English-Medium Instruction and the Internationalization of Universities [1st ed.] 9783030478599, 9783030478605

Citation preview

INTERNATIONAL AND DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION

English-Medium Instruction and the Internationalization of Universities Edited by Hugo Bowles · Amanda C. Murphy

International and Development Education

Series Editors W. James Jacob Collaborative Brain Trust American Fork, UT, USA Deane E. Neubauer East-West Center Asia Pacific Higher Education Research Honolulu, HI, USA

The International and Development Education Series focuses on the complementary areas of comparative, international, and development education. Books emphasize a number of topics ranging from key higher education issues, trends, and reforms to examinations of national education systems, social theories, and development education initiatives. Local, national, regional, and global volumes (single authored and edited collections) constitute the breadth of the series and offer potential contributors a great deal of latitude based on interests and cutting-edge research. The series is supported by a strong network of international scholars and development professionals who serve on the International and Development Education Advisory Board and participate in the selection and review process for manuscript development. SERIES EDITORS W. James Jacob, Vice President of Innovation and International, Collaborative Brain Trust, and Fulbright Specialist, World Learning and U.S. Department of State. Deane E.  Neubauer, Professor Emeritus, University of Hawai’i at Mānoa, and Adjunct Senior Fellow, East-West Center. INTERNATIONAL EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Clementina Acedo, Webster University, Switzerland Philip G. Altbach, Boston University, USA N’Dri Thérèse Assié-Lumumba, Cornell University, USA Dennis Banda, University of Zambia Carlos E. Blanco, Universidad Central de Venezuela Sheng Yao Cheng, National Chung Cheng University, Taiwan Evelyn Coxon, University of Auckland, New Zealand Edith Gnanadass, University of Memphis, USA Wendy Griswold, University of Memphis, USA Ruth Hayhoe, University of Toronto, Canada Yuto Kitamura, University of Tokyo, Japan Jing Liu, Tohoku University, Japan Wanhua Ma, Peking University, China Ka Ho Mok, Lingnan University, China Christine Musselin, Sciences Po, France Yusuf K. Nsubuga, Ministry of Education and Sports, Uganda Namgi Park, Gwangju National University of Education, Republic of Korea Val D. Rust, University of California, Los Angeles, USA Suparno, State University of Malang, Indonesia Xi Wang, University of Pittsburgh, USA John C. Weidman, University of Pittsburgh, USA Weiyan Xiong, Lingnan University, China Sung-Sang Yoo, Seoul National University, Republic of Korea Husam Zaman, UNESCO/Regional Center for Quality and Excellence in Education, Saudi Arabia Collaborative Brain Trust 45 W South Temple, #307, Salt Lake City, UT 84010, USA Professional Development Program East-West Center1601 East-West Road, Honolulu, HI 96848, USA More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14849

Hugo Bowles  •  Amanda C. Murphy Editors

English-Medium Instruction and the Internationalization of Universities

Editors Hugo Bowles Department of Law University of Foggia Foggia, Italy

Amanda C. Murphy Centre for Higher Education Internationalisation Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore Milan, Italy

International and Development Education ISBN 978-3-030-47859-9    ISBN 978-3-030-47860-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47860-5 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: MirageC This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Series Editors Introduction

We are pleased to introduce another volume in the Palgrave Macmillan International and Development Education book series. In conceptualizing this series we took into account the extraordinary increase in the scope and depth of research on education in a global and international context. The range of topics and issues being addressed by scholars worldwide is enormous and clearly reflects the growing expansion and quality of research being conducted on comparative, international, and development education (CIDE) topics. Our goal is to cast a wide net for the most innovative and novel manuscripts, both single-authored and edited volumes, without constraints as to the level of education, geographical region, or methodology (whether disciplinary or interdisciplinary). In the process, we have also developed two subseries as part of the main series: one is cosponsored by the East-West Center in Honolulu, Hawai‘i, drawing from their distinguished programmes, the Professional Development Program and the Asia Pacific Higher Education Research Partnership (APHERP); and the other is a publication partnership with the Higher Education Special Interest Group of the Comparative and International Education Society that highlights trends and themes on international higher education. The issues that will be highlighted in this series are those focused on capacity, access, and equity, three interrelated topics that are central to v

