2013), which by that stage could only suggest, as a face-saving move, that these young people only be sent to Japanese schools as teaching assistants. Having inexperienced, unqualified college graduates in local schools, effectively ‘bringing people who were not teachers’ to help with the teaching of English (Aspinall, 2013, p. 84), meant that the MOE’s own curricular initiatives would not be interfered with, at least not by a programme that 494

English-medium instruction in higher education in Japan

it had little involvement in formulating. Deemed irrational by the Japanese public for the money spent on employing unqualified people, Aspinall (2013) observes that this perception was accurate only to those ‘who [made] the mistake of assuming that its main purpose [was] to improve [the] communicative competence of Japanese school students’ in English (p. 84). Indeed, on its part, the MOE had to take remedial action to adapt to ‘a policy change it did not want’ not least by quickly devising materials and dispensing advice to help Japanese teachers ‘work with the visiting native speakers’ (Aspinall, 2013, p. 84) who would function, often quite uncomfortably for both sides, in the role of unqualified ‘assistants’. The subjectivised roles of such ‘assistantship’, according to Breckenridge and Erling (2011), reveal the essentialised fashion in which notions of foreignness would continue to be perpetuated through English and the JET programme. In terms of the stereotyping of identity, the assistant language teachers or ALTs often remain ‘confined by local attitudes and national ideologies’ to being perceived as foreign Others (Breckenridge & Erling, 2011, p. 96), and are basically ‘used to reinforce rather than break down stereotypes about Westerners’ (p. 92). An ALT interviewed in Breckenridge and Erling (2011) offers the following view about English: ‘the language becomes not so much a tool for international communication but a living artifact belonging to a foreign culture’ (p. 92). The exoticisation and othering of English and its ‘native speakers’ as such would raise questions about its potential and efficacy as a medium of meaning-making in academia. Given the aforementioned forms of exoticisation and othering, the question may be asked whether it would be as easy for Japanese English learners to take ownership of it as an academic language, through which their own meanings and academic literacies can be enacted with some degree of spontaneity. In this regard, certain performative aspects of native speakerism have been associated with the akogare (‘desire’) phenomenon, where English is learnt for consumption and for the opportunities it offers for superficial friendships, especially, as noted by Kubota (2011), with white ‘native speakers’. Associations of English with leisure, consumption, and the way it is taught commercially, which might be mistaken for English as it might be used for academic purposes in higher education (Rivers, 2013), would not be conducive to its being taken seriously as a language of instruction.

Mistaking reductionism for innovation The ‘tenor and direction of current discourses’ around the teaching of English have been perceived to directly influence the successful introduction of EMI (Toh, 2016a, p. 128). However, efforts to reform English teaching in Japan have been hindered by situations where what are, in fact, reductionist curricular and/or pedagogical approaches have been mistakenly perceived as being innovative. Oda (2020) describes the discrepancy between claims of innovation and the incongruency of viewing language teaching and learning inadequately through the lenses of heavily structured curricular frameworks. While a structured four-skills curriculum has been problematised with respect to ELT in Japan, it has been mistakenly regarded as innovative by Japanese policymakers and promoted accordingly (Oda, 2020; Toh, 2016b, 2019). Rivers (2013) raises similar concerns about the ways in which claims to innovation may belie pedagogies that hinder students’ self-expression and ownership of the language while increasing their dependence on guidance, support, and supervision as deficient learners. University students may also be led into thinking that accessing ‘a little piece of America’ or going abroad on a long-awaited homestay experience (Cooker, 2010, p. 8) are pivotal events on the path to success in language learning. Appadurai’s (1990) observation that the ‘search for certainties is regularly frustrated by the fluidities of transnational communication’ (p. 18) seems to be lost in discussions that speak so deterministically of 495

Glenn Toh

the English of America as the ‘target language’ to be learnt from transitory homestay experiences. As discussed earlier, overseas homestays provide the setting for school textbook material reifying stilted and circumscribed forms of communicative English. Similarly, the pervasive idea that Japan offers ‘few opportunities for language learners to interact in the target language […] outside the classroom’ is one that naturalises the belief that English is all but foreign to Japan (Mynard, 2016, p. 333). As long as this ‘target language’ is perceived as a monolithical entity (which it need not be according to Ishikawa & McBride, 2019) and relegated to external spaces (or homestays), it conforms to nihonjinron’s insider-outsider stereotyping. This situation is also convenient for beliefs that legitimate English’s extraneous treatment as a foreign language and its students as speakers of other languages. Relatedly, what for many Japanese universities is regarded as ‘new and innovative’ as having courses taught entirely in English (Birchley, 2018) is equally liable to be mired in sundry concerns over language acquisition, student motivation (Kojima, 2021), note-taking and reading skills, proficiency test scores, and poor time management, for which carefully managed campus support services have to be put in place (Ruegg, 2021). One may argue in this regard that EMI programmes that remain preoccupied with support services, perhaps as placebos for the stakeholders, will be anything but innovative, especially if they divert time away from engagement with academic discourses and meanings. That books, too, can be written elaborately on support services (Ruegg, 2021), language acquisition, student motivation to learn (in) English, or ‘pedagogical interventions to tackle [the] harsh learning environment in EMI’ (Kojima, 2021, p. 9), may be barometric of the overall health or tenability of a system thus preoccupied. Lillis (2003) observes that time and attention are better given to challenging students to engage reflexively with the way academic knowledge can be shaped or conceptualised, which is perhaps more in keeping with the role of universities.

Essentialised aspects of English teaching in higher education From a pedagogical viewpoint, both the foreignness of English and the marginalising of its students stem from a presumption of linguistic deficiency or lack, which reifies the foreignness of English and the otherness of its learners. This kind of essentialism tends not to lend itself to having English teaching imagined as an undertaking that empowers and transforms, or as one that accommodates academic inquiry, normally the case in higher education (Rivers, 2013; Toh, 2016a, 2019). In Rivers’ (2013) description of English teaching in a higher education situation, the English Center (EC) is an affiliated institute found on International University’s (IU) main campus. The EC is presented as an English teaching outfit that is progressive, nurturing, and student centred. Rivers (2013) describes the ‘smiley faces and perpetual pleasantness’ that adorn ‘the veneer of ‘native-speaker’ English teaching’ (p. 75). Behind or beneath this ‘positive reflection of […] purified doctrines of best practice’, according to Rivers (2013, p. 76), is a carefully guarded institutionalised undercurrent of native speakerist monolingualism, which Jenkins (2014) and Ishikawa and McBride (2019) problematise, given the multilingual ethos in which English is used internationally in higher education. Still, what is noteworthy is the manner in which reductionism is dissimulated behind the guise of innovation, and this is similar to how native speakerism is dissembled behind claims of teaching of ‘the world’s major varieties’ of English (Rivers, 2013, p. 78), a variant of which is how ‘notions of global citizenship’ can then become entrapped within ‘former colonial ideals and narrow boundaries reflected in […] native speakerist pedagogies’ (p. 79).

496

English-medium instruction in higher education in Japan

Motivations for EMI in Japan Incongruent as EMI may be, given the essentialisms and anomalies just described, Japanese universities, not unexpectedly, remain motivated in their quest to incorporate taught-in-English courses into their curriculum, however superficial such forms of inclusion may be (Stewart & Miyahara, 2011). Videos linked to the Japan Student Services Organization (JSSO), the governmentapproved information site for students wanting to study in Japan are provided in English, the assumption being that potential students tuning into these videos will be expecting to understand the promotional content in English (JSSO, n.d.). The fact that the video channel is called the ‘Study in Japan Fair Channel’ (emphasis added) adds a sales and marketing dimension to this information site. The self-orientalising manner in which the JSSO website represents Japan includes the claim that Japan has a ‘fascinating culture’ alongside its world heritage sites like Mount Fuji and Himeji Castle, to promote the country as an ideal educational destination. The need for such forms of promotion is a reminder that Japanese universities have had to face the challenge of dwindling domestic enrolments due largely to the country’s low birth rate (Askew, 2011; Burgess et al., 2010; Toh, 2016a). English is accepted readily as the ‘indispensable tool for international market competitiveness’ (Burgess et al., 2010, p. 466), while courses and degree programmes delivered in English are regarded as ‘a means to an end’ (Birchley, 2018, p. 133). Towards this end – which is for universities to bolster their finances – fee-paying students from abroad are targeted for enrolment (see Askew, 2011; Birchley, 2018; Burgess et al., 2010; Toh, 2016a; and discussion on Global 30 in the subsequent sections). Turning to EMI for the purpose of increasing income is nevertheless not so simple, particularly in the face of the challenges next to be described.

EMI and two caveats To put matters in even clearer perspective, a short section to highlight two important caveats, would be appropriate. First, it should be noted that Japan implemented EMI relatively late in time (Macaro, 2018) and ‘[n]ot before 2009 had there been any direct governmental intervention into policy’ (p. 59). Hashimoto (2013) provides an account of the Japanese government’s putative efforts to pay some attention to the importance of teaching in English in higher education, which upon deeper scrutiny reveals a matter of greater complexity than a simple case of giving wholehearted support to EMI. In 2008, a project was launched by the education ministry with the goal of receiving 300,000 international students by 2020 (Hashimoto, 2013; Yonezawa, 2010). Known as the Global 30 project and identified by the catchphrase, ‘Study in English in Japanese universities’, 13 out of what was originally going to be 30 universities were selected to welcome international students to their campuses (Hashimoto, 2013, p. 27). The ambitiousness of this undertaking showed that inherent problems which would turn out to be more challenging than initially imagined were not understood. What could actually be meant to be studying in English in Japan where English was neither an official nor community language was not thoroughly considered (Hashimoto, 2013). Yonezawa (2010) moreover points out that Japan could well be the last bastion where academics continue to prefer to publish in their own language and not in English. Another concern was that Global 30, as an initiative, was not in fact about EMI per se, but more about finding a way for Japanese higher education to internationalise and hopefully ‘to achieve more international recognition’ (Yonezawa, 2010, p. 121). In some universities, only foreign nationals were actually allowed to enrol in EMI programmes, attracting the observation that ‘exclusion based on nationality and residency’ suggested that these programmes were not actually part of the university curriculum, but only ‘aimed at bringing Others from overseas to educate them as Others in a carefully 497

Glenn Toh

tailored but isolated environment’ (Hashimoto, 2013, p. 28). Alongside Global 30, there were the 2011 ‘Reinventing Japan’ project (focussing on international partnerships among Japanese universities and their oversea partners) and the 2012 ‘Go Global Japan’ project (focussing on building human resources involving 42 Japanese universities). While not disregarding the benefits of EMI from all three projects, the government subsequently shifted its focis away from English-only initiatives towards more generalised global education after Global 30’s conclusion in 2014. Global 30’s focus on developing EMI programmes to increase student enrolment was ultimately deemed untenable, especially without the language support deemed necessary to allow Japanese students to study in English (Rose & McKinley, 2017). Secondly, while the teaching of content subjects in a non-Japanese language like English would seem formidable or impracticable, the teaching of English (itself) in English (and not in Japanese) remains equally challenging. Here again, the problem lies with incumbent systems in higher education. Due largely to the nature of Japanese university entrance examinations where discreteitem questions are asked on grammar, vocabulary, and phonetics (which too has its own history), Aspinall (2013) notes that the teaching of English largely revolves around ‘teaching about the language’ (original emphasis), as if ‘teacher and student are talking about some remote body of knowledge’, in the Japanese medium (p. 80, emphasis added).

Institutional enactments of EMI To understand ways in which EMI is put to practice despite the inherent nature of the challenges faced, it is necessary for EMI programmes to be examined more closely for the way they are conceptualised and organised. The following analysis of website material reflecting institutional beliefs and practices follows the approach to studies on EMI found in: (1) Yamagami and Tollefson (2011) and Jenkins (2014) where discourses as well as the assumptions embedded within them are analysed within a framework of critical discourse analysis (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999; Fairclough & Fairclough, 2012), and (2) Hashimoto (2013), Toh (2016a) and Rose and McKinley (2017) where recurring themes arising from discursive representations of English and EMI in Japanese institutions are identified for deeper observation. The critical analyses carried out in these scholarly works reveal a broad and varied range of possibilities for the way EMI is enacted in Japanese universities. While the following section builds on these earlier findings, the scope for such analyses is ever-widening as Japanese universities continue in their attempts to introduce EMI programmes for reasons often only understood within the particularity of their own institutional contexts. Meanwhile, considerations of both (1) and (2) presented in this section are made ever consciously with respect to the approaches to ideological analyses outlined earlier (Eagleton, 1991; Thompson, 1987).

EMI predicated on reductionist assertions of cultural distinctiveness Predating Global 30 by five years, the EMI programme in Waseda School of International Liberal Studies (SILS) was established in 2004 as a pioneering effort. Iino and Murata (2016) provide an account of how Waseda SILS has earned a reputation for promoting EMI in ways that overcome the limitations of native speakerist and monocultural paradigms by enabling students of different lingua-cultural experiences (that is, Japanese students with no experience of EMI, returnee children of parents posted overseas for work, students from international schools in Japan, overseas students from various parts of Asia, exchange students from Europe and America) to study together. The English that is used in such interaction is recognisably not a 498

English-medium instruction in higher education in Japan

native-speaker variety, but English as a lingua franca (ELF) (Ishikawa & McBride, 2019; Jenkins, 2014; Toh, 2016b). In seeking to promote meaningful communication, understanding, and solidarity among students from these diverse backgrounds, Iino and Murata (2016) describe how students, especially those who were taught to think of English only as a foreign language, had to be encouraged to change their minds and attitudes, especially so that they would not be ‘constrained by native speaker norms’ (p. 121). The positive outcome of these efforts was the formation of a ‘co-constructed ELF community’ where students developed into ‘experienced and tuned ELF users’ (p. 127). However, despite its efforts to promote the shaping and articulation of meanings and identities through English, some aspects of the information found on the SILS website continue to suggest the subtle influence of underlying essentialisms. Cultural discreteness or circumscription is implied in the statement of one of its goals. The reference to students ‘who are conscious of the distinctiveness of their own culture but also aim to live harmoniously in a multi-cultural society’ (Waseda University, 2023), assumes an irreconcilability of cultures which May (2003) considers an intellectually convergent tendency towards mutually exclusive portrayals of culture. Similarly, what May (2003) regards almost as ‘an idealistic, naïve preoccupation with culture’ (p. 200) is found in the claims that ‘human beings have attempted to create their own distinctive cultures in the various regions of the world’, found in Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University’s ‘Opening Declaration’ (Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University, 2023) where claims to mutual understanding are predicated on assertions of cultural distinctiveness, as if group differences might only to be described ‘principally in cultural and/or historical terms’ (May, 2003, p. 202). In these instances, culture and language are not treated as fluidly emergent sites, which would be more in keeping with the negotiated nature of academic engagement (Jenkins, 2014). Both are treated as static domains used to index difference. The irony of such essentialism is the fact that claims to internationalisation (or globalisation) and multicultural exchange may ultimately be bound up with native Englishes as Jenkins (2014) observes, revealing from her analyses of East Asian universities that website voiceovers are typically in American English. Jenkins’ concern is also warranted where courses labelled ‘Introduction to Cultures of English-Speaking Countries’ or ‘English Language and Cultures’ treat the ‘English language and its cultural context’ as reductively as the way it is expressed in Miyazaki International College’s International Liberal Arts’ website – through courses in British Literature, American Literature, and the History and Language of the British Isles (Miyazaki International College, 2023).

Diversity and inclusivity through EMI The following statement in the list of Waseda SILS’ educational goals indicates a clash of values in that English continues to be treated somewhat narrowly and modernistically as the one (or only) common language associated with aspirations to freedom, fairness, and internationalisation: Modern society increasingly demands the members (sic) who have broad educational experience, are capable of communicating in English – the international common language – and aspire to realize a free and fair society. (Waseda University, 2023, emphasis added) This contrasts with the more enlightening fact that the SILS students described in Iino and Murata (2016), while communicating principally in English, are known to code-switch to Japanese as part of realising the cooperative and accommodative nature of meaning-making. Furthermore, 499

Glenn Toh

other lingua francas like Chinese and French are indeed also part of Waseda SILS’ curriculum. Of similar concern too is the school’s preoccupation with improving ‘the English abilities of its students through conducting almost all lecture courses in English’ (Waseda University, 2023), which raises questions about whether EMI may be used as a surrogate way of raising students’ English proficiency. The findings in Konakahara, Murata, and Iino (2019) tend to confirm this fear, as they note that improving their English rather than engagement with academic content is a major preoccupation of the Japanese students of the EMI programmes they researched. A variation of this preoccupation is a learning-English-to-learn-in-English maxim, where EMI in an institution like Akita International University is seen to be vulnerably reliant on the success of ancillary EAP programmes on which the students’ proficiency level of English is ambitiously dependent (Dougherty, 2023). In addition, values like inclusivity, diversity, and flexibility may be regarded as challenges rather than as opportunities, as Osaka University’s website demonstrates. At undergraduate level, the taught-in-English programmes include those in the human and biological sciences. The Human Sciences programme, which is part of the Global 30 initiative, has sought to make its EMI courses available to students from the mainstream taught-in-Japanese programmes. Beverly Yamamoto, the programme director, states that the reason for doing so is to promote internationalisation at a deeper rather than surface level, and to ensure that the programme does not function like a modern-day Dejima (Yamamoto, 2014), clearly referencing Japan’s historical period of isolation when foreigners were confined to an artificially created island. However, stated in the President’s message is what the university regards as its mandate: An important responsibility of the university is to answer the mandates of the citizens and society alongside promoting the very best in education and research. Even in circumstances such as these, Osaka University has accepted diversity, displayed its flexibility toward change, and sports traits that value the individual. (Nishio, 2015) The impression given in such a statement is that diversity, flexibility, and sporting traits valuing the individual are treated as values that the university has been obliged to ‘accept’, while ‘answer[ing] the mandates of the citizens and society’. What can perhaps be learnt from this apparent clash of priorities is that universities like Osaka University may be predisposed to look upon issues of diversity and flexibility as challenges or dilemmas rather than as opportunities that may be constructively explored through EMI.

Hopeful possibilities despite prevailing ideologies In terms of the workings of ideology, there are manifest aspects of English native speakerism in Japan that make no pretention of the fact that English is reified as a foreign language and legitimated discursively as such (see Eagleton, 1991; Thompson, 1987). Subtly dissimulated within such discourses is the underlying influence of a culture that believes in primordial forms of Japaneseness which must be preserved through the promotion of an ideology of cultural fragmentation and exclusion, where even undertakings in internationalisation like Global 30 are not spared. Superficial understandings of English and English teaching lead to serious concerns about whether the academic demands of EMI are sufficiently appreciated and taken seriously. The ­essentialised manner in which English is regarded as a static and discrete tool, and one which r­ epresents a sundry of imprecise meanings naturalised in everyday conversation (such as homestays), undermines its 500

English-medium instruction in higher education in Japan

potential capacity to meet the demands of meaning creation and r­epresentation in higher education. As noted, monolithic understandings of English have been questioned in the work of scholars who have argued that English is capable of representing a wider range of meanings, particularly by way of recognising of its plural and more pliable lingua franca inflexions (Iino & Murata, 2016; Ishikawa & McBride, 2019; Jenkins, 2014). What, in contrast, would augur well for EMI are certain more courageous attempts to associate English with academic inquiry, and in Hood’s (2020, p. 46) case, with critical thinking as ‘the platform on which meaningful content [can be] discussed’, with English being the facilitating language. Significantly, what Hood hopes to achieve by teaching critical thinking in English not as ‘discrete skills’ but as an ‘overall mood or approach to the world’ that is fundamentally ‘curious, and logically and empirically oriented’ (2020, p. 46) is, for all intents, a laudable way of linking EMI with academic and critical literacies. His overall approach to argue for ‘a critical thinking-based pedagogy in the EFL context in Japan’ (2020, p. 45), however, positions EMI within the apron strings of English as a foreign language (EFL) conceptualisations of English teaching in its continued regard for the latter as an anchoring framework. Nevertheless, Hood’s (2020, pp. 38–39) practical first steps like ‘changes to the traditional classroom’, ‘students […] face each other and interact’, ‘no wrong answers’ and ‘no neckties please’ provide a starting framework for critical engagement with academic issues, in English. Iino and Murata (2016) and Konakahara et al. (2019) furthermore draw attention to the importance of recognising a diversity of student narratives in matters to do with building an engaged relationship with English, to promote ways in which English can be owned and used to represent academic and identity-borne meanings. Students are neither positioned deficiently as learners-indeficit, nor patronised as non-native speakers in need of simple forms of exposure, for example, to homestay English. Lillis (2003) similarly emphasises the importance of recognising forms of meaning creation that are situated within personal identity-based narratives as part of a student’s engagement with academic content.

Conclusion If in the wake of the complexities, impasses, or what Iino (2019) considers dead ends that have come about from essentialised understandings of English as well as knowledge and meaning-­ making in higher education, finding a workable way forward poses a near-term challenge for thinkers and educators in the area, especially those who value change, transformation, as well as teacher and student conscientisation and empowerment as a part of education. For the reductionism and essentialism inhering existing systems to become more amenable, adaptive, and responsive to the demands of academic inquiry, simple dichotomies including ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ Englishes and oversimplified ways of teaching English as a foreign language to speakers of other languages from a recognisably deficit viewpoint of learning will have to make way for more reflexive understandings of language and meaning-making, not least for academic purposes (Iino, 2019). Awareness of homogenising discourses surrounding the use of English and student identity positionings should be raised, especially discourses which reify deficient (learner) subjectivities among non-native users. Student linguistic repertoires and L1 academic literacies should also be tapped on in the work of meaning-making and knowledge production. Amidst the concerns highlighted in this chapter, room for further study lies furthermore in the possibility that some universities and high schools may be turning towards EMI for businessmonetary reasons. Seeking to increase enrolments, especially among returnee students, advertising campaigns in overseas locations where Japanese expatriate families are domiciled promote the 501

Glenn Toh

use of nomenclature like ‘double diploma’ or ‘dual track’ programmes, which essentially mean that a selection of subject areas may be taught in English. In such cases, where EMI is adopted for secondary reasons to achieve monetary ends, the conscientious objections of conscientised educators may again be called for. EMI, for secondary reasons, which include enhancing institutional reputation and balance sheets or portraying superficial forms of internationalisation, will ultimately undermine the very credibility of an education where students’ engagement with academic knowledge in any given medium of instruction, should really be only for empoweringly transformative purposes.

References Appadurai, A. (1990). Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy. Public Culture, 2(2), 1–24. Askew, D. (2011). The Japanese university and internationalization: The Global 30 Project, foreign students, and institutional survival. Asia Pacific World, 2(1), 95–120.https://doi.org/10.3167/apw.2011020106 Aspinall, R. (2013). International education policy in Japan in an age of globalization and risk. Global Oriental. Befu, H. (2001). Hegemony of homogeneity. Transpacific. Birchley, S. (2018). A marketing perspective on English-medium instruction at universities in Japan. In A. Bradford & H. Brown (Eds.), English-medium instruction in Japanese higher education: Policy, challenges, and outcomes (pp. 130–148). Multilingual Matters. Breckenridge, Y., & Erling, E. (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). Palgrave Macmillan. Burgess, C., Gibson, I., Klaphake, J., & 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, 461–475. Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity. Edinburgh University Press. Cooker, L. (2010). Some self-access principles. SISAL Journal, 1(1), 5–9. Retrieved from http://sisaljournal. org/archives/jun10/cooker Doerr, N. (2014). On the necessity of ‘being understood’: Rethinking the ideology of standardization in ­Japan. In S. Sato & N. Doerr (Eds.), Rethinking language and culture in Japanese education (pp. 63–81). Multilingual Matters. Dougherty, P. (2023). Message from the head. Retrieved from https://web.aiu.ac.jp/en/ academic/englishfor-academic-purposes/ Eagleton, T. (1991). Ideology: An introduction. Verso. Fairclough, I., & Fairclough, N. (2012). Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. Routledge. Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education: Culture, power, and liberation. Bergin and Garvey. 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, 16–33. Hood, M. (2020). Critical thoughts on critical thinking. In J. Bradley & D. Kennedy (Eds.), Bringing forth a world: Engaged pedagogy in the Japanese university (pp. 31–48). Brill Sense. Iino, M. (2019). EMI (English medium instruction) in Japanese higher education: A paradoxical space for global and local sociolinguistic habitats. In K. Murata (Ed.), English-medium instruction from an English as a lingua franca perspective (pp. 78–95). Routledge. Iino, M., & Murata, K. (2016). Dynamics of ELF communication in an English-medium academic context in Japan: From EFL learners to ELF users. In K. Murata (Ed.), Exploring ELF in Japanese academic and business contexts: Conceptualization, research and pedagogic implications (pp. 111–131). Routledge. Ishikawa, T., & McBride, P. (2019). Doing justice to ELF in ELT: Comments on Toh (2016). Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 8, 333–345. Japan Student Services Organization (JSSO). (n.d.). Study in Japan. Retrieved from https://www.jasso. go.jp/en/ Jenkins, J. (2014). English as a lingua franca in the international university: The politics of academic English language policy. Routledge.

502

English-medium instruction in higher education in Japan Kojima, N. (2021). Student motivation in English-medium instruction: Empirical studies in a Japanese ­university. Routledge. Konakahara, M., Murata, K., & Iino, M. (2019). ‘English’-medium instruction in a Japanese university: ­Exploring students’ and lecturers’ voices from an ELF perspective. In K. Murata (Ed.), English-medium instruction from an English as a lingua franca perspective (pp. 157–185). Routledge. Kubota, R. (2002). The impact of globalization on language teaching in Japan. In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp. 13–28). Routledge. Kubota, R. (2011). Learning foreign language as leisure and consumption: Enjoyment, desire, and the ­business of eikaiwa. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14, 473–488. Lillis, T. (2003). Student writing as ‘academic literacies’: Drawing on Bakhtin to move from critique to ­design. Language and Education, 17, 192–207. Macaro, E. (2018). English medium instruction: Content and language in policy and practice. Oxford ­University Press. May, S. (2003). Critical multiculturalism. In M. Peters, C. Lankshear, & M. Olssen (Eds.), Critical theory and the human condition (pp. 199–210). Peter Lang. McConnell, D. (2000). Importing diversity: Inside Japan’s JET program. University of California Press. Miyazaki International College. (2023). School of International Liberal Arts curriculum policy. Retrieved from https://www.mic.ac.jp/english/Schools/International_Liberal_Arts/ Mynard, J. (2016). Self-access in Japan: Introduction. SISAL Journal, 7, 331–340. Nishio, S. (2015). Laying a strong foundation for Osaka University in 6 years. Retrieved from https://www. osaka-u.ac.jp/en/guide/president/message.html Oda, M. (2020). Reforming foreign language teaching policy in Japan: The politics of “Standardization”. In S. Mirhosseini & P. de Costa (Eds.), The sociopolitics of English language testing (pp. 130–146). Bloomsbury. Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University. (2023). Opening declaration. Retrieved from http://en.apu.ac.jp/home/ about/content5/ Rivers, D. J. (2013). Institutionalized native-speakerism: Voices of dissent and acts of resistance. In S. A. Houghton & D. J. Rivers (Eds.), Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education (pp. 75–91). Multilingual Matters. Rose, H., & McKinley, J. (2017). Japan’s English-medium instruction initiatives and the globalization of higher education. Higher Education, 75, 111–129. Ruegg, R. (2021). Supporting EMI students outside of the classroom: Evidence from Japan. Routledge. Seargeant, P. (2009). The idea of English in Japan: Ideology and the evolution of a global language. Multilingual Matters. Stewart, A., & Miyahara, M. (2011). Parallel universes: Globalization and identity in English language teaching at a Japanese university. In P. Seargeant (Ed.), English in Japan in the era of globalization (pp. 60–79). Palgrave Macmillan. Thompson, J. B. (1987). Language and ideology: A framework for analysis. The Sociological Review, 35, 516–536. Toh, G. (2016a). English as medium of instruction in Japanese higher education: Presumption, mirage or bluff? Palgrave Macmillan. Toh, G. (2016b). Doing justice to an English as a Lingua Franca paradigm. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 5, 355–367. Toh, G. (2019). Effecting change in English teaching in Japan: Exposing collaborators and culprits. Palgrave Macmillan. Waseda University. (2023). The educational goals of the School of International Liberal Studies. Retrieved from https://www.waseda.jp/fire/sils/en/ about/curriculum/ Willis, D. (2008). Dejima: Creolization and enclaves of difference in transnational Japan. In D. Willis & S. Murphy-Shigematsu (Eds.), Transcultural Japan: At the borderlands of race, gender, and identity (pp. 239–263). Routledge. Yamagami, M., & Tollefson, J. (2011). Elite discourses of globalization in Japan: The role of English. In P. Seargeant (Ed.), English in Japan in an era of globalization (pp. 15–37). Palgrave Macmillan. Yamamoto, B. (2014). Human Science International undergraduate degree program: Message from the ­Director. Retrieved from http://g30.hus.osaka-u.ac.jp/message/index.html Yonezawa, A. (2010). Much ado about ranking: Why can’t Japanese universities internationalize? Japan Forum, 22, 121–137.

503

35 ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN MACAU Andrew Moody

Introduction Macau is a territory on the South China coast, located roughly 60 kilometres west of Hong Kong on the western side of the Pearl River Delta. Like Hong Kong, Macau is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China, and the two SARS, the Hong Kong SAR (HKSAR) and the Macau SAR (MSAR), share numerous historical, cultural, linguistic, and administrative connections. Similar to Hong Kong, English-medium instruction (EMI) education has been taken as the norm within higher education within the territory, although there are legitimate questions about what constitutes EMI in some institutions. Institutions of higher education (also referred to as ‘tertiary education’ in Macau) are either public-owned or private; whereas both private and public institutions adopt English as a medium of instruction, the commitment, implementation, and review of EMI in these two types of institutions can be quite different.

Sociolinguistic description of Macau’s language ecology Macau was first settled by Portuguese traders hoping to establish a permanent base of operations in the early half of the sixteenth century. Portugal had successfully established enclaves in Goa (on the western coast of India) and in Malacca (in what is today Malaysia). During the exploration of the Asia Pacific region, the Portuguese discovered a lucrative market in Japan. Driven primarily by a demand for Chinese silk and tea, the Japanese were willing to pay the Portuguese in highly-desired silver for importation of these goods (Cooper, 1972; Gunn, 2017). The formal establishment of Macau as a Portuguese enclave by 1557 was made possible by the success of the Japan trade, which was mostly conducted between the Portuguese settlement in Dejima island in Nagasaki and Macau. In addition to establishing a base of commercial operations, the Portuguese were also obliged to introduce Christianity throughout their territorial enclaves. Macau’s impressive Church of St. Paul (Portuguese Igreja de São Paulo) was a powerful symbol of the city’s Roman Catholic history and character, and today, the church’s ruins, especially the church’s façade, which survived the 1835 fire that otherwise destroyed the building, serve as an ever-present reminder of Macau’s

DOI: 10.4324/9781003011644-39 504

English-medium instruction in higher education in Macau

colonial heritage. One important event from this early period of Portuguese administration of Macau was the establishment of Asia’s first European-style university. St. Paul’s University College was established in 1594 and was operated by the Jesuits near St. Paul’s Church until 1762. The College was not considered a comprehensive university according to the standards of the time, but it did grant degrees to students coming from Portuguese outposts in Asia, such as Goa, Malacca, or Nagasaki (Santos, 1968). Most (if not all) classes at the college would have used Latin as the medium language of instruction. The language ecology of Macau during the sixteenth to seventeenth centuries was dominated by the Portuguese language, and especially a creole form of Portuguese that developed natively within the city. Macau Creole Portuguese, also known as Makista, was the language of the city’s mixed-race population and it survived until the early part of the twentieth century, although the language is now considered moribund (Moody, 2021; Pina-Cabral, 2002; Pinharanda Nunes, 2012). In the eighteenth century, European and American traders showed increasing interest in buying Chinese goods, most notably silk and tea, but the Qing Dynasty emperors were reluctant to grant Europeans access to Chinese ports. In 1757, the Canton system of trade was developed to allow Western traders to enter Guangzhou (formerly known in English as Canton) to conduct business within factories that were open during the trading season (Kaislaniemi, forthcoming 2024; Van Dyke, 2005). The Canton trade breathed new life into Macau’s economy and dramatically changed the linguistic ecology of the city. When the trading season in Canton ended, Western traders were required to leave Guangzhou, but they were allowed to live in Macau. During the period that the Canton system was operating, Macau was still ruled by the Portuguese, but it had transformed into a much more international and multilingual city. Bolton (2003) has described the development of Chinese Pidgin English within Macau, which briefly made the city the centre of English-speaking culture and education within China. However, this changed with the founding of Hong Kong in 1842 and the end of the Canton system of trade. After the First Opium War, Great Britain, in cooperation with other foreign powers, was able to force entry into a number of Chinese ports and establish permanent trading houses within a new treaty port system of trade. Similar to how the Canton system introduced English into Macau’s linguistic ecology, the establishment of Hong Kong and the other treaty ports began a process of brain drain of English-language experience and talent from the city (Moody, 2021). English-speaking Macanese found new opportunities outside of Macau and the linguistic ecology in the last half of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries became much more deeply oriented toward Chinese. English-language educational traditions that had been in place before the establishment of Hong Kong remained in the city, but they were also heavily influenced by educational trends and practices in Hong Kong. On December 20, 1999, Macau, the oldest European territory in China and China’s first European colony, became the last colonial possession to return to Chinese administration. In the same way that Hong Kong became an SAR two years earlier, Macau became a SAR of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) at the end of 1999. Moody (2021) describes in detail the socio-economic developments that have influenced Macau’s language ecology. The most notable feature of the post-handover development of Macau has been the growth and diversification of the casino gambling economy, which has economically transformed the city into one of the world’s per capita wealthiest GDPs (World Bank, 2020). As a SAR, Macau retains Chinese and Portuguese as its official languages, although Moody (2008) had noted that English essentially serves as a de facto official language.

505

Andrew Moody

Multilingualism and the importance of Chinese Despite the fact that the different languages within Macau’s linguistic ecology have had differing roles and importance throughout the city’s history, multilingualism – both societal and individual – has always been the norm within the ecology. Moody (2019) argues that long-established multilingual norms have informed educational policies, most noticeably in relation to the choice of a medium of instruction (MOI). Macau’s multilingualism is related to a number of different socioeconomic and historical factors. Portuguese colonialism brought Portuguese varieties (Continental Portuguese, African varieties of Portuguese, maritime varieties of Portuguese, and Brazilian Portuguese) to the territory as well as multilingual speakers from former Portuguese territories (for example, Goa, Malacca, and Timor-Leste). International trade and the recent development of the gaming and resort industry have demanded that the city’s infrastructure adopt English as a lingua franca. One type of multilingualism that is frequently overlooked, however, is related to the variety of Chinese languages used within Macau. Bolton and Moody (forthcoming 2024) note that both Hong Kong and Macau take Cantonese as the dominant language: In Hong Kong, 88.2% of the population uses Cantonese as their usual language, compared to a somewhat lower 81.0% of Macau’s population. Table 35.1 describes the variety of Chinese languages spoken in Macau as both ‘usual language’ and ‘additional language’ as reported in census documents over the last 20 years. Unlike the surrounding area (that is, the province of Guangdong), there is a sizable Hokkien-speaking community in Macau. The Hokkien language (also known as Fujian-hua, Fukenese, Minnan-hua, and so on) is spoken within the Province of Fujian and Taiwan, but it is also spoken within isolated fishing villages along the South China coast, suggesting that the language was once more widely spoken in the past before communities shifted to Cantonese. There is strong evidence that the name of Macau (and the importance of the fisherman’s deity that Macau might be named after, AhMa) derives from Hokkien and that the fishing village was speaking Hokkien when the Portuguese first arrived in the sixteenth century (Moody, 2021, p. 20). In addition to this long history of Hokkien in Macau, recent waves of immigration from Fujian province have bolstered the language’s vitality, while its use has diminished within the PRC. Most recent statistics suggest that the proportion of speakers who use Cantonese as either an additional or usual language has been in steady decline over the past three decades, from 93.3% of the population in 2001 to 86.2% in 2021. The large and politically powerful community of Hokkien speakers was reported separately in the 2001 and 2011 censuses (and in the 2006 by-census), but this group was conflated with the group of ‘other Chinese dialects’ in the 2016 by-census and the subsequent 2021 census. Nevertheless, these groups remain stable over the last 25 years, consistently comprising about 15% of the population. The use of Putonghua as an additional language has been especially notable in the last 25 years. Bolton and Moody (forthcoming 2024) suggest that there has been a slow and intentional implementation of Putonghua within both the HKSAR and the MSAR, and Choi and Moody (forthcoming 2024) note that the implementation of Putonghua has been hastened by a recent shortage of qualified Cantonese-speaking teachers in Macau. These developments are exacerbated by the fact that Cantonese has only started to become standardised (that is, using a standardising transcription system, codified in dictionaries or grammars) in Hong Kong; Putonghua, however, is a much more highly codified standardised language, a feature that improves its appeal as an MOI (Moody, 2021, pp. 38–54).

506

Table 35.1  Usual and additional languages spoken in Macau, 1996–2021 1996a

2001

2011

2021

Usual language

Language ability (%)

Usual language

Language ability (%)

Usual language

Language ability (%)

Usual language

Language ability (%)

Cantonese Putonghua Hokkien Other Chinese Chinese sub-total Chinese Portuguese English Tagalog Japanese

346,082 (87.1%) 4,955 (1.2%) – 30,848 (7.8%) 381,885 381,885 (96.1%) 7,352 (1.8%) 3,189 (0.8%) – –

91.0 12.5 – 14.3

372,697 (87.9%) 6,660 (1.6%) 18,868 (4.4%) 13,257 (3.1%) 411,482 411,482 (97.0%) 2,813 (0.7%) 2,792 (0.7%) 3,450 (0.8%) –

93.3 25.4 6.8 7.7

449,274 (83.3%) 27,129 (5.0%) 19,957 (3.7%) 10,633 (2.0%) 506,993 506,993 (94.0%) 4,022 (0.7%) 12,155 (2.3%) 9,415 (1.7%) –

90.0 41.4 6.9 8.8

537,981 (81.0%) 31,405 (4.7%) – 18,977 (2.9%) 588,363 588,363 (88.6%) 3,949 (0.6%) 23,635 (3.6%) 19,154 (2.9%) –

86.2 45.0 – 14.4

French Other Total

– 5,062 (1.3%) 397,488

0.1 8.32

– 3,666 (0.9%) 424,203

– 6.9

– 6,546 (1.2%) 539,131

– 4.7

– 11,626 (1.8%) 663,782

– 3.7

Chinese varieties

2.6 12.1 – –

2.4 21.1 2.6% –

2.3 22.7 3.1 –

Sources: DSEC (1997, 2002, 2012, 2022).  The census exercise conducted in 1996 was a by-census (conducted every five years when the census is not conducted). The by-census relies upon sampling and extrapolation of data to the entire population. The by-census from 1996 is used here because it measures language ability (that is, the ability to speak an additional language), whereas the 1991 census did not.

a

English-medium instruction in higher education in Macau

507

4.1 9.3 – 0.06

Andrew Moody

History of English in the territory Macau was arguably the centre of English-language trade with China (Kaislaniemi, forthcoming 2024), and, as a result, established a number of English-language education and culture infrastructure within the territory. That all changed very quickly, however, when Hong Kong was established as a crown colony in 1842 and Macau’s English-speaking resources began to drain out of the community. The shift of trade and economic power from Macau to Hong Kong was also followed by a change in the functions of English throughout China. Bolton (2003) notes that in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, a number of English-language colleges and universities were established within China. The language quickly changed from a trade pidgin to an MOI used in higher education throughout the country and, in many ways, Hong Kong led this movement in China. At the same time, widespread primary and secondary educational organisations in Macau began to be established, many of them with the expressed intention to use English as an MOI. Figure 35.1 describes the distribution of three MOIs in Macau over the past 30 years. Macau’s Education and Youth Development Bureau (Portuguese Direcção dos Serviços de Educação e de Desenvolvimento da Juventude, DSEDJ) notes that currently 15 schools adopt English as the MOI for roughly 15% of primary or secondary students within the territory. These schools are all private (some with government subsidy, but most without) and they derive from what Bolton and Moody (forthcoming 2024) describe as an elitist tradition of the EMI. In non-EMI schools (that is, Chinese- or Portuguese-medium schools) English is universally taught as a second language from primary grades and throughout secondary grades. The result of English instruction (as either an MOI or as a second language) is observable in the census data for students of pre-primary, primary, junior secondary, and senior secondary age (that is, residents aged 3–4, 5–9, 10–14, and 15–19). Figure 35.2 demonstrates the dramatic increase of English across all student populations.

Figure 35.1  Distribution of students in three MOI 1989–2020. Sources: Berlie (1999), DSEJ (2006, 2012, 2017, 2019) and DSEDJ (2021a).

508

English-medium instruction in higher education in Macau

Figure 35.2  Increase in the number of residents with the ability to use English. Source: Bolton and Moody (forthcoming, 2024).

History of English in higher education Despite the fact that Macau was home to the first Asian university, after St. Paul’s University College closed in 1762, there were no institutions of higher education established in Macau until the founding of the English-medium University of East Asia (UEA) in 1981. Once EMI higher education was introduced to Macau, it was strongly influenced by university practices and motivations from Hong Kong (Mellor, 1988). The UEA was founded by three Hong Kong businessmen who recognised the need for more than the two officially-licenced higher education institutions (HEI) in Hong Kong, the University of Hong Kong and the Chinese University of Hong Kong. The founders sought to create an alternative to these limited options in Macau, and the institution was intended to be funded by a project to reclaim land between Taipa and Coloane islands for an industrial park. The Macau government approved the plans for the University, citing the need for higher education in the territory, but delayed review of the proposal for the industrial park. Eventually, the UEA went bankrupt in 1988. The Macau government purchased the institution in the same year and renamed it the University of Macau in 1991. Currently, there are three universities in Macau that trace their history back to the UEA. The University of Macau is the clearest inheritor of the UEA’s tradition, although the campus was moved from the UEA’s former campus in Taipa to a 1 sq. km tract of land on neighbouring 509

Andrew Moody

Wankam island in 2014. The former UAE campus is now occupied by the City University of Macau, a private institution that can trace its history back to the UEA’s Open University. Finally, the Macau Polytechnic University (formerly Macau Polytechnic Institute until 2021) was a polytechnic institute within the UEA, but was reformed as a separate institution when the UEA was purchased by the Macau government.

Summary of EMI in Macau higher education HEI in Macau can be grouped broadly into two categories according to whether they are publiclyowned or privately-owned. Publicly-owned institutions have government-mandated quotas for the number of international students that they may admit; therefore, the undergraduate student body of public institutions is 70%–80% local Macau residents (Moody, 2021). The remaining non-local students may come from anywhere, but in actual practice come almost entirely from the PRC. This results in some potentially different expectations among students regarding the use Chinese: Whereas the majority of students at publicly-funded institutions are Cantonese speakers and unaccustomed to using Putonghua as a medium of instruction, the majority students at privately-funded institutions are well accustomed to using Putonghua as an MOI within a wide variety of interactions. Likewise, a large number of local students matriculate into publicly-funded institutions from EMI secondary schools where they are prepared for EMI in tertiary education. Students from the PRC (attending either publicly- or privately-funding institutions) are generally less prepared for EMI practices and have never used English as an MOI before attending university.

Public institutions In addition to the three publicly-funded universities described in this section, Macau also has the Academy of Public Security Forces. This institution is essentially a police academy and not relevant to the discussion of higher education of this volume, except to note that officers and cadets frequently take English-language instruction from the University of Macau. Since 2017 the three public universities discussed here have used the Joint Admission Examination (JAE) that includes a test of English (Ho, 2019). Prior to the institutionalisation of the JAE, each university created and administered its own examination without any reference to the other institutions. While this required secondary students to take and pay for multiple entrance examinations (a requirement that was extremely unpopular), it also had a tendency to hide the relative ranking of English-language proficiencies within the three institutions. Since the use of the JAE, the University of Macau (UM) has consistently admitted the strongest students, and individual programmes at UM have been able to require the highest English-language proficiency. Therefore, in this section, the most attention will be paid to EMI at the UM.

University of Macau (UM) The name ‘University of Macau’ was first used in 1991 to designate the largest collection of Faculties (that is, colleges) and Centres that had belonged to the bankrupt UEA. UM currently lists its establishment date as coterminous with the UEA’s establishment, 1981 (UM, 2022). However, the institution had originally been founded as a private for-profit institution of higher education and, when purchased by the Macau government through the publicly-funded Macau Foundation, became a public institution. The UEA’s commitment to English-medium of instruction had been

510

English-medium instruction in higher education in Macau

adopted as a way to market the institution to Hong Kong students who were unable to find places in either of Hong Kong’s two universities. The UM has maintained this commitment to EMI degrees over the years despite a number of challenges to that commitment. Moody (2021) offers a detailed examination of the EMI and non-EMI programmes at the UM. All degree programmes (BA, MA, and PhD) in all Faculties are EMI programmes, with the following exceptions: (1) Language classes (and related programme degrees) in Portuguese, Chinese, Spanish, French, German, and Japanese are taught within the subject language as an MOI; (2) an undergraduate programme in Early Childhood Education in the Faculty of Education (FED) is taught in Chinese; and (3) the Faculty of Law offers undergraduate programmes in Chinese Law, Portuguese Law, and International Law using Chinese, Portuguese, and English as the respective MOI. In a recent newspaper article discussing the prevalence of English within the MSAR, UM Vice Rector of Academic Affairs Michael Hui King Man noted that 75% of undergraduate programmes are taught in English and nearly 80% of post-graduate programmes are taught in English (Macau Daily, 2022). However, a recent survey of 346 undergraduate students about their experience with English used as an MOI suggests that the rate of English used within classes in two of the largest undergraduate faculties – the Faculty of Arts and Humanities (FAH) and Faculty of Business Administration (FBA) – is probably significantly higher than 75% (Moody, 2022). The survey asked students about the languages used for five types of learning activities: lectures, reading assignments, writing assignments, non-writing assignments (such as oral presentations), and consultations (either in-class or out-of-class). Table 35.2 presents the results of the survey across all student responses. Student responses on a Likert scale allow calculation of the mean score for each type of learning activity in the last column. A score of 5.0 would indicate that all learning activities in every class only use English, whereas a score of 1.0 would indicate that no class uses only English for that particular type of activity. Of the five types of teaching activities, reading, and writing assignment were ranked as most consistently entirely within English. Among the students, 91.7% of them agreed that either all assignments (69.7%) or more than half of assignments (22.0%) were given in English. Likewise, 91.1% of students agreed that either all lectures (61.9%) or more than half of lectures (29.2%) were delivered in English. Similarly, 89.3% of students agreed that either all or more than half of non-written assignments (such as oral presentations) use English. Even 75.5% of student consultation (either in- or out-of-class) were conducted only in English all of the time (40.2%) or half of the time (35.3%). Table 35.2  Undergraduate assessment of the amount of English used within their majors

Lectures Reading assignments Writing assignments Non-writing assignments Consultations

(1) None

(2) Less than half

(3) Roughly half

(4) More than half

(5) All use

Likert score (mean)

4 (1.2%) 3 (0.9%)

6 (1.7%) 6 (1.7%)

21 (6.1%) 20 (5.8%)

101 (29.2%) 76 (2.0%)

214 (61.9%) 241 (69.7%)

4.49 4.58

3 (0.9%)

5 (1.5%)

21 (6.0%)

76 (22.0%)

241 (69.7%)

4.58

3. (0.9%)

8 (2.3%)

26 (7.5%)

84 (24.3%)

225 (65.0%)

4.50

6 (1.7%)

25 (7.2%)

54 (15.6%)

122 (35.3%)

139 (40.2%)

4.05

Source: Moody (2022).

511

Andrew Moody Table 35.3  Perceived use of English by Arts & Humanities and Business undergraduate students

Lectures Reading assignments Writing assignments Non-writing assignments Consultations

Classes in home faculty

Classes in other faculties

Arts & Humanities

Business

Arts & Humanities

Business

4.40 4.46 4.52 4.48 4.37

4.53 4.63 4.62 4.54 4.01

3.94 3.94 3.90 3.86 3.78

3.88 3.96 3.97 3.90 3.60

Source: Moody (2022).

While these statistics describe student experience within their own major programmes, predominantly in Business (77.0%) and Arts & Humanities (15.2%), there are differences between students in the two faculties, the FBA and the FAH, and the commitment to English seems to be weaker in classes taken outside of their majors (excluding, of course, language classes). Table 35.3 compares the mean scores (again, calculated as a Likert scale) given to the amount of English used in classes. A maximum score of 5.0 would indicate that English is used exclusively in all classes, and a score of 3.0 would suggest that half of classes use a language other than English. The high scores from students in both faculties suggest that more than 75% of classes in FBA and FAH exclusively use English, and that as many as 90% of respondents replied that English is used exclusively in reading and writing assignments. The percentage of undergraduate classes in other faculties, normally taken by students as part of their general education requirements, that exclusively use English is probably just below 75%. In those classes that do not exclusively use English, Chinese is the written language that is predominantly used in reading or writing assignments (92.88% and 92.38%, respectively). Two spoken varieties of Chinese, Putonghua and Cantonese, are reported in oral activities when English is not used: lectures (44.63% in Putonghua and 48.55% in Cantonese), non-writing assignments (45.35% in Putonghua and 46.71% in Cantonese), and consultations (43.91% in Putonghua and 48.74% in Cantonese). In all cases, the use of Cantonese seems to be slightly stronger in Business courses, whereas Putonghua is reported slightly more frequently in Arts & Humanities courses. Within their home faculties, Arts and Humanities (FAH) and Business Administration (FBA) students identified a higher rate of English use than in courses taken from other faculties. Courses from other faculties, however, are normally only taken to fulfil distribution requirements of classes outside the home faculty specified within general education.

Macau Polytechnic University (UPM) and the Institute for Tourism Studies (IFT) The two remaining public institutions in Macau maintain a number of programmes that are often labelled as EMI programmes, and both institutions espouse public commitments (at least in public statements, if not also in actions) to using English as an MOI (Moody, 2021). Like the UM, the remaining two public institutions maintain an undergraduate student body that is 70%–85% local Macau residents (who have normally graduated from local EMI, CMI, or PMI schools in Macau). The Macau Polytechnic University (Portuguese Universidade Politécnica de Macau, UPM) was, until March 2021, known as ‘The Polytechnic Institute’ with the distinction that it was not a comprehensive university. Nevertheless, the former Institute and current University does offer a number of undergraduate degrees that use English, including joint post-graduate degrees with 512

English-medium instruction in higher education in Macau

overseas institutions like the University of California, Los Angeles and Queen Mary University of London. With the change in status, the UPM will presumably develop more post-graduate degree programmes that will be taught primarily within Macau and in English. The Institute for Tourism Studies (Portuguese Instituto de Formação Turística, IFT) also offers undergraduate and post-graduate degree programmes that are taught in either English or Chinese as the MOI. Both institutions (UPM and IFT) require undergraduate students to take Macau’s JAE when applying for programmes, and English is a required test section for most programmes. Since the JAE is a norm-referencing test (not a criterion-referenced assessment), the score on the examination does not necessarily reflect an individual student’s readiness for EMI. In the same way that some EMI programmes at the UM struggle to contend with low English-language proficiency, EMI programmes at UPM and IFT face similar challenges.

Private institutions Three private (that is, for-profit) institutions exist in Macau. Unlike the public institutions, private universities do not have quotas that regulate the ratio of local Macau-resident student and foreign students (who primarily come from the PRC). The largest of the private universities is the Macau University of Science and Technology (MUST) and, with a total enrolment of more than 19,000 students (7,600 post-graduate and 11,800 undergraduate), it is the largest higher education institution in Macau. MUST’s strategy for expanding to such a large size is to recruit both undergraduate and graduate students from the PRC. The senior secondary graduation rate in Macau is relatively high and, in recent years (since 2016), approximately 4,000 students complete their secondary education in Macau high schools. With an annual undergraduate enrolment of nearly 3,000 students each year, MUST could easily offer undergraduate education to any graduate of a Macau high school who was unable to enter one of the three public universities. However, only 10.4% of new undergraduate students matriculating in the 2020/2021 academic year at MUST were from Macau, a ratio that is slightly larger than the 9.1% of all local undergraduate students at the institution (DSEDJ, 2021b). Like the undergraduate student body, 59.9% of full-time teaching staff are non-local and most are hired from the PRC (DSEDJ, 2021b).1 EMI is a feature of higher education that was introduced to Macau in the 1980s from Hong Kong, and the institutionalisation of EMI – both in tertiary and non-tertiary education – has been based on the experience of students, teachers, parents, and policymakers in Hong Kong. While there are EMI programmes in China, too, EMI has only been introduced within the past decade and implementation of EMI programmes usually does not make extensive reference to the experience of Hong Kong (Li, Zhang, & May, 2019; McKinley, Rose, & Curdt-Christiansen, 2022). Young (2006) examines the different attitudes about language learning and EMI education expressed by local Macau and PRC students at MUST. The different attitudes expressed by local and PRC students can, in part, be understood by students’ different language proficiency levels when they arrive at MUST. Both local and PRC students arrive at MUST from Chinese-medium secondary schools; however, only PRC students who had performed at the top of their cohort’s level on the national university entrance examination would have been admitted, whereas the local Macau students were likely those who were unable to gain admission to one of the publicly-funded universities. Local Macau and PRC students’ different preparations for EMI education, however, extend beyond language proficiency levels to dictate much of how EMI education is implemented either inside or outside the classroom (Zhang, 2013, 2020). In fact, Botha’s (2013) examination of how EMI is implemented at MUST suggests that it is EMI in name only, and that most of the assignments and instruction are given in Chinese. 513

Andrew Moody

The two remaining universities in Macau, the City University of Macau (CityUM) and University of St. Joseph (USJ), both have a number of programmes that are publicly listed as EMI. CityUM currently occupies part of the UM’s former Taipa campus (shared with two other universities) and claims to be the former University of East Asia, although, in fact, it is descended from the UEA’s Open University after passing through several private owners (Moody, 2021). Like the MUST, CityUM has been recruiting students from the PRC since a re-organisation in 2011. In the 2020/2021 academic year, 70.0% of CityUM’s 6,166 students (and 60.1% of undergraduate students) were non-local and 55.3% of full-time teaching staff were non-local (DSEDJ, 2021b). University of St. Joseph is owned by the Catholic church and originally began educating students from Macau in 1996 as the Macau Inter-University Institute. The distinctive character of USJ is primarily derived from the large number of programmes offered in Portuguese, although there are also a number of programmes that use English as the MOI. Staff at USJ are predominantly local Macau residents (many of whom are, in fact, originally from Portugal), with only 27.4% of fulltime teaching staff as non-local. The undergraduate student body, like a publicly-funded higher education institution, is predominantly local Macau students, with only 8.0% of the 1291 students (13.0% of the 540 undergraduate students) as non-local (DSEDJ, 2021b). USJ was granted permission to recruit students from the PRC based on their gaokao university entrance examination scores (Lusa, 2022), and it will be interesting to see whether the university maintains a focus on educating local Macau residents (that is, graduates from Macau high schools, most notably the Escola Portuguesa de Macau ‘Macau Portuguese School’) or if they choose to expand by enrolling students from the PRC.

Conclusion Some years ago, Li (1999, p. 67) argued that English in Hong Kong should no longer be regarded as an ‘auxiliary language’, a term that had previously been proposed by Luke and Richards (1982), but instead as a ‘value-added language’. In the context of Macau’s higher education, the value added to education by the use of English as either a subject language or a teaching medium is tangible. Universities like the MUST that are able to market their degrees as EMI programmes can appeal to PRC students who are eager to leave China for an education and willing to pay the expensive fees for that overseas education. Within the economy of tertiary EMI choices, a private university within a Chinese SAR – a region that is, by legal definition, still within the PRC – can be an attractive alternative that is both geographically and culturally closer to China than travelling to a country like the United States, the United Kingdom, or Australia. While other legal jurisdictions might regulate claims of whether a programme is actually offered in English or define standards by which a programme can claim to be EMI, the Macau SAR government has only offered broad understandings of how English is to be used in publicly-funded EMI institutions (for example, graduate theses should be written in English, course descriptions must be in English, and so on) and no regulation of EMI in privately-funded higher education has emerged within the Macau SAR. Similarly, the PRC has not undertaken any regulation of EMI programmes, although the PRC does have the authority to allow universities to use the national university entrance examination (gaokao) scores for recruitment of PRC students. There are, therefore, clearly definable economic incentives to branding curricula, programmes, and universities as EMI, regardless of how English actually works within those curricula or programmes. Newer institutions like MUST (which was founded in 2000) or the CityUM (which was purchased and renamed as such in 2010) have used EMI as a branding strategy to attract Chinese students to Macau. Unfortunately, the lack of oversight or regulation of EMI, especially of privately-funded institutions that operate for profit, 514

English-medium instruction in higher education in Macau

creates an environment where EMI can be used to market and promote programmes that do not necessarily use English in meaningful ways. However, it is important to remember that English-medium higher education was introduced to Macau long before EMI became a corporate marketing strategy for students from the PRC. The proportion of students enrolled in EMI schools doubled in the years before the 1999 handover from 6.1% in 1989 to 12.5% in 1996. Since the 1999 handover, the number of EMI schools has only increased moderately and the number of students enrolled in those schools has remained relatively stable at between 13% and 15% of school enrolments. Graduates of these EMI schools do not necessarily seek to attend public or private university education in Macau, although many of them increasingly do matriculate to the UM. Instead, graduates from EMI secondary schools have traditionally endeavoured to leave Macau for a university education in Hong Kong, the United States or the United Kingdom, or some other place with EMI universities. These EMI schools, which usually include both primary and secondary sections, are especially good at preparing students for university classes in English, but they are insufficient to adequately prepare the large number of Macau high school graduates who want to enter EMI universities. The remaining 85% of Macau students graduate from Chinese-medium schools that teach English as a second language (the term used in CMI and PMI schools), but with an implicit understanding that English is necessary for further education, even within the territory. While Choi (2015) has shown that attitudes toward English are closely associated with the use of the language as the dominant MOI within Macau, Zhang (2010) suggests that the attitudes that support the use of English as the MOI in universities are not shared by Chinese students from the PRC. While English proficiency levels of the two types of students – local students who attended CMI schools and PRC students who graduated from similar schools – may be very similar, Macau students’ attitudes and beliefs about the role of English in education offer more enduring support for EMI in higher education.

Note 1 The proportion of non-local teaching staff hired at the three publicly-funded HEIs is considerably lower at 21.8%, and there is relatively little variation between the three institutions: the University of Macau (24.1%), the Polytechnic University of Macau (16.9%), and the Tourism Institute (20.2%).

References Berlie, J. A. (1999). Macao’s education: A question of language Chinese, Portuguese, and English. In J. A. Berlie (Ed.), Macao 2000 (pp. 71–104). Oxford University Press. Bolton, K. (2003). Chinese Englishes: A sociolinguistic history. Cambridge University Press. Bolton, K., & Moody, A. J. (forthcoming 2024). English in Hong Kong and Macau. In A. J. Moody (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Southeast Asian Englishes. Oxford University Press. Botha, W. (2013). English-medium instruction at a university in Macau: Policy and realities. World Englishes, 32, 461–475. Choi, K. P. (2015). Attitudes of Macao secondary school students towards Cantonese, English, Portuguese and Putonghua in relation to medium of instruction and learning motivations (Master’s dissertation). University of Macau, Macau. Choi, T.-H., & Moody, A. J. (forthcoming 2024). English language education and educational policy in Hong Kong and Macau. In A. J. Moody (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Southeast Asian Englishes (pp. 446–465). Oxford University Press. Cooper, M. (1972). The mechanics of the Macao-Nagasaki silk trade. Monumenta Nipponica, 27, 423–433. DSEC, Direcção dos Serviços de Estatística e Censos [‘Department of Census and Statistical Services’], Macao SAR. (1997). Intercensos/96: Resultados globais [‘1996 by-census: Global results’]. Retrieved from https:// www.dsec.gov.mo/Statistic.aspx?NodeGuid=ee77eb29-fd1b-4f13-8a2d-3181e93adb05#P9a8ab82b203c-453b-bff6-24f6fa60d48​c

515

Andrew Moody DSEC, Direcção dos Serviços de Estatística e Censos [‘Department of Census and Statistical Services’], Macao SAR. (2002). Global results of census 2001. Retrieved from https://www.dsec.gov.mo/index. asp?src=/english/html/e_demgraphic.html DSEC, Direcção dos Serviços de Estatística e Censos [‘Department of Census and Statistical Services’], Macao SAR (2012). Results of 2011 population census. Retrieved from https://www.dsec.gov.mo/index. asp?src=/english/html/e_demgraphic.html DSEC, Direcção dos Serviços de Estatística e Censos [‘Department of Census and Statistical Services’], Macao SAR. (2022). Detailed results of 2021 population census. Retrieved from https://www.dsec.gov.mo/ getAttachment/e4bd18fe-c0dd-495d-8dae-62105948d120/E_CEN_PUB_2021_Y.aspx DSEDJ, Direcção dos Serviços Educação e de Desenvolvimento da Juventude [‘Education and Youth Development Bureau’], Macao SAR. (2021a). Non-tertiary education statistics. statistical profile of nontertiary education. Retrieved from https://portal.dsedj.gov.mo/webdsejspace/internet/Inter_main_page. jsp?id=8525 DSEDJ, Direcção dos Serviços Educação e de Desenvolvimento da Juventude [‘Education and Youth Development Bureau’], Macao SAR. (2021b). An overview of educational statistics. Retrieved from https://www.dsedj.gov.mo/~webdsej/www/statisti/2020/index-e.html?timeis=Mon%20Dec%2005%20 20:12:54%20GMT+08:00%202022&& DSEJ, Direcção dos Serviços de Educação e Juventude [‘Education and Youth Affairs Bureau’], Macao SAR. (2006). Statistical profile of non-tertiary education in Macau 2017. Statistics. Retrieved from https://www. dsej.gov.mo/~webdsej/www/statisti/2005/index-e. html DSEJ, Direcção dos Serviços de Educação e Juventude [‘Education and Youth Affairs Bureau’], Macao SAR. (2012). Statistical profile of non-tertiary education in Macau 2012. Statistics. Retrieved from https://www. dsej.gov.mo/~webdsej/www/statisti/2011/index-e.html DSEJ, Direcção dos Serviços de Educação e Juventude [‘Education and Youth Affairs Bureau’], Macao SAR. (2017). Statistical profile of non-tertiary education in Macau 2017. Statistics. Retrieved from https://www. dsej.gov.mo/~webdsej/www/statisti/2016/index-e. html DSEJ, Direcção dos Serviços de Educação e Juventude [‘Education and Youth Affairs Bureau’], Macao SAR. (2019). Statistical profile of non-tertiary education in Macau 2019. Statistics. Retrieved from https://www. dsej.gov.mo/~webdsej/www/statisti/2018/index-e. html Gunn, G. C. (2017). World trade systems of the East and West. Brill. Ho, O. K. (2019). A comparability study between the joint admission examination and the earlier admission examination papers in Macao: A content analysis (Master’s dissertation). University of Macau, Macau. Kaislaniemi, S. (forthcoming 2024). The British East India Company in Southeast Asia. In A. J. Moody (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Southeast Asian Englishes (pp. 34–53). Oxford University Press. Li, D. C. S. (1999). The functions and status of English in Hong Kong: A post-1997 update. English WorldWide, 20, 67–110. Li, J., Zhang, L. J., & May, S. (2019). Implementing English-medium instruction (EMI) in China: Teachers’ practices and perceptions, and students’ learning motivation and needs. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22, 107–119. Luke, K. K., & Richards, J. C. (1982). English in Hong Kong: Functions and status. English World-Wide, 3, 47–64. Lusa. (2022, April 4). University of Saint Joseph recruits first batch of mainland students. Macau Business. com. Macau: Macau New Agency. Retrieved from https://www.macaubusiness.com/university-of-saintjoseph-recruits-first-batch-of-mainland-students​/ Macau Daily. (2022, August 20). 程課文英設均校學規正 [Chengke Wen Ying Shejun Xuexiao Guizheng ‘English medium of instruction established as the norm’]. 澳門日報 [Aumen Ribao ‘Macau Daily’]. Retrieved from http://www.macaodaily.com/html/2022-08/20/content_1616277.htm McKinley, J., Rose, H., & Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2022). EMI in Chinese higher education: The muddy water of ‘Englishisation’. Applied Linguistics Review, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2022-0015 Mellor, B. (1988). The University of East Asia: Origin and outlook. UEA Press. Moody, A. (2008). Macau English: Status, functions and forms. English Today, 24(3), 3–15. Moody, A. (2019). Educational language policy in Macau: Finding balance between Chinese, English and Portuguese. In A. Kirkpatrick & A. J. Liddicoat (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of language education policy in Asia (pp. 76–96). Routledge. Moody, A. (2021). Macau’s languages in education and society: Planning in a multilingual ecology. Springer. Moody, A. (2022). Survey of language use at the University of Macau. Unpublished research report.

516

English-medium instruction in higher education in Macau Pina-Cabral, J. (2002). Between China and Europe: Person, culture and emotion in Macao. Continuum. Pinharanda Nunes, M. (2012). Luso-Asian comparatives in comparison. In H. C. Cardoso, A. N. Baxter, & M. Pinharanda Nunes (Eds.), Ibero-Asian creoles: Comparative perspectives (pp. 289–326). John Benjamins. Santos, D. M. G. D. (1968). Macau: Primeira universidade ocidental do Extremo-Oriente [Macau: First western university in the Far East]. Academia Portuguesa de História. Reprinted and translated into English in 1994. University of Macau. UM, University of Macau. (2022). UM history. Retrieved from https://www.um.edu.mo/about-um/history/ Van Dyke, P. A. (2005). The Canton trade: Life and enterprise on the China coast, 1700–1845. Hong Kong University Press. World Bank. (2020). GDP per capita (Current US$). The World Bank: Data. Retrieved from https://data. worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?most_recent_value_desc=true Young, M. Y. C. (2006). Macao students’ attitudes toward English: A post-1999 survey. World Englishes, 25, 479–490. Zhang, K. (2010). A sociolinguistic study of Mainland Chinese students in Macau: Language choice, language attitudes and identity (Master’s dissertation). University of Macau, Macau. Zhang, K. (2013). Mainland Chinese students’ English use in Macao. English Today, 29(2), 54–59. Zhang, K. (2020). When Macao’s English-medium university meets Mainland students’ mindscape. Tertiary Education and Management, 26, 345–362.

517

36 ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN SOUTH KOREA Hyejeong Ahn, Kingsley Bolton, Werner Botha, and John Bacon-Shone Introduction In the recent era of globalisation from the late 1990s to the present, Korea has attracted increasing attention on the world stage, not least as a result of the belligerent diplomacy and nuclear capability of the North Korean government led by Kim Jong Un. In the same period, South Korea has also gained an international reputation, as a technological powerhouse competing on the world stage in such areas as automobile manufacture, electronics, mobile telephony, and other forms of advanced engineering. It has also gained attention through popular culture, including its fashion industry, popular music, and film and television dramas. The film, Parasite, directed by Bong Joon Ho, won several Academy Awards in 2020, and in 2021, the Netflix series, Squid Game, gained a huge international following worldwide. Both these productions depicted a dystopian view of South Korean society, fractured by social class as well as by the dynamics of a ferociously-competitive capitalist society. According to some accounts, the recent history of South Korea is perceived as an Asian success story, with a GDP per capita of around US$42,000, one of the highest in the region, even surpassing Japan in 2018 (Katz, 2022). In the view of other accounts, however, Korean society provides an example of neoliberalism in the extreme, where young people are pushed mercilessly to succeed in one of the most competitive education systems in the world (Kim, 2017). It is in this context that many of the criticisms of English-medium instruction (EMI) in South Korean education may be understood, although the wider sweep of Korean history and politics enables an even deeper understanding of the social and historical context, as discussed in the subsequent section.1

The sociohistorical background This section aims to provide a concise and simplified overview of Korean history and politics from the tenth century to the recent past, with particular reference to the development of South Korea after World War Two.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003011644-40 518

English-medium instruction in higher education in South Korea

The arc of Korean history Although Korean history may be traced back to the fourth century BCE, Korea did not establish its present boundaries until the Goryeo Dynasty (918–1392), which gave rise to the name ‘Korea’, and its boundaries were further confirmed during the following Choson Dynasty (1392–1910). For much of this period, Korea was linked to China through the tributary system, from which it derived much of its culture, including the use of Chinese characters, the adoption of Neo-Confucianism philosophy, and Buddhism, which spread from India to China, and from China to Korea. After invasions by both the Japanese and the Manchus in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, Korea began a policy of isolation, and, by the nineteenth century was regarded as ‘the hermit kingdom’ by many western commentators. After defeating both China and Russia in the two wars of 1895 and 1905, Japan’s influence over Korea increased, and in 1910 Japan annexed Korea as a colony. Over the following 35 years, the Japanese influence over the country, both culturally and linguistically, was profound, and the Japanese occupiers engineered the industrialisation of Korean society, with the establishment of heavy industries including chemicals and steel. During World War Two, many Koreans worked in industries supporting the war effort, and around 240,000 Koreans joined the Japanese army. An estimated 22,000 servicemen and 60,000 civilians died in the war. Towards the end of World War Two, Russian troops entered the country in the far north, and, after the surrender of Japan in August 1945, American troops arrived in southern Korea to counter-balance the Russian influence presence. It was then agreed that the Soviet Union would occupy Korea north of the 38th parallel and America would occupy the country south of this line (Asia Society, 2021). In 1948, the US facilitated the establishment of a civilian government, led by the US-educated missionary and anti-communist activist Dr Syngman Rhee, who then dominated Korean politics until his death in 1960. From 1950 till 1953, the Korean War brought immense death and hardship to the country, causing the deaths of between 2 million and 3 million civilians. After the war, Rhee became increasingly dictatorial and amended the constitution to allow him to extend his presidency until eventually student-led protests forced him out of office in 1960. Following this, Yun Bo Seon was elected President in August 1960, but his political reign was short-lived, and in May 1961, General Park Chung Hee assumed power at the head of a military junta. Park Chung Hee would then serve as President of South Korea from 1963 until 1979, introducing policies that promoted economic growth and industrialisation. In October 1979, Park was assassinated by the head of his intelligence service, Kim Jea-gyu, in highly mysterious circumstances (Hwang, 2017). Park was succeeded by another military strongman Chun Doo Hwan, who then ruled as President from 1980 until 1988. Chun then handed over power to another former military general, Roh Tae Woo. Roh’s period of tenure was noteworthy for hosting the Seoul Olympics in 1988, as well as promoting economic growth and democratic reforms domestically. Roh’s presidency ended in 1993, and he was succeeded by Kim Young Sam, the first civilian President in three decades, who would stay in power until 1998. Shortly after taking office Kim, started a major anti-corruption campaign, and promptly arrested his two predecessors Chun Doo Hwan and Roh Tae Woo. Kim was succeeded by another reformist President Roh Moo Hyun, who would hold office from 2003 until 2008. Roh later committed suicide in May 2009, after being accused of corruption. In 2008, Roh was succeeded by Lee Myung Bak, previously the CEO of Hyundai and the mayor of Seoul, and Roh’s tenure as President lasted from 2008 until 2013. Five years after leaving office, Lee was convicted of bribery and embezzlement and sentenced to 17 years in prison, where he currently resides. The following President was the first woman to hold office, Park Geun Hye, the daughter of Park Chung Hee, who remained in office from 2013 to 2017. In April 2018, she too was sentenced 519

Hyejeong Ahn et al.

to a lengthy imprisonment for abuse of power and corruption, and is still in prison at the time of writing. The current President is a former human rights lawyer Moon Jae In, who succeeded Park Geun Hye in May 2017 (Seth, 2020). The history of South Korea throughout the twentieth century was marked by a succession of historical events which may be seen as nothing less than traumatic in nature. From 1910 until 1945, the country suffered under Japanese colonialism and world war, followed by the devastation of the Korean War, before entering an era of peace-time politics dominated by military dictators and corrupt civilian politicians. Today, the Korean peninsula stays divided, with the North Korean communists as proxies for their Chinese communist big brothers, while south of the border the US military presence includes around 15 military bases, 28,500 servicemen, and significant numbers of US aircraft and missiles. From 1958 to 1991, the United States placed nuclear weapons on South Korean soil, and although these were withdrawn in 1991, the United States continues to protect South Korea under its ‘nuclear umbrella’. In the post-Korean War era, the American influence was also felt in many areas of consumer consumption and mass culture, including baseball, Coca Cola, Hollywood, McDonaldisation, popular music, and much else. From the 1950s to the 1980s, America in South Korea, as in so many other places worldwide, served as a source of modernity and innovation, although, by the 2000s, Korean manufacturers and entertainers were beginning to market their own versions of modernity, which included automobiles, fashion design, pop groups, smartphones, and TV soap operas (enormously popular throughout Asia). Domestically, the industrialisation and technological innovation that had been promoted by successive governments between the 1960s and 1990s served to create a society dominated by corporate capitalism, where its citizens strived to succeed, or at least to survive, in a highly competitive and socially stratified society. In this context, part of the stratification was educational, with parents going to extreme lengths in order to secure the best educational opportunities for their children, including the opportunity to learn English.

The promotion of English in contemporary South Korea The era of Chun Doo Hwan during the 1980s, provided a turning point in official attitudes to English. At this time, the Korean government decided to connect the country to the world, particularly through the 1986 Asian Games and the 1988 Olympic Games, which were both held in the capital city of Seoul. Simultaneously, and for the very first time, ordinary Korean citizens were allowed to travel abroad without hindrance. The government then attempted to improve the teaching of English, including special courses for workers in the tourism sector, as well as radio and television programmes for the general public. Interest in English gained momentum during the 1990s. In 1995, President Kim Young Sam established the ‘Presidential Globalization Promotional Committee’, and, the following year, South Korea joined the OECD. Various educational policies implemented during the Kim administration in the 1990s, including the introduction of English in primary schools, ignited what then came to be known as the ‘English fever’, which began to rage throughout the whole country. One effect of this was the proliferation of private tutorial schools specialising in the teaching of English, often placing a heavy financial burden on parents seeking to assist their children gain admission to the best universities. In 1991, South Korea joined the World Trade Organisation, which further promoted internationalisation, although the nation’s economy suffered greatly in the financial crisis of 1998. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, large numbers of students went abroad to study, often to US universities, although some parents even sent very young children overseas to such destinations as Singapore to study English. Government policies promoting English continued under the era of President Lee Myung 520

English-medium instruction in higher education in South Korea

Bak. English became increasingly important for entry into university, as well as gaining employment after graduation. T.-H. Choi (2023), in an extensive discussion of English fever over the last two decades, notes that, in addition to their regular schooling, most Korean secondary school students now attend hagwon (‘cramming schools’), that typically run from 4 pm until 9 pm. The cramming school system typically advantages children from high-income families, who can afford the fees demanded by these schools. Choi further argues that English has, in part, been promoted by forces linked to ‘neoliberalism’, which promotes ‘competition’ and ‘economic efficiency’ as well as celebrating ‘those who bear the responsibility and capability to be autonomous and to take control of their own lives and choices’ (T.-H. Choi, 2023, p. 672). In recent years, Presidents Park Geun Hye and Moon Jae In have both introduced policies aimed at containing, if not decreasing the fever for English learning, though apparently with ‘minimal impact’ given the wide belief that ‘English is an indispensable tool for gaining social mobility in adult society in a globalised Korea as well as being an index of social status’ (T.-H. Choi, 2023, p. 684).

The promotion of English in South Korean higher education Since the 1990s, the English language has become widely taught in almost all elementary and high schools, and is included in the all-important national college entrance examination, the College Scholastic Ability Test (CSAT), or Suneung. As noted by Jo (2018), some 69% of high school graduates possess some form of higher education from the country’s 200 universities and 137 vocational institutes. Central to higher education is the South Korean government’s aim of internationalisation of its higher education system, where the English language can be perceived as playing an important role in this endeavour (Byun & Kim, 2011). Government initiatives such as the ‘Brain Korea 21 Project’ (1999) and the ‘World Class University Project’ (2008) were introduced to promote global competitiveness among the country’s universities, and EMI programmes and policies have been included in such initiatives. As a result, or perhaps as a consequence, of such internationalisation initiatives, university rankings have become a much-discussed topic in the country’s media, and higher education institutions have increasingly incorporated EMI courses, citing such reasons as internationalisation, competitiveness, and globalisation (Bolton & Botha, 2020). English-medium instruction (EMI) in higher education grew rapidly in the early 2000s, and by 2011, it was estimated that around 30% of university classes in Seoul, and 10% across the country, were being taught in English (Kim, Kweon, & Kim, 2017). EMI was particularly promoted by engineering schools, and, in 2006, the prestigious Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) adopted a policy that English would, henceforth, be the major medium of instruction. By 2010, Pohang University of Science and Technology (POSTECH) was delivering 88% of undergraduate classes and 95% of graduate classes in English, and Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology (GIST) and Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST), were delivering all their programmes in English (Kim, 2017, pp. 56–57). In the same years, higher education expanded rapidly throughout the country in the late 1990s and early 2000s, at a time when there were increased calls for ‘internationalization’ from various stakeholders, including the government, educational institutions, as well as from students and their parents (Kim, 2021). By the early 2000s, newspaper articles about the quality of universities were gaining growing attention from the reading public, particularly following annual ranking reports published by two influential conservative newspapers, the Chosun Ilbo and Joongang Ilbo, which strongly supported neoliberal free market ideologies, as well as the promotion of English in South Korea (Park, 2010; Piller 521

Hyejeong Ahn et al.

& Cho, 2013). Additionally, over the last two decades, with the encouragement of government policies, universities have also set out to attract large numbers of international students to study at universities in the country, and the numbers of students taking ‘degree-seeking’ courses rose from around 4,000 in the year 2000 to 86,000 by 2018, with China and Vietnam as the largest donor nations (Kim, 2021). However, despite the enthusiastic calls for ‘internationalization’ coming from various stakeholders, in practice, the need for English appears as much domestically motivated as, internationally driven. It has been suggested that it is less about using the language in daily life, but rather about gaining a competitive edge against peers in securing tertiary education and prestigious jobs […] where students from affluent family backgrounds are more successful in being admitted to competitive foreignlanguage schools, and subsequently to prestigious universities due to special admission for their English competence. (T.-H. Choi, 2023, pp. 670–671) Nothwithstanding such local realities, the implementation of EMI in higher education has often been justified with reference to ‘internationalization’ as a motivation, as is discussed in the next section.

Research on EMI in South Korea As can be seen from scrutiny of the research literature, since 2010, a substantial body of research on EMI in South Korean higher education has been published. In general terms, these studies can be classified into four broad categories concerning (i) the motivation for South Korean EMI; (ii) criticisms of EMI in South Korea; (iii) EMI and neoliberalism; and (iv) discussions of the realities of EMI in South Korea.

The motivation for South Korean EMI Many of the studies of South Korean EMI hitherto published cite forces linked to the ‘internationalization’ of higher education as a leading motivation, which is also linked to ‘globalization’ and ‘global competitiveness’ in articles from Byun et al. (2011), Jon and Kim (2011), Joe and Lee (2013), Kim, Tartar, and Choi (2014), Chang, Kim, and Lee (2017), Chun et al. (2017), Kim and Tatar (2017), Kang (2018), and Kim and Yoon (2018). In an overlapping fashion, other studies specifically mention ‘university rankings’ as an important factor, as in articles by Cho (2012), Kym and Kym (2014), Williams (2015), and Kim et al., (2017). Other studies explain motivation by reference to multiple factors, including the need to attract international students, to improve students’ English proficiency, to facilitate international research collaboration and publications, as well as internationalisation and rankings, as in Lee and Lee (2018), Kim and Tatar (2018), and Park (2019).

Criticisms of EMI in South Korea Over the last 10 years, a considerable number of empirical studies have examined the implementation of EMI at various universities across the country. Some studies of student responses reported somewhat positively on student attitudes. Byun et al. (2011) analysed a large dataset from Korea

522

English-medium instruction in higher education in South Korea

University (KU) and found that students generally rated EMI courses as ‘satisfactory’ and also expressed the belief that EMI led to increased proficiency in English, despite finding it easier to understand courses taught through the medium of Korean. Kym and Kym (2014) reported on EMI at ‘H University’, where EMI courses were voluntary. At this institution, there was a high level of satisfaction with the EMI programmes, with the vast majority of students stating that English was essential for their academic and career success. More recently, Kim, Park, and Baldwin (2021) report on a study conducted at KAIST, where a content and language integrated learning (CLIL) approach to EMI was adopted with evidently positive results. However, such affirmative studies are in a small minority, as much of the Korean EMI literature is dominated by a ‘complaint tradition’ that focusses on the ills rather than the benefits of EMI. Cho (2012) investigated the implementation of EMI at a science and engineering university, where an EMI policy had been implemented in top-down fashion, without consultation with ­faculty and students. Although not explicitly stated, the university in question appears to be ­Pohang U ­ niversity for Science and Technology (POSTECH), where, by 2010, 88% of undergraduate courses and 95% of graduate (or ‘postgraduate’) courses were being taught through English. Cho’s findings highlighted several difficulties with EMI, including: (i) that professors and students agreed that classes taught in English were not as effective as those in Korean, (ii) that the forced implementation of the EMI policy had attracted opposition from many professors, and (iii) that the limited English proficiency of faculty and students was seen as a primary cause of poor teaching and learning outcomes. At Yonsei University, Joe and Lee (2013) found that that the students understood English-medium lectures rather well, but nevertheless, expressed dislike for English-medium lectures and course. Kim et al. (2014) investigated EMI with reference to the experiences of ‘a large research-oriented university’, where Korean students had contact with overseas students from Central Asia, Turkey, Vietnam, and elsewhere. In this context, it was apparent that Korean students ‘showed a lack of confidence in EMI activities and interaction with international students in EMI classrooms’ and that ‘many of them were very conscious of their linguistic competence’ (Kim et al., 2014, p. 454). Chun et al.’s (2017) study at the business school of ‘a major South Korean university’ suggested that EMI contributed to heightened levels of language anxiety and language confidence among students. In contrast, other studies found rather mixed results, which typically highlighted student difficulties in coping with EMI programmes, but simultaneously reported students’ desire to retain such courses. For example, Kim and Yoon (2018) investigated engineering and science students at KAIST, presenting results that indicated students’ strong preference for Korean-medium instruction, and reporting that, at the same time, around 64% wished to retain EMI programmes.

EMI and neoliberalism Piller and Cho’s (2013) article, drawing on newspaper articles and a range of secondary sources, set out to describe how ‘an economic ideology—neoliberalism—serves as a covert language policy mechanism pushing the global spread of English’ (p. 23). In South Korea, they note that the state has reduced funding for education, and heightened various mechanisms of competition, where ‘English MoI is a highly cost-effective way to improve institutional standing because “English” is again used as a quantifiable index of “globalization”’ (Piller & Cho, 2013, p. 39). They also question the benefits of English, noting that ‘the costs of English to the common good are potentially much larger’ and that the ‘long-term costs incurred by the excessive focus on short-term competitive advantages also remain to be calculated’ (Piller & Cho, 2013, p. 39). Park’s (2017)

523

Hyejeong Ahn et al.

critique of Korean EMI focusses on the ‘subjectivity’ of the Korean English language learner and user, identifying a cluster of mental attributes and ideologies, including the ‘deep anxiety’ and ‘incompetence’ of Korean speakers, so that: [T]he Korean speaker of English is imagined as a helplessly incompetent speaker of the language, with particular behavioral and affective characteristics, such as being nervous about speaking English, avoiding situations in which English should be spoken and so on […] Such figures of personhood, widely circulated through Korean discourses about English, are powerful ways through which subjectivities of English are forged in Korean society. (Park, 2017, p. 85) According to Park, the primary reason for Korean universities to be so enthusiastic about introducing EMI education was that this was ‘motivated by the belief that English is a key indicator of competitiveness in the market’ and: part of the drastic neoliberalization of Korean higher education, in which universities, once seen as bastions of academic authority, are now under pressure to adhere to the logic of the market and strategize their goals to more actively meet the demands of capital. As a result, EMI became ‘an important way through which universities were preparing their graduates as neoliberal subjects’, where ‘immersing the students into an English-speaking classroom context was expected to break their inability to communicate in English and to push them into playing a more active role in their own English language learning’ (Park, 2017, p. 89).

The realities of EMI in South Korean higher education Kim and Tatar (2017) emphasised the experiences of Korean professors involved with EMI courses, and their attitudes towards the use of Korean within such programmes. It also discussed such programmes from an ELF (English as a lingua franca) perspective. The two researchers are both from UNIST, although they state that their research was conducted at a university located in ‘a southern, metropolitan city’, which was built in 2009 (UNIST). In their study, they surveyed 91 teachers, of whom 71 were male and 20 were female. The results indicated that the professors favoured flexibility in the implementation of the EMI policy, and with the use of Korean. Several professors reported favouring code-switching in the classroom where relevant and useful, with one professor noting that ‘[in] my class, I typically use 70% English and 30% Korean’ (Kim & Tatar, 2017, p. 166). Lee and Lee (2018), two researchers from KU, conducted a study of EMI in relation to graduate education. This study surveyed 110 graduate students, and included questions on selfperceptions of English proficiency, language learning strategies, and motivation. Overall, their findings revealed ‘moderate but limited benefits of EMI for graduate students’. Respondents rated their English skills as low to moderate in ability. The researchers suggested several improvements in the teaching of academic English skills. Kim, Kim, and Kweon (2018), three researchers from UNIST, KAIST, and POSTECH, investigated the perspectives of humanities and social science professors teaching engineering students. They investigated (i) how HSS professors teaching science and engineering majors regard EMI, (ii) what the roles of English and Korean are pedagogically, and (iii) what support is necessary to improve HSS subjects in EMI. The results indicated

524

English-medium instruction in higher education in South Korea

that about a third of the teachers reported that their English was ‘unsatisfactory’ for the purpose of EMI. In addition, many teachers criticised the ‘top-down’ implementation of EMI policy. Kim and Tatar (2018), two researchers from UNIST, examined international instructors’ experiences of EMI. The specific research questions in this study are: (i) challenges teaching subjects in EMI, and (ii) the strategies used by instructors. In their study, one international instructor mentioned allowing code-switching in the classroom, in order to facilitate students transitioning from Korean into English: I always encourage my students to participate in all the class activities. I know Korean students are afraid of speaking English. So, sometimes, I even tell those who can’t speak English well to ask questions in Korean. Then, I ask another student to translate them into English. So, in my classroom, they can use Korean, if necessary. Of course, at some point later on, they should try it in English. I mean, I ask them to do that. (Kim & Tatar, 2018, p. 410) Park (2019) provides an overview of current trends relating to EMI. Interestingly, the study identifies two different types of EMI courses: (i) those run by elite universities and taught by proficient English-speaking Korean and international faculty, and (ii) those taught by lesser universities deploying teachers with lower levels of proficiency in English. After surveying various studies, Park argues that the undemocratic implementation of EMI has caused major problems, as have the insufficient English abilities of professors and students, together with low levels of confidence among both the teachers and the taught. Those problems being most keenly felt at the lower-rank universities.

Researching EMI at four elite South Korean universities In 2017, the authors of this current chapter carried out fieldwork at four elite South Korean universities, namely Seoul National University, KU, Yonsei University, and the KAIST, as earlier discussed in recently published reports (Ahn, 2022; Bolton, Ahn, Botha, & Bacon-Shone, 2023). The results of this research yielded several insights into the implementation of EMI at these universities. Some of the most interesting results concerned the students’ assessment of their own, and their teachers’ abilities in the English language.

The reported proficiency of students and teachers It was noticeable that a high percentage of undergraduate students across all institutions tended to rate their English proficiency rather highly, as indicated in Table 36.1 (note that all the results in the tables provided in this section are for undergraduates at these institutions). There were only small differences in the self-reported proficiency in English across the four universities, as outlined in Table 36.1. While the highest percentage of students who rated their proficiency as ‘Quite well’, ‘Well’, or ‘Very well’ came from Seoul National University at 73.2%, while the lowest percentage of students who rated their own proficiency in these categories was from Yonsei University at 67.6%. Overall, it was quite evident that the majority of students across the four universities were quite confident about their own English proficiency. Similarly, a rather high proportion of students also rated themselves as ‘Complete/Very/Somewhat’ bilingual in English and Korean, as illustrated in Table 36.2.

525

Hyejeong Ahn et al. Table 36.1  Self-reported proficiency in the English language

Not at all A few sentences/A little Quite well/Well/Very well

SNU (%)

KU (%)

KAIST (%)

YU (%)

 0.5 26.3 73.2

 0.6 30.3 69.1

 1.0 30.7 68.3

 0.7 31.7 67.6

N = 878

Table 36.2  Self-reported bilingualism

Completely/Very Somewhat A little/Not at all

SNU (%)

KU (%)

YU (%)

KAIST (%)

31.6 34.0 34.5

25.8 36.5 37.6

31.4 28.9 39.7

24.7 37.6 37.7

N = 878

Table 36.3  Texts that cause the greatest reading difficulty Text type

SNU (%)

KU (%)

YU (%)

KAIST (%)

Academic articles Full-length books Textbooks Case studies Book chapters

70 42 14 13 10

70 44 15 19 12

81 40 12 13 10

75 48 23 16 11

N = 857

The students also rated the proficiency of their teachers at these universities rather highly, with only 2%–10% of students claiming that their professors’ communicative abilities in the spoken and written language were ‘Poor’ or ‘Very poor’.

Reported difficulties in EMI programmes Undergraduate students were asked to report how difficult they found certain reading materials at university level, that is, which text types they found to be most difficult to read. The results for this question by university are presented in Table 36.3 and suggest that the most difficult text types were academic articles and full-length books. Table 36.4 outlines the results for perceived difficulty in writing tasks. Again, there was a high level of agreement, where academic essays and reports were claimed to cause the greatest difficulty across all universities. The results for speaking difficulty are outlined in Table 36.5, where again there was general agreement that ‘speaking to professors’ and ‘giving presentations’ were perceived as causing greatest difficulty.

526

English-medium instruction in higher education in South Korea Table 36.4  Texts that cause the greatest writing difficulty Text type

SNU (%)

KU (%)

YU (%)

KAIST (%)

Academic essays Reports (for example, in engineering, science, business) Case studies Proposals Emails to professors Presentation slides

58 46 14 12  6  5

61 42 17 16  8 13

61 42 20 12  7 10

61 44 17 26 15 14

N = 849 Table 36.5  Tasks that cause the greatest speaking difficulty Task

SNU (%)

KU (%)

YU (%)

KAIST (%)

Speaking to professors/lecturers/tutors Giving presentations Speaking to students of different nationalities Speaking to peers/classmates Speaking to visitors

50 43 24 18  9

45 50 38 15  5

48 46 26 12  4

49 47 44 18 12

N = 850 Table 36.6  Language mixing by other students

With each other Always/Very often About half the time/Sometimes Rarely/Never NA With professors Always/Very often About half the time/Sometimes Rarely/Never NA

SNU (%)

KU (%)

YU (%)

KAIST (%)

23 29 44  4

32 38 28  2

25 37 35  3

19 40 37  4

22 40 36  2

31 40 28  1

32 38 29  1

34 45 20  1

With each other, N = 872; with the professors, N = 871.

Language mixing at universities Students were asked about the extent to which other students mixed languages with each other and with their professors in their English-medium courses. The results are presented in Table 36.6 and indicate that language mixing commonly occurs among undergraduate students in these universities, with somewhat less frequent mixing at SNU, compared with the other universities. Students were also asked to report on their own language mixing practices, that is, whether they mixed languages when speaking with their friends or with their professors. The results are set out in Table 36.7. Once again, broadly similar patterns were observed across the universities. Students 527

Hyejeong Ahn et al. Table 36.7  Self-reported language mixing

With other students Always/Very often About half the time/Sometimes Rarely/Never NA With professors Always/Very often About half the time/Sometimes Rarely/Never NA

SNU (%)

KU (%)

YU (%)

KAIST (%)

17 28 51  4

27 34 37  2

22 31 44  3

18 38 41  3

17 35 45  3

25 35 38  2

26 34 37  3

27 44 27  2

With other students, N = 872; with the professors, N = 871.

mixed languages more frequently when speaking with their professors than with their peers. This is particularly evident in the results for KAIST. More than half of KAIST students, 56%, reported mixing languages with their friends ‘Always’, ‘Very often’, ‘About half the time’ and ‘Sometimes’, compared to the much higher figure of 71% for students mixing with their professors in these frequencies. Again, students from Seoul National University reported the lowest frequency of language mixing with 45% of respondents claiming that they ‘Never’ mixed languages when talking to their professors. The results outlined in Tables 36.6 and 36.7 are noteworthy in highlighting very high levels of language mixing across all four universities, with around 60%–80% of students reporting language switching between other students and professors, between 52% and 70% reporting switching by themselves when talking to their teachers.

Use of English by undergraduates in their spare time The questionnaire included a number of items related to the use of English in students’ spare time. Students were asked how frequently they used English for different activities in their spare time on a scale of five: ‘Always’, ‘75% of their time’, ‘50% of their time’, ‘25% of less’, and ‘Never’. The results indicated that, although Korean was mainly used during leisure time, a sizable number of students reported using English more than 75% of their time for the activities shown in Figure 36.1. In such activities, approximately 35% of the students reported that they used English more than 75% of their time for conducting Internet searches and when travelling. A smaller number of students, approximately 10%, also reported using English more than 75% of their time for activities such as reading, gaming, and socialising online. Some students indicated that they ‘rarely’ used English in their spare time, but nevertheless, reported using the language extensively for listening to music, watching films, and on social media, as in this rather contradictory report: In my spare time I rarely use English. I usually listen to English song, songs in English and I sometimes watch films which is in English with English subtitles. I have uh some friends in Japan and when I talk with Japanese friends, with SMS or messenger, messenger, I use English. That’s all. (Undergraduate, male, third year) 528

English-medium instruction in higher education in South Korea Internet searches

35.4%

Travel

33.4%

Reading

15.0%

PC games/video games

11.3%

Online socialising (e.g. Facebook, etc.)

10.0%

Clubs/hobbies

9.2%

Messaging (e.g. WhatsApp, etc.)

7.5%

Blogging

7.4%

Socialising with friends

7.3%

Online chats (e.g. Skype, etc.) 0.0%

6.8% 5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

Figure 36.1  The use of English in students’ spare time (N = 870).

Thus, although students like these claimed that they ‘rarely’ used English in their spare time, their own reports of actual behaviour indicated otherwise. Students were also asked about the last time they used English outside the classroom. Many students reported using English when meeting non-Korean friends or acquaintances, travelling overseas, chatting online, and playing online games, all of which suggested that English at least had some kind of presence in Korean youth culture.

Undergraduate students’ attitudes towards English-medium instruction at university Students were asked to what extent they agreed that English should be used as a medium of instruction at university. The results set out in Table 36.8 indicated that 55% of students either strongly agreed or agreed with the use of English as a medium of instruction (EMI), while 23.7% of students, either disagreed or strongly disagreed with EMI. Many of the students who agreed with English as a medium of instruction stated that EMI allowed them to be prepared for international communication, and provided them with better access to academia and a wider range of academic materials. Other frequently stated reasons included EMI offering more opportunities for the future and helping them improve their English skills. A not untypical response of this kind included is as follows: English is a fundamental part of science. Not only do we have to know the words for the terms, but we also need to know which verbs are used so that we can read other scientific books and papers easily and so that I can write them. Especially, it is important to follow trends in scientific research and to know the latest science, so I often read foreign papers. Therefore, I think it is important to learn English used in science through English class. (Undergraduate student) However, there were also a large number of negative responses from some students, who commented that EMI did not help them improve their English skills and that some of their professors were not proficient enough to deliver good lectures in English. Others argued that there was 529

Hyejeong Ahn et al. Table 36.8 Attitudes of students towards English-medium instruction %age Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

16.2 38.8 21.3 17.4  6.3

N = 853

a need for better study materials in the Korean language. Responses of this kind included the following: I am studying difficult academic subjects, but when the university only teaches these subjects in English, I feel hopeless as I am not good at English. […] I got selected to be admitted to this university with my excellent math skills. Now so many interesting core courses, which are mandatory, are only offered in English and I have to attend these courses but I do not understand what is being explained in English. I am physically there as I have to be. It is a total waste of my time. (Undergraduate student) One obvious conclusion here, based on both the quantitative data and the earlier sampled openended responses, is that students’ attitudes towards English-medium education were very mixed, if not conflicted. Many students expressed very negative comments towards the use of English in their university, but, despite this, were nevertheless wished to retain some kind of EMI system, confirming Kim and Yoon’s (2018) very similar findings (see the preceeding text). The results of our research at the four universities mentioned earlier suggested that, despite various difficulties, students at these universities were coping rather well with the demands of EMI. One lasting impression from these interviews was that the students themselves had very pragmatic and sensible attitudes to EMI, as, by all accounts, had their teachers, with both groups dealing with the realities of EMI in their institutions, and by all accounts coping relatively well. Nevertheless, it must be recognised that the students in our study were attending four of the most prestigious universities in the country, and it is unlikely that their experiences are typical of all students in higher education. In many other institutions, one would assume, the problems faced by both students and teachers are far greater.

Continuing concerns Despite the somewhat positive attitudes to EMI reported on in the 2017 study already discussed, widespread concerns about the impact of EMI in South Korean education continue, as indicated in three recent articles by Jon, Cho, and Byun (2020), J. Choi (2021), and L. J. Choi (2021). In their article, Jon et al. (2020) report on a study carried out at KU and Kyung Hee University that in order to deal with the realities of EMI in the classroom, some Korean professors respond by implementing strategies of ‘decoupling’ their teaching practices from the dominant model of ‘English-only’ instruction. Such strategies include ‘mixing Korean language with English’ and ‘teaching easy or teaching less’. Language mixing, in this context, involves such practices as providing explanations 530

English-medium instruction in higher education in South Korea

in Korean, using part of class time for a Korean language summary, or even providing supplementary materials written in Korean. Teaching easy, on the other hand, typically involves simplifying the content of presentations and/or the verbal explanation that accompanies them (Jon et al., 2020, pp. 309–312). The authors also report that ‘professors struggled with conflicting and inconsistent feelings regarding the EMI policy and their own internal values’, leading them to develop such coping strategies in order to ameliorate the worst aspects of policy implementation (Jon et al., 2020, p. 313). The study by J. Choi (2021) is based on ethnographic fieldwork at Global University, an institution specialising in teacher education, engineering, and science, where some 4% of students are recruited from overseas. Even though Global University had adopted English as its official language and main medium of instruction, Choi noted that there were frequent communication difficulties between Korean and international students. For the Korean students, the role of English was mainly perceived as a teaching medium for formal lectures, so that ‘English use is limited only to the classroom and English as a lingua franca for daily communication is resisted’ (J. Choi, 2021, p. 286). L. J. Choi’s (2021) study was based on research at a ‘private Korean university that is ranked among the top ten universities in South Korea’. Its findings indicated that, among his subjects, ‘English’ was associated with such negative emotional words as ‘difficult’, ‘nervous/ worried’, ‘burdensome’, ‘stressful’, and ‘hate’. In this context, Choi concludes that: [T]he strong emphasis on English and English language education has led to the emergence of a class-based ‘English divide’ between students from affluent families and those from less affluent ones’ adding that ‘the neoliberal celebration of English has led to the growing recognition among young Koreans that English serves as a tool to continue or reproduce inequalities in class and status. (L. J. Choi, 2021, p. 5) As also noted above, the neoliberal critique of EMI is a recurring theme in the current research literature on English on higher education in the Korean context. Despite this, other commentators such as Kim (2021) have argued that Korean higher education has played a major role in the development of society and that ‘South Korea has achieved tremendeous success in building a globally competitive HE [higher education] system in such a short time’. Kim also quotes OECD figures that indicated that by 2018, the proportion of university graduates in the age group 25–34, had risen to an impressive 70% of the cohort (Kim, 2021, p. 96).

Conclusion This chapter has aimed to explain EMI in the South Korean context with reference to a range of factors, including the sociohistorical background, the promotion of English in South Korean HE, discourses of internationalisation, previous research on this topic, as well as findings derived from fieldwork research at leading universities. The historical background is dramatically relevant to many aspects of contemporary life in South Korea, which continues to grapple with the legacy of the Korean War, and is still home to a large number of US military bases. In the post-war era, the education system drew heavily on American models of HE and the United States remains an important trading partner. In recent years, many Korean manufactures, including electrical goods, machinery, and vehicles, have been successfully marketed worldwide, and to some extent, the society has benefitted from global engagement, although this has also contributed to a highly competitive environment. This can be seen in various sectors of the education system, where students 531

Hyejeong Ahn et al.

are pushed by their parents to supplement their daytime schooling by attending evening cramming schools, which claim to improve students’ chances of examination success (Koo, 2014). As shown in our review of the research literature in this chapter, the critiques of EMI in the ­Korean context have been very powerful over the last decade or so in particular, an important strand of discontent has been related to ‘neoliberalism’, which often seems to be a blanket term for capitalism, in its most egregious forms. Given the strong currency of such an approach in the research literature, it seems very likely that critiques of this kind will continue, although it seems equally likely that EMI will continue to be promoted, in a range of different forms, at universities throughout the country. In our own research at four of the top universities, we found that students generally rated their proficiency in English rather high, with many identifying themselves as ‘Somewhat’, ‘Very’, or ‘Completely’ bilingual in English and Korean. They also reported very high levels of language mixing between themselves and their professors, which was perceived as a flexible and useful strategy for dealing with the realities of the system. In addition, as noted earlier, although Korean was the default language of choice in their leisure time, many students also reported using English, for a range of personal activities, including surfing the Internet, travel, and reading. The results for the third research question on attitudes to EMI were somewhat conflicting. In response to an open-ended question on this topic, many students expressed their dislike of the present system, but nevertheless, only a minority (23.7%) stated that they ‘Disagreed’ or ‘Strongly disagreed’ with the policy of using EMI at their institution (Bolton et al., 2023). However, given that these students were attending four of the most prestigious universities in the country, we would not claim that their opinions were representative of all students elsewhere. Despite this, a major finding of our research was that many students had a very pragmatic and sensible attitude to EMI, and in their studies, were able to apply a range of strategies in order to negotiate the realities of EMI in their institutions. Given that the spread of English in HE is unlikely to diminish soon, the challenge in the Korean context, as in many other settings worldwide, may be to encourage sufficiently flexible strategies, linguistically and pedagogically, to enable both students and teachers to derive realistic benefits from the EMI programmes in which they participate.

Acknowledgement The research project discussed in this chapter was funded by the Ministry of Education Academic Research Fund (AcRF) Tier 1 in Singapore (Grant number RG155/16(MS)).

Note 1 An earlier article reporting on this research was published in the journal World Englishes (Bolton et al., 2023).

References Ahn, H. (2022). Student language mixing practices in English medium instruction courses at elite universities in South Korea. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/014346 32.2022.2036169 Asia Society. (2021). Korean history and political geography. Retrieved from https://asiasociety.org/education/ korean-history-and-political-geography Bolton, K., Ahn, H., Botha, W., & Bacon-Shone, J. (2023). EMI (English-medium instruction) in South Korean elite universities. World Englishes, 42, 465–486.

532

English-medium instruction in higher education in South Korea Bolton, K., & Botha, W. (2020). English in Asian universities. In K. Bolton, W. Botha, & A. Kirkpatrick (Eds.), The handbook of Asian Englishes (pp. 133–168). Wiley-Blackwell. Byun, K., Chu, H., Kim, M., Park, I., Kim, S., & Jung, J. (2011). English-medium teaching in Korean higher education: Policy debates and reality. Higher Education, 62, 431–449. Byun, K., & Kim, M. (2011). Shifting patterns of the government’s policies for the internationalization of Korean higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 15, 467–486. Chang, J.-Y., Kim, W., & Lee, H. (2017). A language support program for English-medium instruction courses: Its development and evaluation in an EFL setting. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20, 510–528. Cho, D. W. (2012). English-medium instruction in the university context of Korea: Tradeoff between teaching outcomes and media-initiated university ranking. Journal of Asia TEFL, 9(4), 135–163. Choi, J. (2021). ‘No English, Korean only’: Local students’ resistance to English as a lingua franca at an ‘English only’ university in Korea. Language and Intercultural Communication, 21, 276–288. Choi, L. J. (2021). English as an important but unfair resource: University students’ perception of English and English language education in South Korea. Teaching in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13562517.2021.1965572 Choi, T.-H. (2021). English fever: Educational policies in globalised Korea, 1981–2018. History of Education, 52, 670–686. Chun, S., Kim, H., Park, C.-K., McDonald, K., Oh, S. A., Kim, D. L., & Lee, S. M. (2017). South Korean students’ responses to English-medium instruction courses. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 45, 951–965. Hwang, K, M. (2017). A history of Korea (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan. Jo, J-r. (2018). Breaking stigma against 2-year vocational college. Korean Herald. Retrieved from http:// www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20180322000923 Joe, Y. J., & Lee, H.-K. (2013). Does English-medium instruction benefit students in EFL contexts? A case study of medical students in Korea. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22, 201–207. Jon, J.-E., Cho, Y. H., & Byun, K. (2020). Internationalization by English-medium instruction? Professors’ decoupling behaviors to EMI policy in Korean higher education. KJEP, 17, 297–318. Jon, J.-E., & Kim, E. Y. (2011). What it takes to internationalize higher education in Korea and Japan: English-mediated courses and international students. In J. D. Palmer, A. Roberts, Y. H. Cho, & G. S. Ching (Eds.), The internationalization of East Asian higher education: Globalization’s impact (pp. 147–171). Palgrave Macmillan. Kang, K. I. (2018). English-medium instruction policies in South Korean higher education. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 33(1), 31–52. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/wpel/vol33/iss1/2 Katz, R. (2022). South Korea surpasses Japan in real GDP per capita. East Asia Forum. Retrieved from https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2022/04/01/south-korea-surpasses-japan-in-real-gdp-per-capita/ Kim, E. G., Kweon, S.-O., & Kim, J. (2017). Korean engineering students’ perceptions of English-medium instruction (EMI) and L1 use in EMI classes. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38, 130–145. Kim, E. G., Park, S., & Baldwin, M. (2021). Toward successful implementation of introductory integrated content and language classes for EFL science and engineering students. TESOL Quarterly, 55, 219–247. Kim, E. G., & Yoon, J.-R. (2018). Korean science and engineering students’ perceptions of English-medium instruction and Korean-medium instruction. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 17, 182–197. Kim, J., Kim, E. G., & Kweon, S.-O. (2018). Challenges in implementing English-medium instruction: Perspectives of humanities and social sciences professors teaching engineering students. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 111–123. Kim, J., & Tatar, B. (2017). Nonnative English-speaking professors’ experiences of English-medium instruction and their perceived roles of the local language. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 16, 157–171. Kim, J., & Tatar, B. (2018). A case study of international instructors’ experiences of English-medium instruction policy in a Korean university. Current Issues in Language Planning, 19, 401–415. Kim, J., Tatar, B., & Choi, J. (2014). Emerging culture of English-medium instruction in Korea: Experiences of Korean and international students. Language and Intercultural Communication, 14, 441–459. Kim, L. D. (2017). South Korean education and competition. The Herald Insight. Retrieved from http://www. heraldinsight.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=461

533

Hyejeong Ahn et al. Kim, S. (2021). Internationalization of Korean higher education (1945–2018): A success story. In J. Thondhlana, E. C. Garwe, H. de Wit, J. Gacel-Ávila, F. Huang, & W. Tamrat (Eds.), The Bloomsbury handbook of the internationalization of higher education in the global south (pp. 79–99). Bloomsbury. Koo, S.-W. (2014). An assault upon our children. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes. com/2014/08/02/opinion/sunday/south-koreas-education-system-hurts-students.html Kym, I., & Kym, M. H. (2014). Students’ perceptions of EMI in higher education in Korea. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 11(2), 35–61. Lee, K., & Lee, H. (2018). Korean graduates students’ self-perceptions of English skills and needs in an English-medium instruction context. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 39, 715–728. Park, J.-K. (2019). English-medium instruction in the Korean higher education context: From and English as a lingua franca perspective. In K. Murata (Ed.), English-medium instruction from an English as a lingua franca perspective: Exploring the higher education context (pp. 64–77). Routledge. Park, J. S. (2010). Naturalisation of competence and the neoliberal subject: Success stories of English language learning in the Korean conservative press. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 20, 22–38. Park, J. S.-Y. (2017). English as the medium of instruction in Korean higher education: Language and subjectivity as critical perspective on neoliberalism. In M.-C. Flubacher & A. Del Percio (Eds.), Language, education and neoliberalism: Critical studies in sociolinguistics (pp. 82–100). Multilingual Matters. Piller, I., & Cho, J. (2013). Neoliberalism as language policy. Language in Society, 42, 23–44. Seth, M. J. (2020). A concise history of Korea (3rd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. Williams, D. (2015). A systematic review of EMI and implications for the South Korean HE context. ELT World Online, 1–23. Retrieved at https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/blog.nus.edu.sg/dist/7/112/ files/2015/04/EMI-in-South-Korea_editforpdf-1gmsyy5.pdf

534

37 ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN TAIWAN Yi-Ping Huang

Introduction This chapter explores various aspects of English-medium instruction (EMI) in Taiwanese higher education. It begins by introducing the status of English as a foreign language of prestige in the country and proceeds to outline its EMI policies and implementation. It then discusses the challenges faced by teachers in EMI and their professional development, pedagogical and linguistic practices in EMI classrooms, and the learning experiences of students in EMI programmes. The chapter concludes by suggesting directions for future research using Dafouz and Smit’s (2016, 2020) ROAD-MAPPING framework. Taiwan has a linguistically and culturally diverse population, even though 97% of its people are ethnically Han Chinese (Scott & Tiun, 2007; Wu & Lau, 2019). The overwhelmingly dominant Chinese comprises two groups. The first is made up of the ‘Holo’ or ‘Hoklo’, whose ancestors arrived in Taiwan before 1949, beginning from the end of the Ming dynasty. The Holo/Hoklo originate largely from southern Fujian province, and thus claim Hokkien, the dialect or language of this region, as their mother tongue or home language. Given the long-standing presence and dominance of this group in Taiwan, Hokkien is, in fact, commonly referred to as ‘Taiwanese’ in Taiwan. The second group is the ‘Mainlanders’, who arrived after 1949, following the retreat of the Kuomintang nationalist government from mainland China after their defeat in the post-WWII civil war at the hands of Mao’s communists. It was this group largely that brought Mandarin Chinese in Taiwan, and as they took political control, promoted and established it as the national and official language of government and education. The remainder of the population consists of two main groups: the ‘aboriginal’ or indigenous people, of which there are 16 sub-groups recognised by the government, and Hakka Chinese who ancestors largely originate from Guangdong province in the mainland. Added to this mix are recent immigrants, primarily from Southeast Asian countries such as the Philippines, Indonesia, and Vietnam. Mandarin Chinese today is well established as the common lingua franca. However, each of the subpopulations described continues to use its own heritage language (Chen & Tsai 2012; Wu & Lau, 2019). Taiwan’s linguistic diversity continues to be reflected in and maintained through language education policies that include the national language (Mandarin Chinese), local vernaculars (Hokkien, Hakka, and Austro-Polynesian languages, and new immigrants’ 535

DOI: 10.4324/9781003011644-41

Yi-Ping Huang

mother tongues), and foreign languages in the K-12 language curriculum. English has the status of a foreign language (EFL), making Taiwan part of ‘the Expanding Circle’ of world Englishes (Kachru, 1992, p. 356). Although it is neither used as a lingua franca in daily communication nor is it taught as often as Mandarin Chinese and local vernaculars in formal education (Wu & Lau, 2019), it has become a prestigious foreign language as a result of sociohistorical factors and language policies.

The historical background Before the end of World War II and during the Japanese colonial period from 1945 to 1985, learning Japanese was more important than learning any other language, and English was provided only as an elective course at the secondary level (Chen, 2003). At this time, English education was specifically limited to Taiwanese males. After World War II and the Kuomintang’s relocation to Taiwan, Mandarin Chinese began to be promoted as the main lingua franca, and English gained favour as a foreign language in formal education due to the Kuomintang’s continuance of its previous foreign-language education policy in mainland China. In 1945, English was stipulated to be the only obligatory foreign language taught in middle school. In fact, the word ‘English’ was placed in parentheses after ‘foreign language’ in the Ministry of Education’s (MOE’s) official documents (Chen, 2003), suggesting that foreign-language education was exclusively restricted to English. After the lifting of martial law in 1987, education in Taiwan became influenced by democratic values and decentralisation policies. English was no longer a required course at the college level, and other foreign languages started to be offered in senior high school after 1993. However, the privileged status of English remains unchallenged (Wu & Lau, 2019). Export-oriented economic policies aiming at global markets have, in fact, given rise to more official attempts to increase the English proficiency of the Taiwanese population, with the belief that this would enhance the nation’s competitiveness. English is now taught from elementary school, and English proficiency has become an exit requirement for university education. In addition, English is sometimes used as the medium of instruction in higher education (Chen, 2010, 2014; Wu & Lau, 2019). In fact, English became a popular foreign language in preschools and cram schools long before it was even formalised as an obligatory subject in elementary school. The preference for English may also be because English is not associated with Taiwan’s colonial past like Japanese and Mandarin Chinese, because Taiwan has close ties with the United States, and because the language suggests prestige and prosperity (Wu & Lau, 2019). It is thus not surprising that American English is the preferred variety in English education in Taiwan, although the notion of world Englishes and English as an international language is also accepted (Lee & Hsieh, 2018).

EMI policy in Taiwanese higher education After the National Language Movement initiated by the Kuomintang in 1945, Mandarin Chinese became the primary (and often sole) medium of instruction in Taiwanese tertiary institutions. Since the late 1990s, however, when Taiwan began to internationalise its higher education (F. Y. Lin, 2020), EMI courses and degree programmes have been developed as important mechanisms for achieving the aims of internationalisation, in particular, the recruitment of international students. The promotion of EMI in Taiwan can be broadly divided into three stages, characterised, respectively, by the government’s focus on quantity (2001–2010), quality (2011–2018), or benchmarking (after 2018). 536

English-medium instruction in higher education in Taiwan

The first stage (2001–2010) emphasised growth in the number of EMI courses. EMI did not gain official status until 2001, when, against the backdrop of decentralisation of university education in Taiwan, universities were given the responsibility of academic expansion and development of international exchange programmes (F. Y. Lin, 2020). In its 2001 White Paper on University Education Policy (Ministry of Education [MOE], 2001), the government announced its aim to internationalise university education, and listed the important mechanisms for achieving this, comprising the recruitment of international students, the offering of courses (at the graduate level) taught via a foreign language, and an increase in the English proficiency of professors and students. In this document, although ‘EMI’ was not specifically mentioned, English was recognised as the key academic lingua franca for teaching in a foreign language, thereby providing official legitimisation of EMI. In 2002, Taiwan joined the World Trade Organization (WTO), and as the WTO’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) requires member countries to make higher education services accessible to other member countries, provision of EMI became pressing for Taiwan. Thus, in the same year, the government’s ‘Challenge 2008’, a six-year national development plan (Executive Yuan, 2002), encouraged teachers to offer such courses, along with establishing exchange programmes and encouraging instruction in English: this document provided the first official use of the term ‘EMI’. The emphasis on EMI for the recruitment of international students was motivated not only by the requirements of GATS but also by the government’s aspiration to establish world-class universities in Taiwan. Many national programmes or policies have been introduced to pursue this aspiration. As the number of international students is an important benchmark in QS world university rankings, it is not surprising that the number of international students and consequently EMI courses have become important concerns. In the Aim for the Top University Project (2005–2017), EMI was listed as a key performance indicator (Lin & Shih, 2018), with the ‘E’ in EMI meaning ‘Englishonly’. In the Program for Promoting Teaching Excellence (2005–2017), the growth of EMI-linked professional development workshops was emphasised. In the second stage (2011–2018), the government’s focus was not only on increasing the number of EMI courses and degree programmes, but also on improving the quality of such courses and programmes. Several national initiatives, policies, and regulations towards these ends were related closely to the expansion of international student recruitment. One major concern was an imbalanced focus on research that may sacrifice teaching quality (MOE, 2013), and hence the government began to emphasise the quality of curriculum design and implementation, the cultivation of local students’ global competence, and the recruitment of international students. A major reason for the drive to recruit international students during this period was the growing pressure associated with low birth rates and an ageing population. International student recruitment was thus proposed as a way to address universities’ enrolment shortfalls (F. Y. Lin, 2020a). Initially, the government focussed on students from traditional sources such as the United States and European countries, as well as from neighbouring countries such as China, Japan, and South Korea. Later, the New Southbound Talent Development Program (2017–current), shifted the focus to enrolling students from Australia, New Zealand, Southeast, and South Asia, in order to decrease trade reliance on China and strengthen trade relations with these countries (MOE, 2018). The emphasis also changed from one-way recruitment to mutual talent mobility and cooperation for talent cultivation. In this ongoing programme, scholarships are given to attract international talent, and Taiwanese students are also encouraged to participate in exchange programmes or overseas internships. In relation to the quality of EMI courses and programmes, the MOE commissioned the Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan (HEEACT) to review and monitor EMI degree programmes from 2011. This move was prompted by the identification of some major challenges for a quality EMI degree programme found in a pilot study conducted by the National 537

Yi-Ping Huang

Foundation for International Cooperation in Higher Education (FICHET). These challenges included ‘the qualifications of local teachers, incentives for teachers who use English as the instructional language, insufficient English proficiency of domestic students, and a lack of administrative support for international students’ (Hou, Morse, Chiang, & Chen, 2013, p. 363). The review had two purposes: ‘to audit the quality of curriculum, faculty and learning in EMI degree programs, and to provide feedback and advice to the institutions on areas for self-improvement’ (Hou et al., 2013, p. 363). A summary assessment report for each programme was to be made to determine whether the audited programme was ‘not recommended’, ‘recommended’, or ‘highly recommended’. The emphasis on quality EMI degree programmes can also be seen in the Directions of MOE Plan for Subsidizing the Establishment of English-Taught Degree Programs in Universities and Colleges (2011–2018). Under this plan, subsidies were given to higher education institutes where EMI degree programmes were defined as those using English-only instruction to teach students, more than 50% of whom should be international students (MOE, 2011). To apply for a subsidy, these programmes had to provide proof of accreditation by MOE, AACSB (Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business), IEET (Institute of Engineering Education Taiwan), or any other MOE-approved accreditation institutions. They also needed to demonstrate quality control in terms of curriculum, faculty, and resources. A concern with quality can also be found in the Higher Education SPROUT Project (2018–2022), which aimed to increase global staff and student mobility through enhancing the quality of EMI teaching and offering courses co-taught by international faculty, with the ‘E’ in EMI courses still referring to ‘English-only’. The launch of the Blueprint for Developing Taiwan into a Bilingual Nation by 2030 policy by the National Development Council (NDC, 2018) marks the beginning of the third stage of EMI in Taiwanese higher education. This policy has been renamed the Bilingual 2030 Policy to focus on educating citizens to be bilingual in Chinese and English, with English being viewed as an indicator of global mobility, as well as individual and national competitiveness (NDC et al., 2021). The plan stipulates the selection of three beacon bilingual universities and 18 beacon bilingual colleges as promotion models by 2024, and six and 30 by 2030, respectively (NDC et al., 2021). These universities or colleges are required to reach the ‘25-20-20 target’ by 2024 and ‘50-50-50 target’ by 2030. The first target number indicates the minimal percentage of the sophomores who have a CEFR B2 level or above to reflect English proficiency; the second and third numbers mean the minimum percentage of the sophomores and first-year master’s degree students and that of the credits students taken in English-only courses, respectively. Given the continued efforts to internationalise universities in Taiwan, there were 10,101 EMI courses in the 2019 academic year.1 Based on the list of universities and colleges offering EMI degree programmes for prospective Taiwan scholarship recipients (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2021), there were 55 universities in Taiwan that offer EMI programmes, with a total of 71 programmes at the undergraduate level, 229 at the master’s level, and 150 at the PhD level. Also, according to statistics from the MOE website (2021), the total number of international students grew exponentially from 39,967 in the 2008 academic year to 128,157 in the 2020 academic year.2 Specifically, a steady rise can be seen from Southeast Asia (Tsou & Kao, 2017), with Vietnam, Malaysia, and Indonesia being the most popular countries of origin.

The implementation of EMI at the institutional level As may be inferred, government initiatives have greatly influenced the implementation of EMI at the institutional level, as H. Y. Lin (2020a, 2020b) points out. Lin further notes that given their heavy reliance on government funding, universities in Taiwan have employed EMI as an 538

English-medium instruction in higher education in Taiwan

explicit strategy to promote internationalisation, with high-ranking universities focussing more on retaining and increasing their international profiles, and low-ranking ones, more on recruiting local and international students for marketing reasons. Lin also describes EMI courses or degree programmes in Taiwan as generally divided into two categories depending on the purpose of the target programmes and the type of target students: EMI courses provided by international colleges and EMI degree programmes in what were originally Chinese-taught degree programmes. Both types of courses or programmes aim to recruit international students and help them fulfil graduation requirements, facilitate local students in studying abroad, or enhance local students’ international outlook, professional skills, and English proficiency. These goals all emphasise the necessity of using English as a lingua franca (Huang, 2012; Tsai & Saunders, 2017). H. Y. Lin (2020a, 2020b) also highlights how EMI takes different forms across different universities and programmes. In higher-ranking universities with EMI programmes targeting international students, English is used for most purposes, including classroom oral instruction, discussions, assignments, examinations, and textbooks. However, in some low-ranking institutions, ChineseEnglish bilingual courses (for example, the use of Chinese as the medium of instruction with English coursebooks) are also declared to be EMI courses, as a marketing strategy mainly to attract local students (who tend to have restricted linguistic competency). Such universities typically have few international students. In order to support EMI, the department provides incentives at the departmental level (to help departments in establishing EMI courses or degree programmes) and at the individual level (through giving subsidies or increasing hourly pay to professors who teach non-language EMI courses) (H. Y. Lin, 2020b). Those who teach EMI are often assigned by the institution or volunteer to do so, with most teachers having studied in English-speaking countries (Huang, 2014a, 2019; H. Y. Lin, 2020b). However, the increasing demand for EMI has led to the recruitment of many new faculty members who are able, and required, to use EMI. Their letters of appointment often explicitly require them to teach all courses in English or a required number of EMI courses within a few years (S. C. Chen, 2014; H. Y. Lin, 2020b; Lin, 2018). It is thus unsurprising that junior assistant professors and lecturers constituted more than half of the EMI faculty population in the 2014 academic year (Chung & Lo, 2016). It is also noted that English proficiency, implicitly, has become a gatekeeper for faculty employment (H. Y. Lin, 2020a). However, English proficiency requirements are usually only covertly implied in the recruitment of EMI faculty and students (H. Y. Lin, 2020b). Lin’s study found only one private university that specifies English proficiency requirements in EMI faculty recruitment. Like faculty recruitment, English proficiency is not a key criterion for selecting EMI student (H. Y. Lin, 2020b). Although university applications for international students often require a certificate of English, it is not the main consideration in student selection. This is due to the pragmatic need of the university to enrol a large number of international students. Local students have been admitted to study EMI courses primarily on the basis of their individual desire to undertake specific elective courses that are conducted in English, or because some of their mandatory or required courses are EMI courses (Huang, 2018; H. Y. Lin, 2020b). Consequently, there is significant consensus that EMI implementation in Taiwan requires remedial or preparatory English courses, such as English for specific purposes (ESP) or English for Academic Purposes (EAP) courses (Chu, Lee, & Obrien, 2017; Huang, 2012; Tsai & Saunders, 2017; Yang, 2018). For example, ESP and EMI courses have been vertically integrated into a medical degree programme to enhance medical students’ intercultural communication and global awareness (Tsai & Saunders, 2017). In the earlier years of study in this programme, English courses comprise soft Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) courses where general English ability 539

Yi-Ping Huang

to express ideas is emphasised, while in the later years of study, using English to communicate professional concepts and increasing critical thinking in hard CLIL are emphasised. The medical students in this vertically integrated programme were reported to have become more aware of the importance of English and international observership in cultivating medical professionalism and to have expressed more willingness to participate in overseas observership. The necessity of the preparatory courses has also been noted by the Taiwanese government, as ‘English for Specific Academic Purposes’ courses should be provided before students begin to take EMI courses (NDC et al., 2021).

EMI issues and problems Many studies have indicated that Taiwanese university teachers are generally supportive of EMI. The most common reasons for their support include it being an institutional requirement, their belief in the positive impact of internationalisation on Taiwanese higher education and the presence of international students, their educational and work backgrounds, and their desire to maintain their proficiency in English (Fenton-Smith, Humphreys, & Walkinshaw, 2017; Huang, 2014a, 2019; Li & Wu, 2017; Yeh, 2013). However, teachers’ views of EMI vary across disciplines. Teachers in disciplines where English serves as a global academic lingua franca are inclined to advocate EMI, while those in fields where Chinese is a significant language for research circulation or communication tend to express caution about EMI (Huang, 2011, 2019; H. Y. Lin, 2020a). As such, research on teacher beliefs differs in terms of which subjects should be taught in EMI, whether they should required or elective courses, whom the target audience should be (student selection criteria), and at what educational levels (graduate or undergraduate) EMI should be introduced (Huang, 2014c; Yeh, 2013). Given the contextual diversities in EMI practices, instructors urge a flexible, bottomup, and discipline-specific policy to encourage teachers to choose what to teach and how to teach it rather than the enforcement of the monolingual policy (Huang, 2012, 2014a; H. Y. Lin, 2020a). Although English proficiency or a language-related educational background is not required in EMI faculty recruitment, with few exceptions (Tsui, 2018), most university instructors in Taiwan have expressed confidence in adopting EMI as they believe in their English proficiency and expertise (Chen, 2019; Fenton-Smith et al., 2017; Huang, 2014a, 2019). However, EMI is often reported as time-consuming (Chen, 2017), with some teachers seeing this as a discouraging experience (Tsui, 2018), while others view it as a rewarding challenge (Chen, 2019; Huang, 2014c). Most difficulties teachers encounter are language-related, such as the inability to express their ideas in English fluently and clearly (Fenton-Smith et al., 2017; Huang, 2012, 2014c; Tsui, 2018), to lead discussions in English (Fenton-Smith et al., 2017; Huang, 2012, 2014c; Li & Wu, 2017; Tsui, 2018), and to improvise examples or deal with unexpected situations (Chen, 2019). Another challenge reported in the literature is related to culture. Teachers have reported difficulties in eliciting responses from local students mostly because the students see speaking in English as a face-threatening or a showing-off act (R. T. H. Chen, 2014; Li & Wu, 2017; Tsou, 2017). The presence of international students presents another layer of difficulty, due to the heterogeneity of their accents, differing levels of English proficiency, and differing cultures (Li & Wu, 2017; Tsui, 2018; Yeh, 2013). In the milieu of Confucian culture of teaching that emphasises teacher authority and expertise, it has been argued that all these challenges may lower the instructors’ self-esteem, and consequently their self-efficacy (Huang, 2019). In particular, junior instructors have been observed to feel more vulnerable and insecure than experienced instructors and so it is suggested that experienced instructors are preferable as EMI faculty (Chen, 2019; Tsui, 2018). Aside from English 540

English-medium instruction in higher education in Taiwan

proficiency, one key factor that influences teachers’ perceptions of sell-efficacy is whether they see English primarily as a lingua franca (ELF), or as merely as a foreign language (EFL). The former reported that they used English regularly and held positive views about the presence of international students as opportunities for cross-cultural learning (Chen, 2019; Huang, 2014a). The latter constantly expressed how language barriers impeded quality teaching, decreased their expert authority, and hindered their self-images as good teachers, and how cultural diversity was viewed as an instructional barrier (Chen, 2019). To cope with the difficulties, EMI instructors are often left to a sink-or-swim approach as they draw on their previous language and/or subject-matter learning and teaching experiences (Huang, 2014c, 2019). This strategy is insufficient so researchers in Taiwan have endeavoured to help instructors by proposing useful frameworks and establishing professional development programmes. Common frameworks have been proposed as a guide for future teacher development and evaluation in Taiwan. These frameworks highlight teacher competencies required to use English to meet the needs of diverse students, such as the required knowledge bases (Huang, 2011), pedagogical understanding and knowhow (Huang, 2014b, 2014c; Huang & Singh, 2014), and instructional language required (Chen, 2017). In addition to pedagogical and language training, Tsui (2017) suggests that a licensing certification be incorporated to increase teacher mobility. Huang (2019) draws attention to identity options in professional development as the instructors acted to fulfil their ideal teacher identities (for example, vocational, national, and subject-matter teacher identities), which are usually affirmed when they witness students’ improvement in English proficiency and willingness to interact with peers and/or their own growth after professional development (Chen, 2017; Huang, 2014c, 2019; Li & Wu, 2017; Tsui, 2017, 2018). Nonetheless, the importance of professional development at the national and institutional levels in Taiwan has been recognised. For instance, from 2010, Taiwan’s government has directed six Regional Educational Resource Centers to provide EMI faculty with professional development programmes (Tsui, 2017). The programmes usually take the form of intensive courses or camps (two to three weeks) conducted overseas (Singapore, Australia, and the United States) or in Taiwan. It formally states the necessity of ‘a friendly and effective training system and sufficient teaching resources’ and ‘a wide range of support measures’ for faculty in higher education (NDC et al., 2021, p. 11). Additionally, many universities provide professional development workshops and/or discussions in professional learning communities (PLCs) during lunch breaks on a semesterly basis (Yu, Tseng, Wei, & Su, 2020), which may lead to interdisciplinary teacher collaboration in EMI courses (Lu, 2022). To determine professional development content, programmes often adopt a bottom-up strategy that involves conducting needs analyses using questionnaires and/or administering English pre-tests in the pre-training phase (Tsui, 2017; Yu et al., 2020). The professional development programmes can be generally divided into two types: those focussed on language training, and those focussed on pedagogical training (Fenton-Smith et al., 2017; Tsui, 2017). Tsou, Kao, and Lin (2022) further employ ‘languaging’ and ‘pedagogies’ in their design of a glocalised professional development programme supported by the Ministry of Education. This approach highlights the fluidity of translingual use and acknowledges the importance of intelligibility and comprehensibility on the one hand, while addressing university teachers’ lack of pedagogical training and anxiety about English use on the other hand. They thus propose the ‘ODIR+3’ model: ‘ODIR’ (Orientation, Delivery, Interaction, and Recap) is a curricular loop used to plan and maximise learning opportunities in a backward task design, while ‘+3’ includes three Rs (Revisit, Review, and Re-design), three aspects of English (English for General Purposes, English for Specific Purposes, and Disciplinary Literacy in English), and three effective strategies (AI/digital support, 541

Yi-Ping Huang

translanguaging, and multimodality) (Tsou et al., 2022). In general, however, it is difficult to recruit professors who have an interest in and commitment to long-term professional development due to their busy schedules and diverse needs (Yu et al., 2020). Additionally, English proficiency may become a self-screening mechanism as those who regularly participate in PLCs tend to be those with higher levels of English proficiency (Yu et al., 2020). With only one exception in which teachers complained about the irrelevance of middle school teaching techniques offered overseas, studies show that those who participated in the professional development programmes expressed favourable and changed attitudes, as well as improved knowledge and skills (Lu, 2022; Tsui, 2017, 2018). These teachers usually reported an awareness of the role of ELF, a sense of expanded pedagogical knowledge and improved skills, as well as a feeling of companionship, resulting in a boosted sense of self-efficacy. In particular, interdisciplinary teacher collaboration gave instructors new insights into their disciplinary teaching (Lu, 2022). The teacher trainers from Yu et al.’s (2020) PLCs also reported growth in professionalism, learning capacity, and sense of community. Among professional development activities, teachers value the opportunities to conduct classroom observations abroad, make their own English presentations, and establish interdisciplinary social networks (Tsui, 2017, 2018). However, they question the need for overseas training as the teaching context in an English-speaking country differs significantly from that in Taiwan. Given the cross-disciplinary differences, the teachers also recommend involving experienced instructors to comment on their English-teaching performance (Tsui, 2017, 2018).

EMI educational and language practices A number of studies clearly demonstrate that EMI faculty in Taiwan unsurprisingly self-identify as subject-matter teachers rather than English teachers, and hence, they focus more on knowledge acquisition than English learning (Huang, 2009, 2012, 2019; Tsou & Kao, 2017; Yeh, 2013). They believe it is not their obligation to provide explicit language instruction or correction. Only in Huang’s (2019) study, did two instructors in law insist on the use of English-only instruction, integrated English skills, and error correction due to their pedagogical beliefs and disciplinary emphasis on accuracy. Otherwise, EMI faculty pay most attention to content, cognitive, and/or cultural objectives, as well as the language of learning, which includes significant academic concepts or terminology (Huang, 2014b). Although EMI course design varies depending on the nature of courses and disciplines (Tsou & Kao, 2017), common instructional activities in EMI classrooms in Taiwanese universities include, but are not limited to, lectures, demonstrations, discussions, student presentations, case studies, role plays, and field trips. Chang (2021) identifies Taiwanese teachers’ use of three approaches to EMI depending on the role of English: technical (use of English to teach academic content), pedagogical (use of English to support learners’ understanding of academic content), and sociocultural (use of English to engage learners around the world). With few exceptions (Tsou, 2017), instructors and students value interactivity highly in EMI classes. This is evident in empirical studies that report that local, and particularly international, students are dissatisfied with knowledge transmission styles of teaching (R. T. H. Chen, 2014; Huang, 2012, 2018). They also highlight that instructors need to constantly check student comprehension considering the foreign-language medium of instruction (Chen, 2017; Chern & Lo, 2017; Huang, 2012, 2014b), and that knowledge should be socially constructed (Huang, 2014c; Tsai & Saunders, 2017). In Taiwanese EMI classrooms, interaction often takes place in the form of questioning, whether they be open-ended or referentialdisplay questions (Huang, 2014b), to elicit diverse perspectives or engage cognitive thinking (Tsai & Tsou, 2015). In-class questions are usually initiated by teachers, international students, and a 542

English-medium instruction in higher education in Taiwan

few local students with interest in the content, while other local students tend to ask questions after class (Huang, 2014b, 2014c; Huang & Jhuang, 2015). In addition to interactivity, common strategies employed by EMI instructors include languagerelated support (for example, through paraphrasing, slowing down the pace, using simple English, avoiding idioms, employing L1, using glossaries, and recasting inaccurate student responses) and conceptual support (for example, using audio-visuals, analogies, metaphors, narratives, and concrete examples) (Chang, 2010; Huang, 2012, 2014b; Tsai & Tsou, 2015; Yeh, 2013). Instructional strategy choices depend on content difficulty, students’ and teachers’ language proficiency, student responses, and prior teaching experiences (Huang, 2014c; Tsai & Tsou, 2015). For example, in Tsai and Tsou’s (2015) research, instructors tended to paraphrase or repeat keywords in simple English and elicit responses to build on students’ prior knowledge for students with a low level of English proficiency, while eliciting critical or logical thinking for students with an advanced level of English proficiency. Unlike the wealth of research on instructional strategies, comparatively few EMI studies have investigated assessment methods. In those that have done so, university teachers’ course assessment methods in EMI were found to be similar to those in Mandarin Chinese – mostly summative assessment (Tsou & Kao, 2017). The use of course assessment is related to teachers’ perceptions of the roles of English. Those who viewed EMI as a tool for content learning tended to adopt paper-based written exams; those who saw EMI as a means for academic training (communication and logical thinking) tended to use weekly assignments and case study analysis; and those who regarded EMI as a way to create language-use environments were inclined to use online chatrooms or oral presentations to assess student comprehension, oral, and written abilities. The role of the L1, typically Mandarin Chinese, is central to EMI practices in Taiwanese university classrooms. Although national and some institutional policies have stipulated English-only instruction, a number of studies have found extensive use of Chinese – framed as code-switching in the earlier research and translanguaging in more recent research (Chang, 2010, 2018; Huang, 2012, 2014b, 2021; Kao, Tsou, & Chen, 2021; Yeh, 2013). In general, teachers perceive the students’ L1 as a resource they can use to support local students’ learning, and so discussion revolves around when and why L1 – especially Mandarin Chinese – should be used. With few exceptions in which Mandarin Chinese is regarded as an interference (Huang, 2019), teachers concur that Mandarin Chinese is permissible for student responses, peer interaction, group work, and exams, since content learning is the priority. Teachers also use Mandarin Chinese to translate or summarise information. They also often elicit students’ translation in Mandarin Chinese to ensure student comprehension. This is done so to relate concepts to students’ prior knowledge, check and ensure comprehension, ask critical questions, and establish rapport (Chen, 2017). Recent studies have focussed on the exact nature of such use of the L1 as a resource (Chang, 2018; Huang, 2021; Kao et al., 2021). In a recent study of eight EMI university teachers’ classroom language use, Kao et al. (2021) identified two types of strategic L1 use: Instructional and interactional. The former typically involved the teachers translating and paraphrasing to enhance students’ understanding of course material, while the latter was mostly employed to encourage student participation and enable smoother communication. The study also found that the teachers employed the L1 more for instructional than interactional purposes, albeit only marginally so. Additionally, Huang’s (2021) case study in a private university found that both teachers and students used diverse semiotic resources to achieve communicative effectiveness and efficiency. The L1, often along with other semiotic resources and modes (for example, body language, drawing, and online dictionary), was used among students of the same nationality. Mandarin Chinese was also used by international students with a good command of the language to build rapport with local 543

Yi-Ping Huang

students or to help them understand. Those with good English abilities would also translate ideas expressed in the L1 into English for the instructor or for others. On a more cautionary note, Lin’s (2022) study of local and international students’ lab experiences suggests that L1 use in EMI settings is not unproblematic. The study found that whether teachers had an open policy or an English-only policy in lab meetings, local and international students had to discuss and negotiate their language choices. However, such negotiations were often complicated due to the relative power wielded by the local students, who had massive superiority in terms of number, and the teachers, who had instructional authority. Lin suggests that the outcomes of such negotiations can result in non-inclusive language choice outcomes that may not facilitate learning for those excluded. A few studies have also indicated that extensive use of Mandarin Chinese may inhibit international students’ comprehension (Lau & Lin, 2017; Lin, 2022), and submission to instructional authority may silence their voices (Lin, 2022).

The effectiveness of EMI programmes Taiwanese students often hold an instrumental view of EMI as a tool for internationalisation abroad or at home (Chow, 2017; Huang, 2012; Lau & Lin, 2017). Many perceive that EMI can help them acquire diverse capital, including English proficiency, intercultural sensitivity, social networks, and foreign languages – advantageous building blocks in student careers (Chow, 2017; Huang, 2015, 2021; Lau & Lin, 2017). A large number of studies on EMI in Taiwan have documented the students’ self-reported perceived benefits from taking EMI courses, most of which relate to language development. In general, the students felt not only greater motivation to learn English, but also improvement in their English abilities, particularly in their receptive skills, and in the acquisition of discipline-specific vocabulary presumably due to the extended exposure to academic discourses in English (Chen & Kraklow, 2015; Huang, 2009, 2015; Li & Wu, 2017; Wu, 2006; Yeh, 2014). In terms of speaking, the students generally report an increase in their ability and confidence to express themselves in English (Huang, 2009; Wu, 2006; Yeh, 2014), although Huang (2009, 2012) suggests that this varies depending on the frequency of English use. Yeh (2014), however, reported that Taiwanese students in EMI courses experienced less improvement in their English writing skills since they were less frequently required to write in English, especially in the sciences (Yeh, 2014). Related to language development is students’ increased cross-cultural awareness, especially for those who can perceive and act on the advantages of the presence of international students (Chow, 2017; Huang & Jhuang, 2015; Lau & Lin, 2017; Wu, 2006). In terms of the challenges faced by Taiwanese students undertaking EMI courses, the most commonly reported are heavy study loads, as well as inability to comprehend lectures, materials, or exam questions, participate in discussions, and deliver oral presentations (Chen, 2017; Huang, 2009, 2012; Li & Wu, 2017; Yeh, 2014). Instructors attribute these challenges not only to students’ lack of English proficiency but also to their lack of diligence, good learning habits, and background knowledge (Huang, 2012, 2014c; Huang & Jhuang, 2015). On the other hand, the students believe that important factors that impede their comprehension include the lack of (specialist) vocabulary, the speaking pace of their instructors, and unfamiliarity with instructors’ and peers’ accents or cultures (Huang, 2009, 2012; Li & Wu, 2017; Yeh, 2014). A very serious concern for both domestic and international students in EMI classrooms is a lack of dialogic teaching with life and concrete examples (Chen, 2014; Huang, 2018). In a number of studies, both students and teachers find that depth and breadth of content learning is the least satisfactory aspect of EMI courses (Chen, 2017; Huang, 2009, 2012, 2018; Li & Wu, 2017; Wu, 2006). Such worries may lead local 544

English-medium instruction in higher education in Taiwan

students to display resistance to EMI courses and programmes and hence opt for Chinese-medium courses instead (Huang, 2018). Huang (2009, 2012, 2014c) reports that both domestic and international students in Taiwanese universities require adjustment time for EMI experiences for different reasons, especially those who have not had previous experience of EMI courses or those who possess a lower level of English proficiency (Huang, 2009, 2012, 2014c). However, students report that they can gradually adjust to the diverse accents of their classmates and teachers (Huang, 2014c, 2019), and develop new learning styles for their EMI courses as well as ways to interact with international students (Chow, 2017). Many also develop a critical consciousness that ethnicity and speaking with different non-standard accents is unrelated to teaching or learning quality (Huang, 2019). Among international students, one often voiced concern is that there are insufficient EMI course options in their universities (Chen, 2014; Lau & Lin, 2017; H. Y. Lin, 2020a). At the same time, their lack of adequate Mandarin language skills disempowered them from functioning effectively in Chinese-medium courses, despite their belief that Mandarin Chinese can provide them with significant capital in their careers (Chen, 2014; Lan, 2018; Lau & Lin, 2017). Like their domestic counterparts, they also report experiencing initial communication breakdowns in EMI courses due to the heavy or unfamiliar accents of their instructors and peers (Lan, 2018; Lau & Lin, 2017). They may also suffer from the lack of ability to understand Mandarin texts (Lin, 2018; Tran, 2011). They report the need to adjust to instructors’ monologic teaching styles, and their domestic classmates’ reticence in class and self-monitoring of English use (Chen, 2014; Lan, 2018; Lau & Lin, 2017; Lin, 2018; H. Y. Lin, 2020a). The adjustment process for both domestic and international students to classroom interaction in EMI courses appears dynamic. Lin (2018) showed a fluid learning process in the form of acculturation in which local students gradually displayed more talk, while international students, more silence. A few studies also indicate that adjustment does not necessarily result in better consequences. For example, a Vietnamese student withdrew due to the negative comments on her heavy accent made by local students and instructors (Lan, 2018), suggesting a common pattern where Taiwanese students see English as a foreign language, while international students emphasise its role as a lingua franca.

Conclusion Research on EMI in Taiwanese higher education has covered a wide range of topics, stakeholders, locations, disciplines, and perspectives. This section summarises major themes, identifies limitations, and provides directions for future research based on Dafouz and Smit’s (2016, 2020) ROAD-MAPPING framework, which identifies six dimensions that may be covered in EMI studies: (i) the roles of English, that is, the functions of English in relation to other languages; (ii) academic disciplines, that is, the features of disciplinary practices with regard to English use; (iii) language management, that is, language policy statements and documents concerning the use of language, including English; (iv) agents, that is, the students, teachers, administrators, student unions, and other stakeholders involved; (v) practices and processes, that is, the various administrative, research, professional, as well as actual teaching and learning activities carried out in each multilingual context; and (vi) internationalisation and glocalisation, that is, the combination of global, international, and local needs or interests that higher education institutions need to address. Nearly all studies on EMI in Taiwan’s higher education explicitly or implicitly indicate that the roles of English and other languages (for example, Mandarin Chinese) are discursively constructed, change across agents, practices, and policies, and determine stakeholder agency. In 545

Yi-Ping Huang

general, they suggest a prevailing understanding of English as an academic lingua franca for the internationalisation of higher education that is both pragmatic and critical. The pragmatic depictions of the ‘E’ in EMI in the studies refer to it as an instructional or communicative use of English among multilingual speakers of different first languages to acquire professional knowledge, increase cross-cultural communication, and improve student and faculty mobility, in particular, in relation to discussions of language management and classroom practices. More critical discussions point to the co-existence of some stakeholders’ orientation that emphasises a standardised, nativelike, English-speaking ideology with other stakeholders’ orientation that emphasises intelligibility, communicative efficiency, and English ownership. While an English as a foreign language (EFL) orientation appears to hinder the efficacy of EMI programmes, an English as a lingua franca (ELF) orientation seems to empower teachers and students in their use of English. A number of studies also indicate a dynamic power struggle in language and identity choices among stakeholders, especially when Mandarin Chinese is considered an alternative capital and lingua franca. More recent research cautions against the neoliberal role of English and so highlights the primacy of language ecology approaches to EMI, or linguistically responsive teaching in discussions of language management, classroom practices, and internationalisation and glocalisation. EMI studies in Taiwan cover a range of academic disciplines in commerce, science (such as engineering and medicine), law, the humanities (such as foreign languages), and social science (such as politics and tourism) at the graduate and undergraduate levels. These studies suggest that the nature of each academic discipline shapes teachers’ course design, material selection, assessment methods, teaching roles and identities, and use of scaffolding and translanguaging, and so experienced instructors are suggested as mentors in professional development. It also affects how teachers view the roles and uses of English in EMI. Such results imply that one-size-fits-all language policies should be democratised to allow for differentiated practices that cater to disciplinary diversity in Taiwan. Additionally, as more attention is given to science and social science, more analysis of EMI practices in law and the humanities is needed. These studies also indicate that EMI-related policies at the national and institutional levels are essentially top-down, marketdriven, and quantity-concerned, but actual EMI practices do not necessarily reflect official policy. What remains under-reported, however, includes the question of who develops these policies and who defines criteria for ‘quality’ programmes, courses, and teachers, as well as what considerations have been made, whose voices are heard and unheard, and who benefits from such policies. It is thus suggested that more critical research can be done to examine policy-making processes and the rhetoric-reality connections. The agents featuring in EMI studies in Taiwan are largely teachers and students, with a focus on their perceptions of the rationales, benefits, and difficulties, as well as their coping strategies and language choices. However, four types of agents have received limited attention and deserve more. First, as some studies have shown that a lack of bilingual environments may lead to international students being segregated from local students, investigating administrators’ and EMI faculty’s viewpoints about the benefits, difficulties, and language choices in interacting with international students may provide useful insights into how international and domestic students may be better integrated socially. This can contribute to the development of the bilingual abilities of the domestic students. Second, very few studies focus on international faculty. As the national policy encourages local-international faculty collaboration or exchange, more research should be conducted to examine international faculty’s educational and language practices. Third, in comparison with studies on local students, there has been a relatively restricted focus on international students, and future studies can examine the viewpoints and experiences of specific groups of such students of

546

English-medium instruction in higher education in Taiwan

different national, ethnic, linguistic, and cultural origins. Fourth, much research has focussed on the role of instructors with limited attention to the role of peers in the students’ learning. Future studies can examine peer interaction and support in academic and social interaction within and beyond the EMI classroom. The majority of the EMI studies in Taiwan are concerned with practices and processes, with the focus on teaching, learning, and learning-to-teach experiences, as well as classroom activities and discourses. Such studies tend to rely on self-reporting methods to determine the effectiveness of EMI. There has been little empirical study that compares the outcomes of EMI and non-EMI programmes, for instance, the examination results of students in equivalent EMI and non-EMI programmes or courses. More such quantitative study or longitudinal research that investigates students’ learning beyond their graduation, is needed to evaluate the efficacy of EMI. In addition, while the necessity of language mixing or translanguaging is well established in a number of studies, future research can explore how it is used by teachers and students in different disciplines and who benefits from such translanguaging practices. More research should also focus on ways to develop effective professional development and PLCs programmes as it is challenging to maintain attendance rates, meet teachers’ diverse needs, and understand the impact of current professional development and PLCs programmes on actual practices. Research on practices and processes can also expand to include other formats of teaching and learning, such as group work and online learning. Finally, the dynamics of internationalisation and glocalisation have frequently been explored, as EMI has largely been a governmental and institutional response to the internationalisation of higher education. The focus on internationalisation in higher education at the national level is evolving and political, while the ways to internationalise higher education differ across university and programme types, as well as academic disciplines. The effect of different internationalisation strategies on the role of English, stakeholder agency, practice and processes, and academic disciplines can be investigated. As Tsou (2021) proposes, translanguaging as a glocalising strategy in EMI in Asia, and the ways in which teachers appropriate what they learn in professional development or PLCs in their class teaching can also be considered a glocalisation strategy in need of future exploration.

Notes 1 http://ucourse-tvc.yuntech.edu.tw/. 2 The international students include those who seek a degree, do a short-term exchange, or participate in Mandarin Chinese.

References Chang, S.-Y. (2018). Beyond the English box: Constructing and communicating knowledge through translingual practices in the higher education classroom. English Teaching & Learning, 43, 23–40. Chang, S. Y. (2021). English medium instruction, English-enhanced instruction, or English without instruction: The affordances and constraints of linguistically responsive practices in the higher education classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 55, 1114–1135. Chang, Y. Y. (2010). English-medium instruction for subject courses in tertiary education: Reactions from Taiwanese undergraduate students. Taiwan International ESP Journal, 2, 55–84. Chen, F. (2017). Instructional language use in environmental science classroom. In W. Tsou & S. M. Kao (Eds.), English as a medium of instruction in higher education: Implementations and classroom practices in Taiwan (pp. 57–78). Springer Nature.

547

Yi-Ping Huang Chen, R. T. H. (2014). East Asian teaching practices through the eyes of Western learners. Teaching in Higher Education, 19, 26–37. Chen, R. T. H. (2019). University lecturers’ experiences of teaching in English in an international classroom. Teaching in Higher Education, 24, 987–999. Chen, S. C. (2003). The spread of English in Taiwan: Changing issues and shifting attitudes. Crane. Chen, S. C. (2010). Multilingualism in Taiwan. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 205, 79–104. Chen, S. C. (2014). Globalization and English education in Taiwan: Policies, teaching, and outcomes. Educators and Professional Development, 31(2), 7–20. Chen, S. C., & Tsai, Y. (2012). Research on English teaching and learning: Taiwan (2004–2009). Language Teaching, 45, 180–201. Chen, Y. L. E., & Kraklow, D. (2015). Taiwanese college students’ motivation and engagement for English learning in the context of internationalization at home: A comparison of students in EMI and non-EMI programs. Journal of Studies in International Education, 19, 46–64. Chern, C. L., & Lo, M. L. (2017). Instructional activities that motivates learners in tourism program. In W. Tsou & S. M. Kao (Eds.), English as a medium of instruction in higher education: Implementations and classroom practices in Taiwan (pp. 115–128). Springer Nature. Chow, W. C. E. (2017). Learning experience of Taiwanese students in the context of higher education internationalization: A qualitative study. Taiwan Educational Review Monthly, 6, 228–254. Chu, H. N. R., Lee, W. S., & OBrien, P. W. (2017). Student satisfaction in an undergraduate international business EMI program: A case in southern Taiwan. Journal of Studies in International Education, 22, 1–12. Chung, C. L., & Lo, M. L. (2016). Prospect and case study of English-medium instruction of transportation courses in Taiwanese universities. English Teaching & Learning, 40(3), 87–121. Dafouz, E., & Smit, U. (2016). Towards a dynamic conceptual framework for English-medium education in multilingual university settings. Applied Linguistics, 37, 397–415. Dafouz, E., & Smit, U. (2020). ROAD-MAPPING English medium education in the internationalised university. Palgrave Macmillan. Executive Yuan, Taiwan. (2002). Challenge 2008 national (2002–2007) development plan. Retrieved from https://www.teg.org.tw/files/events/2002.05.31.pdf. Fenton-Smith, B., Stillwell, C., & Dupuy, R. (2017). Professional development for EMI: Exploring Taiwanese lecturers’ needs. In B. Fenton-Smith, P. Humphreys, & I. Walkinshaw (Eds.), English-medium instruction in higher education in Asia-Pacific: From policy to pedagogy (pp. 195–217). Springer. Hou, A. Y. C., Morse, R., Chiang, C. L., & Chen, H. J. (2013). Challenges to quality of English medium instruction degree programs in Taiwanese universities and the role of local accreditors: A perspective of non-English-speaking Asian country. Asia Pacific Education Review, 14, 359–370. Huang, D. F. (2015). Exploring and assessing effectiveness of English medium instruction courses: The students’ perspectives. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 173, 71–78. Huang, D. F., & Singh, M. (2014). Critical perspectives on testing teaching: Reframing teacher education for English medium instruction. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 42, 363–378. Huang, Y. P. (2009). English-only instruction in post-secondary education in Taiwan: Voices from students. Hwa Kang Journal of English Language and Literature, 15, 123–135. Huang, Y. P. (2011). English-medium instruction (EMI) content-area teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of scaffoldings: A Vygotskian perspective. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 8, 1–32. Huang, Y. P. (2012). Design and implementation of English-medium courses in higher education in Taiwan: A qualitative case study. English Teaching and Learning, 36, 1–51. Huang, Y. P. (2014a). University instructors’ use of English as a medium of instruction in Taiwan: Functions of contextual beliefs. Hwa Kang English Journal, 20, 27–66. Huang, Y. P. (2014b). Teaching content via English: A qualitative case study of Taiwanese university instructors’ instruction. Foreign Language Studies, 20, 27–62. Huang, Y. P. (2014c). Inner contradictions in English-medium instruction in higher education: From an Activity Theory perspective. Soochow Journal of Foreign Languages and Cultures, 39, 31–73. Huang, Y. P. (2018). Learner resistance to English-medium instruction practices: A qualitative case study. Teaching in Higher Education, 23, 435–449. Huang, Y. P. (2019). English-medium instruction in law and the humanities in higher education: The role of teacher identity. Higher Education Research and Development, 38, 1183–1196.

548

English-medium instruction in higher education in Taiwan Huang, Y. P. (2021). Translanguaging in EMI higher education in Taiwan: Learner perception and agency. In W. Tsou & W. Baker (Eds.), English-medium instruction translanguaging practices in Asia: Theories, frameworks and implementation in higher education (pp. 163–180). Springer. Huang, Y. P., & Jhuang, W. T. (2015). Affordance of English-medium instruction contexts in Taiwan. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 12, 1–34. Kachru, B. (1992). Teaching world Englishes. In B. Kachru (Ed.), The other tongue: English across cultures (pp. 355–366). University of Illinois Press. Kao, S. M., Tsou, W., & Chen, F. (2021). Translanguaging strategies for EMI instruction in Taiwanese higher education. In W. Tsou & W. Baker (Eds.), English-medium instruction translanguaging practices in Asia: Theories, frameworks and implementation in higher education (pp. 81–99). Springer. Lan, S. W. (2018). Exploring the academic English socialization of international graduate students in Taiwan. Journal of International Students, 8, 1748–1763. Lau, K., & Lin, C. Y. (2017). Internationalization of higher education and language policy: The case of a bilingual university in Taiwan. Higher Education, 74, 437–454. Lee, J. S., & Hsieh, C. J. (2018). University students’ perceptions of English as an International Language (EIL) in Taiwan and South Korea. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 39, 789–802. Li, M. Y., & Wu, T. C. (2017). Creating an EMI program in international finance and business management. In W. Tsou & S. M. Kao (Eds.), English as a medium of instruction in higher education: Implementations and classroom practices in Taiwan (pp. 21–38). Springer Nature. Lin, F. Y. (2020). Internationalization initiatives of Taiwan’s higher education: A stepping stone to regional talent circulation or reproduction of unbalanced mobility scheme? Higher Education Evaluation and ­Development, 14(2), 69–91. Lin, H. Y. (2020a). Perceptions of the Englishization of higher education in Taiwan: Implementation and implications. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23, 617–634. Lin, H. Y. (2020b). Perceptions of English-medium instruction at universities in Taiwan: The implementation and implications of language education policy (Manuscript submitted for publication). Department of English, National Taipei University of Technology. Lin, R. C., & Shih, T. A. (2018). Audit of aim for the top university project. Government Audit Journal, 38(2), 21–34. Lin, S. (2018). To speak or not to speak in the new Taiwanese university: Class participation and identity construction in linguistically and culturally diverse graduate classrooms. Language and Intercultural Communication, 18, 184–203. Lin, S. (2022). Negotiating language choice in multilingual lab meetings: Voices from domestic and international students in Taiwan. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25, 117–130. Lu, Y. H. (2022). A case study of EMI teachers’ professional development: The impact of interdisciplinary teacher collaboration. RELC Journal, 53, 642–656. Ministry of Education (MOE), Taiwan. (2001). The white paper of university education. Retrieved from https://ws.moe.edu.tw/001/Upload/3/RelFile/6315/6936/ 90.07%E5%A4%A7%E5%AD%B8%E6%95% 99%E8%82%B2%E6%94%BF%E7%AD%96%E7%99%BD%E7%9A%AE%E6%9B%B8.pdf Ministry of Education (MOE), Taiwan. (2010). Aim for the top university plan. Retrieved from https://archive. is/20130804122911/http://140.113.40.88/edutop/index_3.php. Ministry of Education (MOE), Taiwan. (2011). Directions of MOE subsidies to colleges and universities for establishing and implementing EMI degree programs. Retrieved from http://edu.law.moe.gov.tw/LawContent.aspx?id=GL000575. Ministry of Education (MOE), Taiwan. (2013). The MOE talent white paper. Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education (MOE), Taiwan. (2018). The new southbound talent development program. Retrieved from https://www.edunsbp.moe.gov.tw/index_en.html Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2021). List of universities/colleges providing degree programs taught in English (for Taiwan scholarship recipients) 2021 academic year. Retrieved from https://www.roc-taiwan.org/ uploads/sites/16/2021/02/UniversitiesColleges-Offering-Degree-Programs-Taught-in-English-2021-Academic-Year.pdf National Development Council (NDC), Taiwan. (2018). Blueprint for developing Taiwan into a bilingual nation by 2030. Executive Yuan. Retrieved from https://bilingual.ndc.gov.tw/sites/bl4/files/news_event_ docs/2030%E9%9B% 99%E8%AA%9E%E5%9C%8B%E5%AE%B6%E6%94%BF%E7%AD%96%E 7%99%BC%E5%B1%95%E8%97%8D%E5%9C%96.pdf

549

Yi-Ping Huang National Development Council, Ministry of Education, Directorate-General of Personnel Administration, Ministry of Examination, & Civil Service Protection and Training Commission (NDC et al.), Taiwan. (2021). Bilingual 2030. Executive Yuan & Examination Yuan. Retrieved from https://ws.ndc.gov.tw/ Download.ashx?u= LzAwMS9hZG1pbmlzdHJhdG9yLzExL3JlbGZpbGUvMC8xNDUzNC9hODg1MT BkMC04YmQxLTQxZGEtYTgzZC1jOTg0NDM5Y2U3ZmMucGRm&n=QmlsaW5ndWFsIDIwMzAu cGRm&icon=..pdf Scott, M., & Tiun, H. K. (2007). Mandarin-only to Mandarin-plus: Taiwan. Language Policy, 6, 53–72. Tran, T. T. H. (2011). Academic issues and needs: Voices of Vietnamese postgraduates in Taiwan [Paper ­presentation]. 10th Educational Entrepreneurship and Management Conference, Tainan, Taiwan. Tsai, M. L., & Saunders, P. R. (2017). Vertical integration of EMI courses in a medical curriculum. In W. Tsou & S. M. Kao (Eds.), English as a medium of instruction in higher education: Implementations and classroom practices in Taiwan (pp. 39–54). Springer Nature. Tsai, Y. R., & Tsou, W. (2015). Accommodation strategies employed by non-native English-mediated instruction (EMI) teachers. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24, 399–407. Tsou, W. (2017). Interactional skills in engineering education. In W. Tsou & S. M. Kao (Eds.), English as a medium of instruction in higher education: Implementations and classroom practices in Taiwan (pp. 79–93). Springer Nature. Tsou, W. (2021). Translanguaging as a glocalized strategy for EMI in Asia. In W. Tsou & W. Baker (Eds.), English-medium instruction translanguaging practices in Asia: Theories, frameworks and implementation in higher education (pp. 3–17). Springer. Tsou, W., & Kao, S. M. (Eds.). (2017). English as a medium of instruction in higher education: Implementations and classroom practices in Taiwan. Springer Nature. Tsou, W., Kao, Y. T., & Lin, L. C. (2022). A resource book for university EMI in Taiwan: A glocalized design & practice. Bookman. Tsui, C. (2017). EMI teacher developing programs in Taiwan. In W. Tsou & S. M. Kao (Eds.), English as a medium of instruction in higher education: Implementations and classroom practices in Taiwan (pp. 165–182). Springer Nature. Tsui, C. (2018). Teacher efficacy: A case study of faculty beliefs in an English-medium instruction teacher training program. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 15, 101–128. Wu, L. Y., & Lau, K. (2019). Language education policy in Taiwan. In A. Kirkpatrick & A. J. Liddicoat (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of language education policy in Asia (pp. 151–162). Routledge. Wu, W. S. (2006). Students’ attitude toward EMI: Using Chung Hua University as an example. Journal of Education and Foreign Language and Literature, 4, 67–84. Yang, W. (2018). The deployment of English learning strategies in the CLIL approach: A comparison study of Taiwan and Hong Kong tertiary level contexts. ESP Today Journal of English for Specific Purposes at Tertiary Level, 6, 44–64. Yeh, C. C. (2013). Instructors’ perspectives on English-medium instruction in Taiwanese universities. Curriculum and Instruction Quarterly, 16, 209–232. Yeh, C. C. (2014). Taiwanese students’ experiences and attitudes towards English-medium courses in tertiary education. RELC Journal, 45, 305–319. Yu, L. T., Tseng, M. I. L., Wei, S. Y. C., & Su, W. L. (2020). EMI trainers’ reflections on a Taiwanese EFL university teacher learning community: Challenges and recommendations. Taiwan International ESP Journal, 11, 71–88.

550

38 ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN VIETNAM Mai Xuan Nhat Chi Nguyen and Phung Dao

Introduction The current era of internationalisation and globalisation has witnessed several exciting and wideranging developments and reforms in Vietnam’s higher education (HE) system (Hayden & Le, 2010; Phan & Doan, 2020). Among these developments, English as a medium of instruction (EMI) has been considered one of the key change factors (Tran & Nguyen, 2018). This chapter aims to provide a broad picture of English as a medium of instruction (EMI) in Vietnam’s higher education. Specifically, the chapter focusses on its role, characteristics, effectiveness, and implementation challenges. The chapter starts with an overview of the sociolinguistic background and the history of languages of instruction in Vietnam. We next present the introduction of EMI in Vietnam’s higher education context. Types and distinctive characteristics of EMI higher education programmes are subsequently described and discussed. The chapter then reviews the effectiveness and challenges of EMI implementation in the Vietnamese higher education system, before concluding with remarks about related future prospects.

The sociolinguistic background Geographically located in the eastern edge of the Indochinese Peninsula in Southeast Asia, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (henceforth Vietnam) is a multilingual, multi-ethnic, and populous country, with approximately 96.46 million people living in 63 provinces and municipalities (Nguyen, 2021). Around 105 living spoken languages have been recorded in Vietnam (Ethnologue, 2021). Of these languages, the Vietnamese language, spoken by the majority Kinh ethnic group, has been the country’s official language since 1945. Vietnamese has a powerful status over the other languages, which are used only within the confined communities of ethnic minority groups. One of the reasons for the dominance of Vietnamese is that the Kinh have strong influences over the country’s politics and economy. Due to its official status, Vietnamese is the language of constitution, law, education, and all other sectors. Today, it is mandated as the primary language of instruction at all education levels in Vietnam. Policies regarding languages of instruction in the Vietnamese education system in general and in the higher education sector in particular could be considered to closely reflect the political and

551

DOI: 10.4324/9781003011644-42

Mai Xuan Nhat Chi Nguyen and Phung Dao

economic history of Vietnam (Nguyen & Nguyen, 2019). These policies can therefore be categorised according to five phases of Vietnam’s historical development: languages of instruction (1) in the country’s early history, (2) during French colonisation, (3) during the period of the country’s division into the North and the South, (4) after reunification and economic reform (so-called Đổi Mới), and (5) in the twenty-first century. In the early stage of its history, Vietnam did not have its own language (Do, 1996). As the country was under China’s rule, the Chinese language with its ideographic writing system was its official language as well as the medium of instruction across all levels of education (Pham, 1994). However, during this time, a written script was created for the Vietnamese language based on Chinese characters, known as Chữ Nôm. Chữ Nôm was not intelligible to the Chinese and was only spoken and taught by a small group of highly educated Vietnamese scholars. In the nineteenth century, due to an increasing influence from European priests and the French invasion of Vietnam in 1858, Chữ Nôm and Chinese were replaced with French and Vietnamese, which was now called Chữ Quốc ngữ (literally ‘national language’). A romanised alphabet was developed, primarily by a French Jesuit priest named Alexandre d’Rhodes for missionary purposes, and this written script soon replaced Chữ Nôm. Under French colonial rule, the French language was made the primary language of instruction at all education levels, including higher education (Lo Bianco, 1994). Chữ Quốc ngữ (henceforth Vietnamese) together with its new written form appeared to be secondary and was only taught at schools for the sake of training Vietnamese to work for the French colonial government, and injecting French values and cultures into Vietnamese society (Do, 2006; Lam, 2011). After the defeat of France in the First Indochina War and the signing of the Geneva Accords in 1954, Vietnam was split into the North and the South. This political division resulted in contrasting differences in language of instruction policy. In the North, Vietnamese replaced French as the official language of instruction across all levels. At the same time, Russian and Chinese were introduced as foreign languages, as a result of political support from Russia and China during the war. In the South, the French language gradually diminished in importance as English was introduced as a result of US military support for the South Vietnamese government and the stationing of American troops in this part of the country. Both Vietnamese and English became mandatory for education and for all governmental documents and business activities. However, after the reunification of the North and the South in 1975, English was removed from the curricula since it was considered the language of the enemy (Wright, 2002). During this post-reunification period, Vietnamese became the official language of instruction at all levels across the country in order to promote national sovereignty and solidarity (Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 1980, cited in Nguyen, 2006). In 1986, the Vietnamese government implemented a comprehensive reform policy (Đổi Mới) aimed at transforming the country’s economic conditions. During this period, English re-emerged as the most widely used foreign language in public schools and higher education institutions, despite the government’s effort at promoting Russian (Do, 2006). In the early 1990s, although no foreign language was officially prioritised, English gained ascendancy not only at school level but also throughout the higher education sector. Since then, it has gradually become the most taught and learnt foreign language in Vietnam and has in recent years gained the status of a medium of instruction in selected higher education programmes and institutions regulated by the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET). In contemporary Vietnamese education, especially in the higher education sector, English has transformed from ‘the language of enmity (i.e., spoken by the Americans during the Vietnam War) into the language of amity, hope and aspiration’ (Nguyen & Nguyen, 2019, p. 189). 552

English-medium instruction in higher education in Vietnam

EMI in Vietnamese higher education In higher education, driven by an increased recognition of the benefits and essential role of English in developing the country’s various key sectors (such as trade, education, technology, science, research, communication, and tourism), the Vietnamese government has introduced two key national policies concerning the use of English as a medium of instruction: (1) the Higher Education Reform Agenda (HERA) and (2) the national project entitled ‘Teaching and learning foreign languages in the public education system from 2008 to 2020’ (henceforth NFL2020 project). HERA aims to build and reform Vietnamese higher education institutions to be internationally competitive and to meet global higher education standards, with EMI considered as a driving factor for this (Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 2005). The NFL2020 project, on the other hand, focusses on reforming the teaching and learning of foreign languages in the Vietnam education system, among which English is the key language. Its policy therefore covers different education levels ranging from primary schools to colleges and universities. Announced in 2005, HERA is a resolution on the fundamental and comprehensive reform of Vietnamese higher education for the period of 2006–2020, focussing on reforming a wide range of aspects of Vietnamese higher education. These aspects include sector planning, curriculum, governance and management, the quality of staff, research productivity, student enrolment rates, and international engagement. Two areas that are specifically related to EMI are attempts to promote students’ enrolment rates and universities’ global engagement. Driven by these goals, HERA has led to (1) the proliferation of private higher education institutions, especially institutions that are foreign-owned and provide internationally benchmarked EMI degree programmes, and (2) increased collaboration between Vietnamese public higher education institutions and foreign higher education institutions, especially from the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Europe, and recently Thailand and Singapore, in jointly delivering diverse EMI higher education programmes (see the section describing types of EMI programmes). These EMI programmes delivered on Vietnamese campuses are perceived as the so-called ‘internationalisation at home’ strategy for Vietnamese higher education institutions (Tran & Marginson, 2018; Wächter, 2003). In contrast to HERA, the NFL2020 project launched in 2008 is more focussed on English as a foreign language and EMI. The overarching mission of the NFL2020 project is to address existing issues related to the teaching and learning of English at all levels, with the ultimate goal of enhancing English as a foreign language proficiency for all Vietnamese learners and tertiary graduates. At the tertiary level, the NFL2020 project aimed to achieve the following objectives: By 2020 most Vietnamese graduates from vocational schools, colleges and universities gain the capacity to use a foreign language [e.g., English] independently […] to be more confident in communication, further their chance to study and work in an integrated and multicultural environment […] serving the cause of industrialization and modernization for the country. (Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 2008, p. 1) The goal of using EMI at the tertiary level is stated both implicitly and explicitly, with terms such as ‘bilingual’ and/or ‘foreign language’ often used. For example, the stated aims include to ‘encourage education institutions to become more proactive in constructing and implementing bilingual programs’, to ‘construct and implement teaching programs in a foreign language for some subjects’, and to ‘select some key programs and sectors at tertiary level to conduct teaching in a foreign language’ (Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 2008, pp. 2–3). 553

Mai Xuan Nhat Chi Nguyen and Phung Dao

As a result of these top-down government policies, EMI programmes have been introduced in various public and private higher education institutions in Vietnam, mostly in disciplines such as information technology (IT), business administration, banking and finance, accounting, and tourism. These areas are identified as key drivers for Vietnam’s social and economic development in the immediate future (Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 2008). Within the public higher education sector, the government has issued two further policy documents: the Proposal for the Advanced Programs Project in some Vietnamese Universities from 2008–2015 in 2008 and the Regulations on High Quality Programs in Universities in 2014, which mandate the establishment and operation of two important types of EMI programmes in Vietnam’s higher education institutions. The characteristics of these programmes will be described in detail in a later section of this chapter. As for the private higher education sector, due to an emphasis on increasing the privatisation of higher education outlined by HERA (Pham, 2020), EMI also demonstrates signs of significant growth. In 2001, the first completely foreign-owned university, RMIT University Vietnam, a branch of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) Australia, was established in Vietnam. The university offers various English-taught programmes at both undergraduate and graduate levels in different disciplines such as business, management, engineering, design and fashion. More recently, an increasing number of other foreign-owned universities have been founded and licensed to offer tertiary EMI programmes in Vietnam. They include, for example, the British University Vietnam (established in 2009 with entirely foreign-invested capital); Fulbright University Vietnam (established in 2016, funded by the Trust for University Innovation in Vietnam (TUIV), a non-profit organisation based in Boston – USA, and the US Congress); and VinUniversity (established in 2018 by the private corporate Vingroup – the largest conglomerate of Vietnam).

A typology of EMI programmes in Vietnam Pre-dating these government policies, the first EMI programme in Vietnam was in fact recorded to have been established in 1992 – a Master of Business Administration programme jointly conducted by the Hanoi National University of Economics and some universities in France (Nguyen, Walkinshaw, & Pham, 2017), reflecting an increase in foreign collaboration efforts following the country’s economic reforms. Between then and now, EMI programmes in Vietnamese higher education have grown exponentially in both number and size. Currently, there are approximately 500 EMI programmes of various types in operation in the Vietnamese higher education system (Ministry of Education and Training (MOET), 2020). EMI in the higher education sector in Vietnam exhibits a wide range of distinctive characteristics. They can be categorised into two broad types: foreign curriculum-referenced and domestic EMI programmes (Nguyen et al., 2017).

Foreign curriculum-referenced EMI programmes The foreign curriculum-referenced EMI programmes include four distinctive versions: (i) joint programmes, (ii) advanced programmes, (iii) high-quality programmes, and (iv) foreign-owned programmes. Joint programmes are delivered through partnerships between Vietnamese universities and foreign institutions. They are taught in English by expatriate lecturers, with degrees being conferred by partnered foreign institutions. As a result of this foreign degree pathway, JP students are not required to take Marxist-Leninist subjects such as the History of the Communist Party and Ho Chi Minh Thought, which are compulsory for all other Vietnamese students at tertiary level.

554

English-medium instruction in higher education in Vietnam

Joint programmes make up a majority of EMI programmes in Vietnam’s higher education. By 2017, there were 299 joint programmes licensed by MOET, most of which offer degrees in focal applied science disciplines (as identified by MOET) such as finance, business, and accounting. Among these joint programmes, 114 were at bachelor’s level, 122 were master’s, 16 were at college/vocational training level, 2 were doctoral programmes, while the rest awarded professional certificates (MOET-International Cooperation Department, 2017). Advanced programmes are franchising programmes following curricula modified from those of high-ranking overseas higher education institutions to fit the local Vietnamese context (Nguyen et al., 2017). These programmes are part of the attempts by MOET to develop the international profile of Vietnam’s higher education institutions through partnership and collaboration with foreign institutions (Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 2008). While most disciplinary courses are taught in English, students in advanced programmes are still required to take compulsory Marxist-Leninist subjects in Vietnamese. These programmes are taught by both expatriates and local expert lecturers, and degrees are conferred by Vietnamese higher education institutions. As of 2016, there were estimated to be 37 advanced programmes in 22 higher education institutions in Vietnam, offering degrees in engineering and technology (MOET, 2016). Among these programmes, 30 are in partnership with American institutions, one with a Belgian university, two with British, two with Australian, and two with Russian higher education institutions. High-quality programmes are entirely designed and delivered by Vietnamese higher education institutions, primarily based on a well-established equivalent Vietnamese as a medium instruction (VMI) programme. The difference is that high-quality programmes take reference from the curricula of high-quality foreign higher education institutions. It was expected that high-quality programmes would result in higher quality assurance and output standards than their corresponding VMI programmes (MOET, 2014). High-quality programmes are mainly taught by local expert lecturers, with some programmes also employing foreign English-speaking lecturers. The number of English-taught courses within the curricula ranges from 20% to 100%, depending on the availability of lecturers and institutional resources. Current high-quality programmes in Vietnamese higher education institutions offer degrees in IT, Business Administration, Accounting, Banking and Finance, and Tourism. Degrees are conferred by Vietnamese higher education institutions. High-quality programmes are considered a MOET initiative to encourage Vietnamese higher education institutions to revitalise and enhance the quality of their existing degree programmes, as well as to gain financial benefits as they are gradually granted greater autonomy (Nguyen, Hamid, & Moni, 2016). Foreign-owned programmes are those offered in entirely private, foreign-owned universities established in Vietnam following the approval of the Vietnamese government (for example, RMIT University Vietnam, Fulbright University Vietnam, British University Vietnam, VinUniversity). Since these universities operate independently and are not under MOET’s management, their study programmes reflect their vision and corresponding mission statements. Courses of these programmes are taught predominantly in English, mostly by English-speaking lecturers, with their curricula adopted and/or adapted from high-ranking international higher education institutions. Degrees are awarded by the universities themselves, or by partnered institutions (for example, depending on their chosen programme of study, graduates of British University Vietnam may receive degrees from either University of London or Staffordshire University). Most foreign-owned programmes offer majors in Business, IT, and Tourism. Notably, Fulbright University Vietnam and VinUniversity also offer degrees in Arts and Social Sciences, such as History, Psychology, Arts and Media Studies, and Vietnamese Studies.

555

Mai Xuan Nhat Chi Nguyen and Phung Dao

Domestic EMI programmes This group of domestic EMI programmes is much less documented and at times not recognised as individual and independent EMI programmes, as compared with the four foreign curriculumreferenced EMI programmes described earlier. One of the reasons is that they are developed as part of other Vietnamese higher education programmes where English and Vietnamese are both used in separate modules to teach the subject content. Degrees for these programmes are awarded by the local higher education institutions. Given that the English language is used (albeit partially) in these programmes, we argue that they should be considered as ‘domestic EMI’ programmes to reflect more widely the current implementation of EMI in Vietnam’s higher education context. These domestic EMI programmes are of two broad types, EMI social science programmes and English teacher education programmes. EMI social science programmes offer undergraduate and postgraduate training in social science majors such as international studies, English language and linguistics, and translation studies. Their curricula are entirely designed by Vietnamese higher education institutions, with little explicit reference to foreign curricula; degrees are thus awarded by local institutions. However, different from most other EMI programmes whose lecturers have no English-language training background these programmes often employ English-language experts. These lecturers typically have extensive English-language teaching experience as well as formal training and education in the English-major subject. They transition from being English-language teachers to becoming EMI teachers and content experts due to their further education in a nonEnglish academic major or discipline (see Ngo, 2019 for descriptions of a bachelor’s programme in international studies of this type). The second type of domestic EMI programmes is English teacher education programmes, which train Vietnamese graduate to become teachers of English at school levels. The medium of instruction in these programmes is a combination of English and Vietnamese, with some modules delivered in Vietnamese and other modules taught entirely in English (Dang, Nguyen, & Le, 2013; Vu, 2020). These programmes are often not recognised explicitly as a type of EMI programmes because they include some content-based modules taught in Vietnamese, as well as language-based training as well as content-based courses taught in English. They have also been referred to as ‘quasi-EMI’ (Macaro, Sahan, & Rose, 2021), as the learning content of these programmes (that is, English-language teaching) is closely linked to the English language.

The implementation of EMI: Effectiveness and challenges Since EMI is an important issue for contemporary language education policies in Vietnam (see EMI in ‘Vietnamese higher education’ section; see also Nguyen & Nguyen, 2019), our discussion of the effectiveness and challenges of EMI implementation in Vietnamese higher education will be guided by Kaplan and Baldauf’s (1997, 2005) three levels of language planning: macro (national), meso (institutional), and micro (classroom). Specifically, at the macro level, we will examine the changes and developments that EMI implementation has brought about to the Vietnamese higher education sector. The meso level is concerned with institutions that conduct EMI teaching and learning. The micro level is focussed on the enactment and negotiation of governmental and institutional policies in the EMI classroom, which mostly involves EMI lecturers and students as key policy actors.

Effectiveness of EMI in higher education in Vietnam At the macro level, the implementation of EMI could be described as having brought a new wave to the Vietnamese higher education sector. Phan and Doan (2020) consider EMI the ‘flavour of the day’ in the context of Vietnam’s higher education. Indeed, the rise of EMI in Vietnam in recent 556

English-medium instruction in higher education in Vietnam

years has both responded to and reflected a high level of enthusiasm for an education in English which has been permeating the country’s higher education landscape in the past decade. EMI has been embraced by several key stakeholders, including not only higher education policymakers at national and institutional levels (Dang & Moskovsky, 2019; Nguyen et al., 2016), but also university teachers, students, and their parents. The various types of EMI programmes currently offered within the country have, therefore, addressed the demand for an internationalised and better-quality education of a fast-growing middle-class population in Vietnam (Bharadwaj, Jackson, Rastogi, & Rinne, 2013). At the implementational level, EMI has contributed to meeting the broader governmental goal of internationalising the Vietnamese higher education sector (Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 2005). In this regard, achievements have been documented in areas such as revising and transforming university curricula so that they are more in line with international standards (Tran & Marginson, 2018; Trinh & Conner, 2019); creating favourable conditions for greater foreign investment in the higher education system (Dinh & Nguyen, 2019; Rizvi, 2020); and attracting high-achieving international students to Vietnamese higher education institutions (Pham, 2017; VinUniversity, 2023). At the institutional level, EMI has become a means for Vietnamese universities to establish stronger collaborations with international universities for teaching, learning, student mobility, and staff development purposes. Vietnamese higher education institutions have established educational partnerships with more than 200 higher education institutions from 30 countries and territories (MOET-International Cooperation Department, 2023). Additionally, the implementation of EMI has facilitated a greater flow of inbound and outbound staff and student exchanges between Vietnamese and foreign universities. Nguyen et al. (2016) reported that, as a result of the institutionalisation of EMI at Autonomous University (AU-pseudonym), a top-tier business university based in the capital city of Hanoi, by 2010, 146 Vietnamese students from AU were eligible to transfer credits and studied at the university’s US and UK partner institutions in their final year. By 2014, AU had welcomed 21 international students from France, Japan, Korea, and the United States, and by 2103 invited 53 professors from the United States and five academics from Denmark to directly deliver EMI courses at AU during their visits. By 2014, 40 AU academics had also had the opportunity to travel to the United States on short-term staff development schemes at AU’s partner institutions. These diverse ranges of international collaborative activities have undoubtedly contributed to enhancing the teaching and learning quality as well as enriching the professional experiences of both staff and students involved in EMI programmes. Furthermore, internationalisation driven by EMI-based partnerships could be considered one of the key factors in improving the status of Vietnam’s higher education institutions. Four Vietnamese universities are listed in global university rankings for 2021: Vietnam National University-Hanoi (VNU-Hanoi) and Vietnam National University-Ho Chi Minh City (VNU-HCMC) are in the top 1000 on QS World University Rankings and the Times Higher Education University Rankings. Hanoi University of Science and Technology and Ton Duc Thang University are in the 1000+. Notably, all these universities take pride in offering a wide range of EMI programmes in collaboration with international universities (Vietnam National University-Ho Chi Minh City, 2020). At the classroom level, Vietnamese EMI students have reported several benefits associated with EMI learning. First and foremost, many EMI students experience improvements in their English proficiency due to frequent contact with English in EMI courses. They reported becoming better at understanding English lectures and reading academic materials as they advanced further in their EMI degrees (Le, 2016; Ngo, 2019; Tran, Hoang, & Vo, 2019). EMI students felt more confident about their English communication skills as they were required to complete written and oral assessments in English as part of their EMI studies (Le, 2016; Truong, 2017; Truong, Ngo, & 557

Mai Xuan Nhat Chi Nguyen and Phung Dao

Nguyen, 2020), or through immersing in an English-rich learning environment (Dang et al., 2013). Second, gains in disciplinary knowledge delivered through EMI are also dominant findings of EMI studies conducted in the Vietnamese context. Students expressed satisfaction and self-assurance as studying their specialisation through EMI helped them become familiar with discipline-specific terminologies in English, which later facilitated their search for additional learning materials on the web (Le, 2016; Tran et al., 2019). Third, Vietnamese students have claimed that an EMI environment motivates them to adopt more active learning styles. That is to say, they found themselves working harder and employing more learning strategies to better comprehend and make use of English learning materials, compared to courses they did in Vietnamese (Le, 2016). Students of Advanced Programmes in Tran et al. (2019) also pointed out that the use of a variety of formative assessments in their EMI courses encouraged them to exercise their critical thinking and proactively evaluate and identify gaps in their knowledge and skills. Fourth, several Vietnamese students consider their EMI undergraduate experiences a crucial stepping stone for them to pursue further studies either overseas or domestically, thus broadening their educational prospects. Specifically, the updated disciplinary and general academic knowledge and skills gained in EMI courses reportedly familiarised Vietnamese students with the teaching, learning, and communication styles of an international academic environment, enabling them to adapt better as they later studied abroad in an English-speaking context (Truong et al., 2020). Postgraduate studies were also found to be a common path taken by students graduating from Advanced EMI Programmes in biotech and aquaculture in Tran et al. (2019): by 2015, nearly 700 graduates of these programmes had either completed or were studying toward a master’s degree either overseas or locally; while 90 other completed or were undertaking PhD studies. Notably, a majority of these graduates succeeded in securing funding from the Vietnamese government or international scholarship schemes for their postgraduate studies. Finally, an EMI qualification has been perceived as well as demonstrated to enhance graduating students’ employability and career prospects. Many Vietnamese EMI students believe that their improved English competence as a result of EMI study puts them at an advantage in terms of job prospects, compared with others graduating from VMI programmes (Le, 2016). They have also reported that the communication and working skills gained from studying in an EMI environment make them competitive candidates not only in the domestic but also regional job market. Notably, Tran et al. (2019) reported that among 2788 graduates of 35 Advanced Programmes operated in various Vietnamese universities between 2006 and 2016, 62.6% were able to secure jobs that are relevant to their training in well-established institutions and organisations within six months or one year of their graduation. This figure was 57% for all university graduates in Vietnam, according to a 2019 report by MOET (MOET – Centre for Human Resource Training and Supply, 2019). Although the fact that Advanced Programmes often enrolling high-achieving students may lead to a higher employability rate among graduates of these programmes, to a certain extent having an EMI degree still appears to enhance Vietnamese students’ career opportunities. Similar to students, EMI lecturers in Vietnam’s higher education institutions have purportedly acknowledged the contribution of teaching through English to their professional and also personal development. EMI teaching, which mostly involves reading materials, preparing, and giving lectures, and delivering assessments, has given them the opportunities to have frequent contact with English, thus maintaining and improving their English-language proficiency (Le, 2016; Truong, 2017). Many lecturers also value the benefits of having access to updated English materials in their disciplines as they teach EMI courses (Le, 2016). Furthermore, Vietnamese EMI lecturers consider opportunities to exchange their knowledge and experiences with international staff on local EMI programmes, and visits to partner institutions, conducive to their professional development 558

English-medium instruction in higher education in Vietnam

(Nguyen et al., 2016; Truong, 2017). Finally, yet not less importantly, some EMI lecturers have expressed their keenness that EMI teaching benefitted them financially, as in several Vietnamese higher education institutions, lecturers’ incomes are often three or four times higher when they teach EMI courses, compared to VMI (Duong & Chua, 2016; Le, 2016). In some institutions, EMI lecturers are also provided with better working conditions than those who mainly teach VMI courses, such as shared office spaces and air-conditioned classrooms (Le, 2016). To summarise, despite mostly relying on self-reported data (such as surveys and interviews), the existing body of research on EMI implementation in Vietnam’s higher education context has revealed several aspects of its perceived effectiveness across the three levels of language planning and policy. These mostly concern increased internationalisation and development prospects for the country’s higher education sector as well as their EMI institutions; and enhanced abilities and professional opportunities for students and staff. These benefits bear several resemblances with other EMI contexts across the world (see Curle, Jablonkai, Mittelmeier, and Sahan, 2020, for a comprehensive review of perceived benefits of EMI).

Challenges to EMI in higher education in Vietnam Alongside its various benefits, EMI as an emerging educational and social phenomenon in Vietnam has also faced numerous challenges across areas of its implementation, which could be characterised by ‘the presence of vagueness, abstraction, confusion, inconsistency, and patchiness at all levels of policy, conceptualisation, curriculum, implementation, classroom practice, teaching and learning, material development, teacher training, and assessment’ (Phan & Doan, 2020, p. 12). At the macro level, there are several inherent issues associated with national language and educational polices regarding EMI in the Vietnam’s higher education sector. Dang and Moskovsky (2019), in analysing seven blueprint policy documents related to EMI issued by the Vietnamese government and the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) from 2005 to 2014, conclude that many of these EMI policies are more aspirational than realistic. Several goals outlined in these policy documents could be considered overambitious and difficult to achieve by the set target dates. For example, the ‘Proposal for the Advanced Programs project in some Vietnamese universities in 2008–2015’ states that by 2015 English-taught Advanced Programmes would attract approximately 3,000 international students. This number remains idealistic even as at 2021, as currently EMI programmes in Vietnam mostly serve the purpose of providing an internationalised education at home for domestic Vietnamese students (Nonaka, 2020; Tran et al., 2019). Most international students in Vietnamese higher education institutions study courses related to Vietnamese linguistics, literature, and culture, or South East Asian studies (Pham, 2017), rather than the science subjects targeted in Vietnamese EMI programmes. Additionally, EMI policies are lacking in detailed guidance that is needed for coherent implementation at institutional and classroom levels. Institutional managers and EMI lecturers in Pham and Doan (2020) stated that they were not aware of any official policy documents that motivated the introduction of EMI programmes at their institutions. Likewise, an Englishdominant strategy to teaching and learning in EMI classrooms is stressed in several policy documents and MOET-mandated EMI curricula (Dang & Moskovsky, 2019), but there are little to no specific guidelines as to what lecturers and students should do to make frequent English use a feasible practice. In several cases, higher education institutions and lecturers are left to their own devices in how they carry out EMI teaching. This ‘policy of encouragement’ (Pham & Doan, 2020, p. 267) has led to inconsistency (Nguyen et al., 2017) and also difficulties in maintaining quality assurance among EMI programmes in the country (Nguyen, 2018). Programme 559

Mai Xuan Nhat Chi Nguyen and Phung Dao

labelling is also an issue, given that in governmental policy documents, EMI programmes are often referred to as ‘Advanced’ and ‘High Quality’ programmes, while VMI programmes are titled Mass Education Programmes (MOET, 2014), implying ‘normal’ or ‘lesser’ quality (Tran & Nguyen, 2018). Despite the projected and perceived role of EMI in internationalising Vietnam’s higher education, this naming system runs the risk of promoting EMI over mother-tongue education (Tollefson & Tsui, 2014), arguably leading to unhealthy inequality among teachers, students, programmes, and institutions within the sector (Dang & Moskovsky, 2019; Tran & Nguyen, 2018). The absence of transparency and consistency at national policy level has trickled down to EMI execution at institutional level. Instead of being a driver of quality changes in teaching and learning, EMI in some Vietnamese higher education institutions has been used as a tool to achieve rather non-educational goals such as enhancing institutional status, increasing student enrolments and thus revenues, and securing government funding (Nguyen et al., 2016; Pham & Doan, 2020). Furthermore, in the competition for higher student numbers and incomes, some domestic higher education institutions have established collaboration with unaccredited overseas partners (Minh Giang, 2017), continued to recruit students for joint programmes whose licences have expired (Nghiem Hue, 2021), or recruited students for a study level different from one that they are licensed for (Ha Cuong, 2021). These malpractices at institutional and programme levels raise concerns about the quality and effectiveness of the EMI programmes offered. MOET has recently reported that it has systematically reviewed joint international programmes across higher education institutions in the country (most of which use English as the instructional medium) and put a pause on nearly 200 programmes (MOET, 2020) due to quality and transparency concerns. At the micro-(classroom) level, similar to EMI students in several other contexts (Curle et al., 2020; Macaro, Curle, Pun, An, & Dearden, 2018), an inadequate level of English-language proficiency is the most commonly cited challenge for Vietnamese EMI students. The language benchmark for entry into EMI programmes in most Vietnamese higher education institutions is often an IELTS (Academic Module) score of 5.5, or an English test result equivalent to Level B2 in the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR). In reality, however, these entry requirements are often not met by a large number of students applying to EMI programmes. This has led to several higher education institutions ‘bending’ their rules and accepting students at lower levels (Nguyen et al., 2016; Tran & Nguyen, 2018). In some cases, institutions have adapted tests not entirely appropriate for assessing academic language competence (for example, Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC)), and administered only the reading and listening sections of such tests as an entry requirement (Nguyen et al., 2017). Due to these less than adequate English-language proficiency levels, several EMI students have reported struggling with their studies in EMI programmes. Their problems range from difficulties in comprehending English learning materials and understanding lectures (Le, 2016; Ngo, 2019; Nguyen et al., 2016, 2017; Pham & Doan, 2020; Truong, 2017) to reticence and unwillingness to participate in classroom interaction (Le, 2016; Ngo, 2019; Truong, 2017), and lack of confidence in completing assessment tasks (Truong et al., 2020). Notably, the English-language courses that are often offered prior to or alongside EMI programmes, have been found to fall short of effectively preparing students for their EMI studies. This is because these courses are focussed more on developing general English communication skills, rather than discipline-specific academic skills necessary for success in university EMI study (Le, 2016; Truong, 2017). Additionally, students’ varied levels of proficiency are an obstacle to effective learning and communication. Studies have reported that there is often a wide gap in English proficiency level within one cohort of EMI students (Le, 2016; Ngo, 2019; Truong, 2017; Vu & Burns, 2014). Specifically, there are often a number of students who 560

English-medium instruction in higher education in Vietnam

previously attended gifted high schools and excel in English, those whose English is sufficient to meet the entry requirement, and others who do not meet language requirements but are still accepted. These discrepancies not only make it challenging for lecturers in delivering content and organising tasks but also create frustrations among students themselves. Apart from language-related issues, Vietnamese EMI students have also found themselves lacking in basic English study skills such as note-taking and academic writing (for example, referencing techniques), and oral communication skills (Le, 2016). They have also commented on a lack of support resources to help them develop these study skills within their EMI programmes and institutions, while the English-language courses offered do not sufficiently address their EMI learning needs (Dang & Moskovsky, 2023). Additionally, several students have reported being intimidated by the shift in teaching and learning styles as they transitioned from high school to university study; studying in English inevitably adds another layer of complexity to their apprehension (Nguyen et el., 2017). Finally, limited access to updated and quality materials in English pose difficulties to EMI students (Le, 2016). This stems from the fact that subscriptions to academic journals and publishers are still a luxury to many higher education institutions in Vietnam. Finally, EMI implementation has presented EMI content lecturers in Vietnamese higher education institutions with a variety of challenges pertaining to their classroom teaching and professional development. As with students, English proficiency is a major area of concern. EMI lecturers in Vietnamese higher education institutions have been found to possess varied levels of English proficiency (Le, 2016; Nguyen et al., 2017). Many have reported not being confident about delivering lectures in English due to a lack of exposure to the language and inadequate English communication skills (Le, 2016; Vu & Burns, 2014). Quite paradoxically, even those who have had several years of postgraduate studies in English-speaking countries have reported facing challenges in using English for teaching, due to the doubled cognitive load of having to activate both content and language knowledge simultaneously (Nguyen et al., 2016). Some lecturers have also experienced greater pressure when teaching EMI courses compared to VMI ones, due to their own consciousness of their language performance, as well as students’ critical scrutiny of their English proficiency (Le, 2016). This language-related obstacle has resulted in some EMI lecturers simplifying lesson content for the sake of smoother delivery (Le, 2016; Truong, 2017), or glossing over difficult concepts and issues instead of sufficiently unpacking them to facilitate students’ understanding (Nguyen et al., 2017). Another crucial challenge has to do with lecturers’ pedagogical approach to EMI teaching. In the absence of policy guidelines, EMI lecturers in several Vietnamese higher education institutions are considered to be employing a ‘pedagogy of assumption’ (Pham & Doan, 2020, p. 276). That is to say, many conduct EMI teaching based on assumptions about institutional goals, the nature of EMI practice, and students’ learning needs, instead of well-informed knowledge of EMI pedagogy. One typical example is the use of English and Vietnamese in the classroom. Both Dang and Moskovsky (2023) and Pham and Doan (2020) found that the EMI lecturers they interviewed reported feeling discontent about having to codeswitch between Vietnamese and English in their classroom, or about most of their students resorting to Vietnamese in group discussions. They assumed that EMI courses should be English-only and students’ mother tongues should be limited as much as possible. With little guidance and training in EMI teaching, it is not surprising that a large number of EMI lecturers may not be aware of the recent turn to translanguaging, which emphasises students taking advantage of all their available linguistic repertoire in learning (García & Li 2014), as an EMI pedagogical approach. Additionally, many EMI lecturers in Vietnamese higher education institutions have admitted translating most of the content from their VMI courses, as well as transferring their teaching strategies and styles, to EMI teaching (Pham & Doan, 2020). 561

Mai Xuan Nhat Chi Nguyen and Phung Dao

While there are several aspects of university teaching that can be transferable between courses delivered in different instructional media, teaching through English has its own characteristics that require additional sets of pedagogical skills and strategies (Macaro, Akincioglu, & Han, 2020). It is therefore not a sustainable way forward if EMI lecturers continue to deliver EMI courses with little knowledge of its pedagogy. Lastly, limited access to EMI-focussed professional development opportunities is an added hindrance to teachers’ improvement of their EMI pedagogy. While some EMI lecturers have been able to receive EMI training on short exchange courses (Le, 2016; Nguyen et al., 2017), these opportunities remain scarce and have not been systematically organised. Several lecturers therefore have expressed a desire to receive support and training for both language use and pedagogical knowhow (Vu, 2020; Vu & Burns, 2014).

Conclusion As outlined in this chapter, EMI in Vietnam possesses several distinctive characteristics in terms of its conception, planning, as well as implementation. Given the country’s continued focus on internationalisation and globalisation strategies, it is anticipated that EMI will increasingly become a defining and competitive feature of Vietnam’s higher education in the years to come. This trend, however, does not ensure that EMI implementation always results in better-quality education and development opportunities for all key stakeholders involved. To guarantee better prospects for EMI implementation in Vietnam, it is important that systematic and strategic planning at macro, meso, and micro levels continues to be in place and constantly improvised. Specifically, it has been suggested that policies and decisions at the national level undergo a more rigorous design and evaluation process to ensure feasibility and practicality (Dang & Mokovsky, 2019). Successful implementation of top-down EMI policies in Vietnam will also depend in large part on a well-crafted management system in which implementation at institutional and classroom level is guided by clearer and informed frameworks (for example, guidance on language practice in the EMI classroom) that take into consideration both findings from international and Vietnam-based research on EMI in higher education (Nguyen, 2018), as well as realistic evaluation of the education sector’s resource strengths and weaknesses. Care should also be taken regarding the use of prejudicial terms to refer to EMI and VMI programmes (Tran & Nguyen, 2018). Revisions of EMI programme labels in government policy documents are needed to prevent misleading interpretations that superfluously glorify EMI and downplay mother-tongue education. At the meso level, it is necessary that higher education institutions articulate goals and objectives of their EMI programmes, as well as communicate them to lecturers and students (Pham & Doan, 2020). It should be expected that academic and educational development is the central motivating factor of the introduction and implementation of any EMI programme, rather than financial benefit. At the micro-(classroom) level, efforts can be made to improve the English proficiency level of both EMI students and lecturers. It is suggested that English-language support courses for EMI students shift away from general English communication and follow an English for Academic Purposes (EAP) and English for Specific Purposes (ESP) approach, which includes training in academic study skills as well as familiarising students with discipline-specific English vocabulary and structures (Chang, Kim, & Lee, 2017; Curle et al., 2020; Le, 2016). Importantly, EMI content lecturers could be given more opportunities and allocated time within their workload to participate in professional development activities (Macaro et al., 2021) that further develop their English proficiency in tandem with their EMI pedagogy. Overall, it is anticipated that once these challenges at macro, meso, and micro levels are addressed consistently, English as a medium of instruction (EMI) can become a stronger key change factor, among others, for the development of the Vietnamese higher education sector. 562

English-medium instruction in higher education in Vietnam

References Bharadwaj,A., Jackson, D., Rastogi, V., & Rinne, T. (2013). Vietnam and Myanmar: Southeast Asia new growth frontiers. Retrieved from https://www.bcg.com/publications/2013/ globalization-vietnam-myanmar-southeastasia-new-growth-frontiers Chang, J. Y., Kim, W., & Lee, H. (2017). A language support program for English-medium instruction courses: Its development and evaluation in an EFL setting. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20, 510–528. Curle, S., Jablonkai, R. R., Mittelmeier, J., & Sahan, K. (2020). English in higher education – English medium: Literature review.ELT Research Papers, British Council. Dang, H. T., & Moskovsky, C. (2019). English-medium instruction in Vietnamese higher education: A ‘ROAD-MAPPING’ perspective. Issues in Educational Research, 29, 1330–1347. Dang, H. T., & Moskovsky, C. (2023). Language use in English-medium instruction programs in Vietnamese higher education: From policy to practice. Asian Englishes, 25, 326–342. Dang, T. K. A., Nguyen, H. T. M., & Le, T. T. T. (2013). The impacts of globalisation on EFL teacher education through English as a medium of instruction: An example from Vietnam. Current Issues in Language Planning, 14, 52–72. Dinh, B. H. A., & Nguyen, H. T. (2019). Attracting foreign direct investment in higher education industry in Vietnam. International Journal of Advanced Education and Research, 4(3), 24–27. Do, H. T. (1996). Foreign language education policy in Vietnam: The reemergence of English and its impact on higher education (PhD thesis). University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Do, H. T. (2006). The role of Englis in Vietnam’s foreign language policy: A brief history. Paper presented in the 19th Annual English Australia Education Conference. Duong, V. A., & Chua, C. S. (2016). English as a symbol of internationalization in higher education: A case study of Vietnam. Higher Education Research & Development, 35, 669–683. Ethnologue. (2021). Vietnam [online]. Retrieved from http://www.ethnologue.com/country/VN García, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging and education. In O. García & Li Wei (Eds.), Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education (pp. 63–77). Palgrave Pivot. Ha Cuong (2021). Vì sao Bộ GD&ĐT dừng gần 200 chương trình liên kết đào tạo quốc tế? [Why did the Ministry of Education and Training discontinue nearly 200 joint programs?]. Retrieved from https://vtc. vn/vi-sao-bo-gddt-dung-gan-200-chuong-trinh-lien-ket-dao-tao-quoc-te-ar558899.html Hayden, M., & Le, Q. T. (2010). Vietnam’s higher education system. In G. Harman, M. Hayden, & T. N. Pham (Eds.), Reforming higher education in Vietnam: Challenges and priorities (pp. 14–29). Springer. Kaplan, R. B., & Baldauf, R. B. (1997). Language planning from practice to theory. Multilingual Matters. Kaplan, R. B., & Baldauf, R. B. (2005). Language-in-education policy and planning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 609–622). Routledge. Lam, T. L. (2011). The impact of Vietnam’s globalization on national education policies and teacher training programs for teachers of English as an international language: A case study of the University of Pedagogy in Ho Chi Minh City (EdD thesis). Alliant International University, San Diego. Le, T. T. N. (2016). Exploring students’ experiences of English medium instruction in Vietnamese universities (PhD). The University of Newcastle, UK. Lo Bianco, J. (1994). Issues and aspects of Vietnam’s language policy: Some reflections after a brief visit. In X. T. Nguyen (Ed.), Vietnamese studies in a multicultural world (pp. 110–119). Vietnamese Language & Culture Publications. Macaro, E., Akincioglu, M., & Han, S. (2020). English medium instruction in higher education: Teacher perspectives on professional development and certification. International Journal of Applied linguistics, 30, 144–157. Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J., & Dearden, J. (2018). A systematic review of English medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching, 51, 36–76. Macaro, E., Sahan, K., & Rose, H. (2021). The profiles of English medium instruction teachers in higher education. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 31, 458–474. Minh Giang (2017). Học liên kết đào tạo quốc tế, để tránh ‘tiền mất tật mang’ [Studying joint international programs: How to avoid wasting money?]. Retrieved from https://tuoitre.vn/hoc-lien-ket-dao-tao-quoc-tede-tranh-tien-mat-tat-mang-1404977.htm Ministry of Education and Training (MOET). (2014). Regulations for high quality programs at tertiary level. Retrieved from https://thuvienphapluat.vn/van-ban/Bo-may-hanh-chinh/Thong-tu-23-2014-TT-BGDDTQuy-dinh-dao-tao-chat-luong-cao-trinh-do-dai-hoc-240505.aspx

563

Mai Xuan Nhat Chi Nguyen and Phung Dao Ministry of Education and Training (MOET). (2016). Hội nghị tổng kết đề án “Đào tạo theo chương trình tiên tiến tại một số trường đại học Việt Nam giai đoạn 2008–2015” [Summative conference on the project ‘Implementing advanced university programs in 2008–2015’]. Retrieved from https://www.neu.edu.vn/vi/ ban-tin-neu/hoi-nghi-tong-ket-de-an-dao-tao-chuong-trinh-tien-tien-giai-doan-2008-2015 Ministry of Education and Training (MOET). (2020). Thúc đẩy cơ hội học tập chương trình giáo dục quốc tế tại Việt Nam [Promoting opportunities for studying international education programs in Vietnam]. ­Retrieved from https://moet.gov.vn/tintuc/Pages/tin-tong-hop.aspx?ItemID=6802 MOET-Centre for Human Resource Training and Supply. (2019). Gần 70% sinh viên có việc làm sau 1 năm tốt nghiệp [Nearly 70% of students found jobs after one year of graduation]. Retrieved from http://tsc.edu. vn/en/tin-tuc/-/content/1046433/gan-70-sinh-vien-co-viec-lam-sau-1-nam-tot-nghiep.html MOET-International Cooperation Department. (2017). Danh sách các chương trình liên kết đào tạo với nước ngoài đã được bộ giáo dục và đào tạo phê duyệt [List of Joint Programs with foreign institutions approved by the Ministry of Education and Training]. Retrieved from https://naric.edu.vn/resources/files/ CSGDTrongnuoc/LKDT_21.3.2017.pdf MOET-International Cooperation Department. (2023). Chức năng nhiệm vụ [Roles and responsibilities]. ­Retrieved from http://icd.edu.vn/352/chuc-nang-nhiem-vu.html/BPF/vi-VN/ Nghiem Hue. (2021). Du học tại chỗ: Cẩn thận vàng thau lẫn lộn [Study abroad at home: Beware!]. R ­ etrieved from https://tienphong.vn/du-hoc-tai-cho-can-than-vang-thau-lan-lon-post1347863.tpo Ngo, P. L. H. (2019). English-medium instruction (EMI) in higher education: A case study of an EMI programme in Vietnam (PhD thesis). University of Southampton, UK. Nguyen, H. T. (2018). English-medium-instruction management: The missing piece in the internationalisation puzzle of Vietnamese higher education. In L. T. Tran & S. Marginson (Eds.), Internationalisation in Vietnamese higher education (pp. 119–137). Springer. Nguyen, H. T., Hamid, M. O., & Moni, K. (2016). English-medium instruction and self-governance in higher education: The journey of a Vietnamese university through the institutional autonomy regime. Higher Education, 72, 669–683. Nguyen, H. T., Walkinshaw, I., & Pham, H. H. (2017). EMI programs in a Vietnamese university: Language, pedagogy and policy issues. In B. Fenton-Smith, P. Humphreys, & I. Walkinshaw (Eds.), English medium instruction in higher education in Asia-Pacific: From policy to pedagogy (pp. 37–52). Springer. Nguyen, M. (2021). Demographics in Vietnam—Statistics and facts. Statista. Retrieved from https://www. statista.com/topics/5991/demographics-in-vietnam/ Nguyen, T. G. (2006). Chính sách ngôn ngữ Việt Nam qua các thời kì lịch sử [Language education policy in Vietnam through different historical periods]. Retrieved from http://ngonngu.net/index.php?m=print&p=172 Nguyen, X. N. C. M., & Nguyen, V. H. (2019). Language education policy in Vietnam. In A. Kirkpatrick & A. J. Liddicoat (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of language education policy in Asia (pp. 185–201). Routledge. Nonaka, C. (2020). Commentary: Who is EMI for? From Vietnam, thinking about a clash of realities behind the policy, practice, and pedagogy in Japan. In L. H. Phan & B. N. Doan (Eds.), Higher education in market-oriented socialist Vietnam: New players, discourses, and practices (pp. 331–339). Palgrave Macmillan. Pham, H. (2017) Vietnam: Struggling to attract international students. In G. Mihut, P. G. Altbach, & H. de Wit (Eds.), Understanding higher education internationalization: Insights from key global publications (pp. 203–205). SensePublishers. Phan, L. H., & Doan, B. N. (Eds.). (2020). Higher education in market-oriented socialist Vietnam: New players, discourses, and practices. Springer. Pham, L. T. (2020). The emergence of mergers and acquisitions in the private higher education sector in Vietnam. In L. H. Phan & B. N. Doan (Eds.), Higher education in market-oriented socialist Vietnam: New players, discourses, and practices (pp. 169–185). Palgrave Macmillan. Pham, M., & Doan, B. N. (2020). English as a medium of instruction (EMI) in Vietnamese universities: Policies of encouragement and pedagogies of assumption. In L. H. Phan & B. N. Doan (Eds.), Higher education in market-oriented socialist Vietnam: New players, discourses, and practices (pp. 261–282). Palgrave Macmillan. Pham, M. H. (1994). Education in Vietnam: Situations, issues, and policies. Ministry of Education and Training. Rizvi, F. (2020). Afterword: Challenges facing Vietnamese higher education. In L. H. Phan & B. N. Doan (Eds.), Higher education in market-oriented socialist Vietnam: New players, discourses, and practices (pp. 379–387). Palgrave Macmillan.

564

English-medium instruction in higher education in Vietnam Socialist Republic of Vietnam. (2005). Nghị Quyết về đổi mới cơ bản và toàn diện giáo dục Đại học Việt Nam giai đoạn 2006–2020 [Resolution on fundamental and comprehensive reform of Vietnam’s higher education in 2006–2020]. Vietnamese Government. Retrieved from http://vbpl.vn/botuphap/Pages/vbpqluocdo.aspx?ItemID=17240 Socialist Republic of Vietnam. (2008). Teaching and learning languages in the national educational system, period 2001–2020. Ministry of Education and Training. Tollefson, J. W., & Tsui, A. B. (2014). Language diversity and language policy in educational access and equity. Review of Research in Education, 38, 189–214. Tran, L. H. N., Hoang, T. G., & Vo, P. Q. (2019). At-home international education in Vietnamese universities: Impact on graduates’ employability and career prospects. Higher Education, 78, 817–834. Tran, L. T., & Marginson, S. (2018). Internationalisation of Vietnamese higher education: An overview. In L. T. Tran & S. Marginson (Eds.), Internationalisation in Vietnamese higher education (pp. 1–16). Springer. Tran, L. T., & Nguyen, H. T. (2018). Internationalisation of higher education in Vietnam through English medium instruction (EMI): Practices, tensions and implications for local language policies. In I. Liyanage (Ed.), Multilingual education yearbook 2018 (pp. 91–106). Springer. Trinh, A. N., & Conner, L. (2019). Student engagement in internationalization of the curriculum: Vietnamese domestic students’ perspectives. Journal of Studies in International Education, 23, 154–170. Truong, L. T. T. (2017). Using English as a medium of instruction in higher education in Vietnam: A case study of a physics degree program (Master’s dissertation). Macquarie University, Australia. Truong, L. T. T., Ngo, P. L. H., & Nguyen, M. X. N. C. (2020). Assessment practices in local and international EMI programmes: Perspectives of Vietnamese students. In L. H. Phan & B. N. Doan (Eds.), Higher education in market-oriented socialist Vietnam: New players, discourses, and practices (pp. 307–329). Palgrave Macmillan. Vietnam National University-Ho Chi Minh City. (2020). Annual report. Retrieved from https://vnuhcm.edu. vn/ve-dhqg-hcm_33396864/bao-cao-thuong-nien-2020/333532386864.html VinUniversity. (2023). Welcome international students to VinUniversity. Retrieved from https://vinuni.edu. vn/undergraduate/international-students/ Vu, T. T. N. (2020). Training English-medium teachers: Theoretical and implementational issues. In L. H. Phan & B. N. Doan (Eds.), Higher education in market-oriented socialist Vietnam: New players, discourses, and practices (pp. 283–306). Palgrave Macmillan. Vu, T. T. N., & Burns, A. (2014). English as a medium of instruction: Challenges for Vietnamese tertiary lecturers. Journal of Asia TEFL, 11(3), 1–31. Wächter, B. (2003). An introduction: Internationalisation at home in context. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7, 5–11. Wright, S. (2002). Language education and foreign relations in Vietnam. In J. Tollefson (Ed.), Language policies in education: Critical issues (pp. 225–244). Erlbaum.

565

INDEX

Note: Bold page numbers refer to tables; italic page numbers refer to figures and page numbers followed by “n” denote endnotes. Abdel Latif, M. M. 246–258 academic writing 64, 184, 187, 251, 252, 255, 405, 441, 456, 561 Africa, English‑medium instruction in 237–258, 297–334; economies 68; French colonies in 67; Egypt 246–258; East Africa 297–310; languages 67–68; South Africa 311–323; West Africa 324–334 Ahn, H. 518–534 Al‑Hoorie, A. H. 259–271 Anglophone: countries 6, 10, 22–23, 29, 35, 39, 166, 225, 246, 286, 291, 302, 311, 325–326, 338, 349, 447; universities 22, 39 applied linguistics 1, 3–4, 13, 30–32, 46, 123, 288, 315, 321 Asia, English‑medium instruction in 64, 337–565; attitudes of students 348; data from case studies 342–347; drivers 339–342; English language proficiency 343, 347; Expanding Circle universities 339, 340; language skill improvement 348; level of enjoyment through English studying 348; Outer Circle universities 338, 338–339; THE vs. QS Asian university rankings 341; students mixing languages 346; undergraduate lectures in English 344; writing academic essays and discussion in English 345; see also entries on Bangladesh, India and Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Nepal, Singapore, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Japan, Macau, South Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam Association of South‑East Asian Nations (ASEAN) 36–37, 39, 339–340, 342, 390, 432–435, 440, 478; ASEAN Universities Network 37

Ateneo de Manila University 7, 341–342 Austria, English‑medium instruction in 96–109; English‑medium education 96–109; English‑medium programmes 99–100; higher education institutions 97–98; stakeholder practices and perceptions 100–103; student and teacher attitudes 101–103 Azirah Hashim 380–393, 439, 444 Bacon‑Shone, J. 337–351, 410–428, 429–449, 471–490, 518–534 Bangladesh, English‑medium instruction in 352–364; effectiveness 358–359; emergence 353–354; limitations 359–360; official policies 354; official policies vs. actual practice 357–358; public and private universities 355–357, 356; sociolinguistic profile 352–353 Barasa, D. 297–310 Basque Country, English‑medium instruction in 110–121; Basque language 110–111, 117; effectiveness 116–117; history of languages of instruction 112–113; official language policies 113–116; practices in classrooms 118–119; problems 117–118; sociolinguistic background 110–111; students in linguistic models 112, 113; University of the 211 Bayyurt, Y. 272–283 Beaumont, B. 49–62 Belgium 128, 162, 163 Benmokhtar, H. 122–133 bilingualism 68, 99, 105, 112, 177, 225, 289, 370, 422; education 176–178, 246, 360, 368;

567

Index institutional 231; parallel 229; policy 387; programmes 41, 211 Bina Nusantara University (BINUS) University 341–342, 479–483, 488–489; English reading, writing, speaking of students 481–482, 482; language backgrounds of students 480, 480–481; questionnaire survey 479–480; student’s mixing languages 482; survey results interpretation 483; use of English outside classroom 482, 483 Bohlinger, S. 134–147 Bologna Declaration (1999) 1, 6, 37, 88, 122–124, 130, 135–136, 148, 163, 185, 204, 213, 215, 238, 276, 278 Bolton, K. 1–17, 337–351, 410–428, 429–449, 450–470, 471–490, 505, 508, 518–534 Botha, W. 1–17, 237–245, 311–323, 337–351, 410–428, 450–470, 518–534 Björkman, B. 190–203 British Council 3, 6, 11, 13, 29, 41, 44, 50, 67–68, 71–72, 84, 87, 278–281, 303

Dang, T. K. A. 134–147 Dao, P. 551–565 Dearden, J. 3, 22, 49–62, 72–73, 84, 86, 89–90, 101, 103, 134, 144, 163, 165, 186–187, 241, 246, 264, 297, 301, 303, 307, 352, 402, 560 Deneire, M. 122–133 Denmark 90; higher education 190–193, 195, 197–200; institutional language policy 89; universities 89, 91; see also entry on Scandinavia Doiz, A. 117, 118, 211, 212, 214

Cambodia, English‑medium instruction in 429–449; English in schools 435–436; features 444–446; history 429, 431–433; problems 446; research at Royal University of Phnom Penh (RUPP) 441–444; role of English in universities 438–439; sociolinguistic background and English language 433–435; students reading, writing and speaking in English 442–443; studies 439–441; universities and language policy 436–438 China, English‑medium instruction in 40–41, 450–470; Christian colleges 451–452; history 450–452; Peking University 458–462; policies and implementation 452–453, 453; research from 2013 until present 454–455; Sun Yat‑sen University (SYSU), Guangzhou 455–458 code‑mixing 11, 240, 312, 339, 361, 391, 454, 488 code‑switching 11, 140, 155, 198–200, 214, 240, 247, 256, 306, 312, 339, 361, 387, 391, 440, 467, 488, 524, 543 Coetzee‑Van Rooy, S. 311–323 colonialism 73–74, 239, 242, 298, 300–301, 313, 315, 328–329, 369, 412, 473, 506, 520; colonial languages 37, 86, 237, 240, 242, 299, 303–304, 308 Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) 59, 267, 384; A2 level 210; B1 level 206, 210, 265; B2 level 51, 52, 206, 208, 210, 560; C1 level 51, 52, 115, 140, 206, 212, 213 Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) 28, 52, 86–87, 113, 114, 116, 167, 177–178, 196, 210, 215, 539, 540 Costa, F. 52, 85, 128, 148–160, 185 Cots, J. M. 204–220

East Africa, English‑medium instruction in 240–241, 297–310; controversy 303; effectiveness 306–307; history of language policies 301–303; realities 304, 306; sociolinguistics 298–301 Egypt, English‑medium instruction in 238–239, 246–258; applied sciences majors in public and private Arabic‑medium instruction universities 254–255; features, realities, and challenges 252–255; foreign and private universities, international branch campuses (IBC) 250, 252–253; internationalisation 249–250; languages of instruction 248–249; social sciences and humanities in public and private Arabic‑medium instruction universities 253–254; sociolinguistic background 247–248; universities/study programmes 250–252, 251 Elyas, T. 259–271 EMI see English‑medium instruction (EMI) English as a Foreign Language (EFL) 6, 8, 23–24, 49, 82, 274, 285, 312, 339, 478, 501, 541, 546 English as a lingua franca (ELF) 87, 101, 106, 112, 137, 143, 221, 226–232, 228, 260, 304, 391, 394, 478, 499, 524, 541–542, 546 English for Academic Purposes (EAP) 7, 184–185, 187–188, 197, 204–205, 215–216, 226, 539, 562 English for Special Purposes (ESP) 23, 102–103, 130, 184–185, 187–188, 197, 204–205, 215– 216, 539, 562 Englishisation 29, 105, 137, 155, 169–171, 185, 199, 246–248, 255, 260, 264 English language proficiency 8, 23, 29, 38, 44, 51–52, 83, 85–86, 103, 130, 139, 141, 197, 252–253; Asia 343, 347; China 461; Europe 85–86, 90–91; Malaysia 384; Poland 179–180; Scandinavians 192; Singapore 422; student 23–24, 44–45, 90, 103, 118, 141, 208, 211–212, 214, 253, 265, 280–281, 343, 347, 356, 461; teachers 44, 51–53, 57, 90, 103, 128, 141, 179, 187, 208, 265, 307, 400; Turkey 274–275, 279–281 English language teaching (ELT) 11, 65, 71–72, 134, 261, 265, 285, 307, 313, 353, 439, 476, 556

568

Index English‑medium education (EME) 4, 12, 35, 49, 87, 96–109, 227–285, 287–293 English‑medium education in multilingual university settings (EMEMUS) 4, 87, 97, 100, 102, 106, 227, 287, 289, 291–292 English‑medium higher education (EMHE) 11, 35–38, 64–71, 73–75 English‑medium instruction (EMI): areal and thematic studies 2–3; classrooms 22–23; content learning 24–25; courses 28, 37–38, 40, 43–45, 50, 52; decision‑making 42; definition 21–23, 50; as field of study 1–2; impact 28–29; and improving students’ English 23–24; introduction, development and ownership of 30–31; local and global in modelling 9–11; linguistic imperialism 63–77; monolingual 68; in Myanmar universities 7–9; pedagogy in 25–26; policies 6, 35–48, 83– 85, 88; professional development 29–30, 49–62; programmes 4, 8, 12, 23–24, 35, 37, 39–41, 43, 45, 84–85, 87, 91, 99–100, 100, 126, 163–167, 164, 165, 180–181, 180–183, 183, 223; student and their learning strategies 26–28; theoretical studies and models 3–5, 21–34; world Englishes (WE) model 5–7, 9–11, 13; worldwide 1–17; see also entries on Europe, including Austria, Basque Country, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Scandinavia, Spain, and Switzerland; on the Middle East, North Africa and Sub‑Saharan Africa with entries on Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, East Africa, South Africa, and West Africa; and on Asia, with entries on Bangladesh, India and Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Nepal, Singapore, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Japan, Macau, South Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam Esimaje, A. 324–333 Europe, English‑medium instruction in 81–233; attitudes of lecturers and students 89–91; conceptualisations 86–87; drivers 87–89; medium of instruction 83–86; sociolinguistic background 81–83; see also entries on individual countries, which are Austria, Basque Country, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Poland, Scandinavia, Spain, and Switzerland European Union (EU) 1, 36–38, 82, 122–123, 125, 162, 168, 177, 179, 276–278; commission 123; education systems 123; institutions 123, 130 Expanding Circle 4–6, 8, 10, 23, 82, 139, 272, 324, 338–340, 349–350, 536; educational system 11; societies 349; universities 339, 340, 349 Finland, higher education in 88, 190–195, 197, 199–200; see also entry on Scandinavia France, English‑medium instruction in 122–133; administrators and programme directors 128;

Bologna process 124; engineering schools and curricular structures 124–125; faculty and instructors 128–129; internationalisation 125–126; language policy 126–127; surveys 127–130 Gabriëls, R. 28, 90, 105–106, 161–175 Gargesh, R. 365–379 Germany, English‑medium instruction in 134– 147; degree programmes 135; intercultural challenges 140; issue of language(s) 135–136; language‑related challenges 139–140; rationale and challenges 136–138; reorganisation of university system 124–125; student cohorts and their perspectives 138–139; types of higher education institutions 135 Ghana, EMI in 326–327 globalisation 10, 40, 65, 81, 90–91, 119, 122–124, 134, 137, 148, 185, 199, 237–239, 242, 264, 268, 299, 301, 316, 324–325, 352, 376, 380, 384–385, 390, 426, 478, 492, 499, 518, 521– 523, 551, 562; glocalisation 4, 97, 104, 227, 545–547 Grau, V. 96–109 Hamid, M. O. 352–364, 381, 388, 394, 555 higher education/higher education institutions see individual countries Hill, C. 471–490 Hopkyns, S. 267–268, 284–296 Huang, Y. P. 126, 361, 535–550 Hultgren, A. K. 37–38, 81–95, 122, 148, 190, 193, 199 India, English‑medium instruction in 365–368, 371–373, 376; attitudes 371, 373; demographic and sociolinguistic profile 365–366; history of language education policy 366–368; university programmes and courses 71, 371–372, 373 Indonesia, English‑medium instruction in 41, 44, 471–490; BINUS research project (2018) 479–483; colonial era 472–473; early history 471–472; ethnic groups 471; interviews with university educators 479, 483–488, 484; languages and language policies 474–476, 478– 479; post‑independence 473–474; responses of students and teachers 476–478 Inner Circle 5–6, 9–10, 286; societies 9–11; universities 5–6 International English Language Testing System (IELTS) 23, 42, 250–251, 253, 286, 289–290, 292, 477 internationalisation 6, 37, 38–40, 43, 70, 72, 74,  83–84, 86, 88, 122, 125–126, 148, 238, 383–384, 487–488; in Austria 96, 98–99, 102–104; in Basque 113, 119; in East Africa 308; in Egypt 249–250, 255, 256; English as language of 195; in France 125–126; in

569

Index Germany 137, 140; in Italy 150–151, 155; in Japan 492–493, 499–500; in Malaysia 380, 383, 386, 388; in Nepal 394, 407; in Netherlands 166–168, 170–171; in Poland 185–187; in Saudi Arabia 260; in Scandinavia 193, 197, 199; in South Korea 520–521; in Spain 205; in Switzerland 223–225; in Taiwan 539–540, 547; in Turkey 276; in Vietnam 556 Italy, English‑medium instruction in 148–160; courses 153; history of languages of instruction 149; laws and legal framework in universities 150–152, 152; official language policies 150–152, 152; problems 155; programmes and policies 156; research 152–155; sociolinguistic background 148–149 Japan, English‑medium instruction in 491–503; anomalies 493–494; beliefs and practices 498; conceptualisations 492–493; cultural fragmentation 500–501; diversity and inclusivity 499–500; essentialism of English teaching 496; Global 30 project (2008) 497–498; Go Global Japan project (2012) 498; motivations 497; programmes in 43–44; reductionist tendencies 495–499; teaching of English and its role in academia 494–495 Kabel, A. 63–77 Kachru, B. B. 5, 82, 536 Kenya, language policies in 301; sociolinguistics of 299 Khan, B. 429–449 Khmer Royal University see Royal University of Phnom Penh (RUPP) Kirkpatrick, A. 29, 35–48, 221–233, 259, 337, 339, 381, 394 Knagg, J. 35–48 Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) 521, 523, 525 Korea University (KU) 522–523, 525 Kurt, Y. 272–283 language policies 35–45; see also policies Lasagabaster, D. 38, 52, 86–87, 89, 110–122, 148, 206, 208–212, 214–215, 246 Lin, B. 1–17, 337–351, 429–449 linguistic hybridity 268, 288–289, 350 linguistic imperialism 63–75; in higher education 64–65, 65–66, 67–72; politics of language 73–75; role of British Council 72–73 Macaro, E. 3–4, 7, 21–34, 36–38, 103, 155, 156, 206, 215, 298, 311, 402 Macau, English‑medium instruction in 504–517; history of English in territory and higher

education 508–510; multilingualism and importance of Chinese 506, 507, 508–509; private institutions 513–514; public institutions 510–513; sociolinguistic description of language ecology 504–510; University of (UM) 509–511, 510–512, 511–512 Malaysia, English‑medium instruction in 380–393; colonial Malaya 414–415; history and background 380–382; implementation of national language policy 383; internationalisation 383–384; lecturers’ perspectives 387–389; levels, policies and practices 386; Malay as medium of instruction 385; public and private universities 383–385; students’ perspectives 389–390 Mancho‑Barés, G. 204–220 Mandalay, University of (MU) 7–9 Marfo, C. 324–333 Martin, I. P. 337–351 medium of instruction (MOI) 39, 42; in Bangladesh 354–355, 356, 357; in East Africa 297–298, 303; in India 367–368, 372, 373; in Kenya 301; in Malaysia 39, 380, 384; in Rwanda 302; in Sri Lanka 374, 374–375; in UAE 293 Mežek, S. 190–203 Middle East, North Africa (MENA) region, English‑medium instruction in 237–296; Egypt 246–258; Saudi Arabia, 259–271; Turkey 272– 283; United Arab Emirates 284–296 Middle East, North Africa, and Sub‑Saharan Africa, English‑medium instruction in 237–334; see also individual entries on Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, East Africa, South Africa, and West Africa Mohr, S. 297–310 monolingualism 64, 90, 99, 102, 152, 176, 205, 208, 213, 225, 227, 229, 231, 268, 285, 287–290, 292–293, 304, 306, 308, 316, 360–361, 395, 400, 406–407, 436, 477, 496, 540 Moody, A. 504–517 Morocco 67, 71 multilingualism 4–6, 10, 12, 22, 39, 50, 65, 68, 75, 81–83, 85, 87, 96–99, 101–102, 106, 112, 114, 117–119, 152, 156, 167, 190–193, 207–208, 215, 221–222, 225–227, 229, 231–232, 240–243, 285, 287–290, 292–293, 300, 303, 306, 308, 311, 313– 321, 326, 328, 349, 357, 365, 380, 391, 395–396, 407, 410, 420–422, 425, 478, 488, 496, 505–506, 545–546, 551; in Austria 96, 98, 102–103, 105; in Basque 112, 117–118; in East Africa 308; importance of Chinese 506; in Italy 148, 155–156; in Middle Eastern and African countries 242; neoliberal 71; in Nepal 395; in Netherlands 167; in Poland 185; in South Africa 313, 315–321; in Spain 205–206; in Switzerland 221–222, 227, 230–231; in UAE 285, 287–288 Myanmar higher education 8–9

570

Index Nanyang Technological University (NTU) 7–8, 411, 418–420 National University of Peking see Peking University National University of Singapore (NUS) 417–420 nation‑building 36, 81, 83, 122, 353, 412, 415, 417 neoliberalism 67, 68, 264, 266, 523–524, 532 Nepal, English‑medium instruction in 394–409; linguistic landscape 398–400; pedagogical practices 406–407; policy and practice 400, 401, 402; research activities 404–406; sociolinguistics and language education policy 394–396; teachers’ experiences and perceptions 402–407; syllabus/curricula and exams 402–404; universities and their academic programmes 396, 397, 398 Netherlands, English‑medium instruction in 161–175; Dutch‑medium programmes 165, 167; emergence of EMI programmes 163–167, 164, 165; public controversy 169–170; research 167–169; sociolinguistic landscape 162–163 Nguyen, M. X. N. C. 551–565 Nigeria, English‑medium instruction in 67, 328 North Africa, English‑medium instruction in 67, 71, 237–258; challenges 241; Egypt 246–258; globalisation, internationalisation, and competitiveness 237–239; opportunities 241–242 North‑West University 315, 317–320; examples of multilingual practices 319–320; history 318; multilingual language policy of 318–319; School of Accounting Sciences in Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences 320 Norway, higher education in 190–200; see also entry on Scandinavia Ochieng, D. 304, 324–333 OECD (Organisation for Economic Co‑operation and Development) 68, 69, 74, 123, 429 Outer Circle 4, 6, 8, 10, 325, 338–339, 349; educational system 11; English‑medium instruction in 349; societies 6, 10; universities 338, 338–339, 349 Peking University 7, 452, 458–462; courses taught in English 459; difficulty in written English 460; English language proficiency 461; ‘English‑taught’ undergraduate courses 458; interview data of students 459; student’s attitudes 461–462; use of spoken English 459–460 Phillipson, R. 11, 29, 37, 63–77, 194, 199, 325 Phyak, P. 394–409 plurilingualism 113, 168, 213, 225–226 Pohang University of Science and Technology (POSTECH) 521, 523–524

Poland, English‑medium instruction in 176–189; bilingual education and 176–178; challenges 185–186; classification of universities 180–181; data on EMI university programmes 180–181, 180–183, 183; effectiveness 186– 187; English language proficiency 179–180; operationalisation 183–185; policies vs. realities 185–186; universities and courses 178–180 policies, English‑medium instruction 1–3, 6, 11–13, 35–48, 66, 68–69, 75, 82–85, 88, 97–99, 102–104, 106, 111, 113–115, 117–119, 125–126, 130, 148, 150, 152, 153, 156, 161, 166–167, 179, 185–186, 190–191, 198–199, 204, 206–208, 227, 237–243, 246–247, 250, 252, 255–256, 261, 266, 268, 273, 276, 281–282, 287, 293, 297–302, 304, 306–308, 311–315, 317–319, 325, 327, 330–331, 339, 349, 353–354, 357, 360, 365, 380–386, 390–391, 394–396, 398, 404, 407–408, 410, 412, 414–416, 418–419, 425–426, 437–438, 440, 452, 462, 474–475, 477–478, 485, 491, 506, 519–522, 535–537, 543, 545–546, 551–554, 556, 559, 562; classroom policies 44–45; institutional policies 42–44; language policies 35–45; national policies 38–42; supranational policies 36–37 postgraduate education 5, 36, 42, 114, 267, 372–373, 375, 383, 386, 437, 441, 444–445, 558, 561 professional development 29–30, 49–62; additional pedagogical skills 52; focus on English proficiency 52–53; need for training 51–52; toolkit 53–59; traditional teaching 50–51; value of teaching 49–50 Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) rankings 1, 38, 316, 340–341, 383, 557 Richards, J. C. 4–5, 7, 11, 445, 514 Road‑Mapping framework 1, 103–106, 535, 545; agents 105; English‑medium education (EME) practices and processes 106; English as educational, disciplinary language, lingua franca 105–106; language management 104–105 Romanowski, P. 176–189 Royal University of Phnom Penh (RUPP) 341–342, 436, 439, 441–445; Institute of Foreign Languages (IFL) 439 Rwanda, language policies in 302; sociolinguistics of 299–300 Saudi Arabia, English‑medium instruction in 238, 259–271; Economic Vision 2030 initiative 263–264, 263, 268n2; effectiveness 265–267; expansion 263–264; problems 267–268; sociolinguistic background 259–261

571

Index Scandinavia, English‑medium instruction in 190–200; attitudes and policies 198–200; English‑medium instruction programmes 195–196, 196; features 196–197; higher education history 190–193, 192; history of languages 193–196, 193; language of doctoral dissertations 195–196; multilingualism 190– 193; provision 197–198 Schaller‑Schwaner, I. 221–233 Senegal, English‑medium instruction in 328–329 Seoul National University 525 Sierra Leone, English‑medium instruction in 329 Singapore, English‑medium instruction in 410–428; bilingualism 422; colonial Singapore 413–418; English language education 413–414; English proficiency 422; history 412–418; language backgrounds of students 420–422, 421; language choice and use 424–425; language policies since 1965 415–416; language use in students’ learning 423–424, 424; overview 410–411; politics in post‑independence era 417– 418; promotion of English 414–415; sample characteristics 420; snowball survey method 420; sociolinguistics 411–412, 412; students’ experiences 423, 423–424; students’ language mixing practices 422; universities and official policies 418–419, 418 Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT) 418–420 Singapore Management University (SMU) 418–420 Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS) 418–420 Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD) 418–420 Smit, U. 87–88, 90, 96–109, 148, 208, 227, 285, 287, 289, 535, 545 South Africa, English‑medium instruction in 68, 240, 311–321; classification of population 313–314; contextualising 311–313; language policies in universities 317; population distribution and educational attainment 316; QS BRICS university rankings 317; sociolinguistics 313–314; South African Linguistics and Applied Linguistics Society (SALALS) 315, 321 South Korea, English‑medium instruction in 518–532; arc of Korean history 519–520; concerns 530–531; criticisms 522–523; difficulties in programmes 526, 527; language mixing 527–528, 528; motivation 522; neoliberalism 523–524; proficiency of students and teachers 525–526, 526; promotion of English 520–522; realities 524–525; research 522–525; undergraduate students’ attitudes 529–530, 530; use of English by undergraduates 528–529, 529

Spain, English‑medium instruction in 204–220; beliefs 208–212; institutional management 205–208, 206; teaching practices 212–215 Sri Lanka, English‑medium instruction in 369–371, 373–376; history of language education policy 369–371; public and private universities 373–375, 374–375; sociolinguistic profile 369 Sub‑Saharan Africa, English‑medium instruction in 240–243, 297–334; challenges 241; East Africa 297–310; expansion 240–241; opportunities 241–242; South Africa 311–323; West Africa 324–334 Sultana, S. 23, 29, 352–364 Sun Yat‑sen University (SYSU), Guangzhou 451–452, 455–458, 462; attitudes of students 457–458; students’ exposure to English 455–456, 456 Sweden, higher education in 190–200; see also entry on Scandinavia Switzerland, English‑medium instruction in 221–233; cantonal universities 225; EMI programmes 223; English as lingua franca (ELF) 228–231, 228; language policy document 226–227; multilingualism 221–222; only bilingual university 225–226; place of English language 222; Swiss Universities of Applied Sciences (SUAS) 223–224 Taiwan, English‑medium instruction in 535–550; educational and language practices 542–544; effectiveness 544–545; historical background 536; implementation at institutional level 538–540; issues and problems 540–542; policy 536–538 Tanzania, language policies in 302; sociolinguistics of 300 Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) 139, 141, 250, 477 Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) 40, 43, 560 Times Higher Education (THE) 1, 38, 340, 341, 557 Toh, G. 337, 360, 491–503 translanguaging 9, 25, 86, 116, 118–120, 154, 209, 289, 304, 308, 319, 361, 400, 547, 561 translingual practice 288, 292–293 trilingualism 112, 115, 119, 301 Turkey, English‑medium instruction in 238, 272–283; effectiveness 279; English language proficiency in 275, 279; expansion 273–274; female students in 29; implementation 274–275, 279; official language policies 276–278; pedagogical models in 25; perception of university students 278; Turkish instructors and content learning 279–280

572

Index Uganda, language policies in 302–303; sociolinguistics of 300–301 United Arab Emirates (UAE), English‑medium instruction in 284–296; history of languages of instruction 285–287; multilingual ecologies 287–288; policies and practice 287–289 University of Macau (UM) 509–511, 510–512, 511–512; see also Macau University of Mandalay (MU) 7–9; Mandalay, University of (MU) University of North‑West see North-West University University of the Basque Country 211; see also Basque Country University of Warsaw 179, 180; see also Warsaw, University of University of Yangon (YU) 7–9; see also Yangon, University of (YU) Vietnam, English‑medium instruction in 551–565; benefits and role of English in higher education 553–554; challenges 559–562; domestic

programmes 556; effectiveness 556–559; foreign curriculum‑referenced programmes 554–555; implementation 556–559; sociolinguistic background 551–552 Wächter, B. 84–85, 87–88, 125–126, 139, 195, 198, 223 Warsaw, University of 179, 180 West Africa, English‑medium instruction in 240, 324–334; Cameroon 326; Ghana 326–327; Liberia 327; Nigeria 328; online survey on 329, 330, 331; Senegal 328–329; Sierra Leone 329 Wilkinson, R. 24, 28, 37, 86, 88, 105–106, 148, 155, 161–175, 184, 190, 193 World Bank 68–69, 74, 123, 369, 398, 432, 440 world Englishes (WE) model of EMI 5–7, 9–11, 10, 13 Yangon, University of (YU) 7–9 Yonsei University 523, 525 Zhang, W. 450–470

573