vi 

Series Editors Introduction

educational transformation as it appears today around the world. There are many paradoxes and asymmetries surrounding these issues, which include problems of both excess capacity and deficits, wide access to facilities as well as severe restrictions, and all the complexities that are included in the equity debate. Closely related to this critical triumvirate is the overarching concern with quality assurance, accountability, and assessment. As educational systems have expanded, so have the needs and demands for quality assessment, with implications for accreditation and accountability. Intergroup relations, multiculturalism, gender, health, and technology issues comprise another cluster of opportunities and challenges facing most educational systems in differential ways when one looks at the disruptive changes that regularly occur in educational systems in an international context. Diversified notions of the structure of knowledge and curriculum development occupy another important niche in educational change at both the pre-tertiary and tertiary levels. Finally, how systems are managed and governed are key policy issues for educational policymakers worldwide. These and other key elements of the education and social change environment have guided this series and have been reflected in the books that have already appeared and those that will appear in the future. We welcome proposals on these and other topics from as wide a range of scholars and practitioners as possible. We believe that the world of educational change is dynamic, and our goal is to reflect the very best work being done in these and other areas. This volume meets the standards and goals of this series and we are proud to add it to our list of publications. American Fork, UT, USA Honolulu, HI, USA 

W. James Jacob Deane E. Neubauer

Contents

1 EMI and the Internationalization of Universities: An Overview  1 Hugo Bowles and Amanda C. Murphy 2 EMI Challenges in Japan’s Internationalization of Higher Education 27 Ikuya Aizawa and Jim McKinley 3 Resistance to EMI in the Netherlands 49 René Gabriëls and Robert Wilkinson 4 The Challenges of Internationalization in EMI Tertiary Education in Ethiopia 77 Amanda C. Murphy and Misganaw Solomon Mengistu 5 The Role of English in Higher Education Internationalization: Language Ideologies on EMI Programmes in China103 Ying Wang

vii

viii Contents

6 Using English for Interaction in the EMI Classroom: Experiences and Challenges at a Malaysian Public University129 Jagdish Kaur 7 In Search of Internationalization: Changing Conceptions of EMI Among Mexican University Instructors155 Christopher Worthman 8 Language Usage and Learning Communities in the Informal Curriculum: The Student as Protagonist in EMI?181 Kevin Haines, Monique Kroese, and Diandian Guo 9 It Does Not Happen by Osmosis: Creating an Internationalized Learning Opportunity for All Students Requires Careful Consideration and Specific Action205 Karen M. Lauridsen 10 EMI Students’ “International Coexistence” at One Italian University229 Francesca Costa and Cristina Mariotti 11 Beyond English-Medium Education: From Internationalization to Sustainable Education259 Jennifer Valcke Index281

Notes on Contributors

Ikuya Aizawa  is a researcher in the EMI Oxford research group at the University of Oxford. His EMI-related research focuses on Japan, and has most recently appeared in the journal Higher Education, Studies in Higher Education, and the International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Hugo Bowles  is Full Professor of English at the University of Foggia. His research covers many areas of applied linguistics and language education, particularly English for specific purposes (ESP), with an emphasis on legal and health communication, and English as a lingua franca (ELF). His research methods include genre, discourse and narrative analysis. His publications include Conversation Analysis and LSP (2007) and International Perspectives on English as a lingua franca (2015, Palgrave). His book Storytelling and Drama (2010) won the 2012 Prize for Linguistics by the European Society for the Study of English (ESSE). Francesca  Costa is Associate Professor of English Language and Linguistics at Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore. Since 2001 she has been involved in teaching and research at all levels of education on content and language integrated learning (CLIL), integrating content and language in higher education (ICLHE) and English-medium instruction (EMI) contexts with reference to input, output, the acquisition of lexis, ix

x 

Notes on Contributors

focus on form, code-switching, teachers’ identity and defamiliarization. She has published several articles on these subjects and presented her work at both national and international conferences. René Gabriëls  is a lecturer at Maastricht University (The Netherlands). His main fields of research are in social philosophy, sociolinguistics, philosophy of language and sociology of stratification. His research focuses on democracy, inequality, human rights, linguistic justice, poverty and the relation between semantics and pragmatics. He has written books about intellectuals, racism and local democracy and articles on the abovementioned topics. He is doing research on English-medium instruction (EMI) at universities and food banks in the Netherlands. Diandian Guo  was born and raised in China, and came to Europe for her Euroculture Master’s degree. She has lived in France and the Netherlands, and graduated from the University of Groningen in 2016. After graduation, she has been involved in activities to increase the inclusion of international citizens of Groningen, both inside and outside of the university. In 2019, she worked as project assistant for the International Classroom project at UG. Kevin  Haines has worked in international higher education programmes in the Netherlands since 1992 and has worked for the International Classroom Project at University of Groningen since 2013. He specializes in guiding university lecturers and students in international classrooms and English-medium instruction (EMI). He is co-­ author of the IntlUni Principles (www.intluni.eu) and was academic coordinator of the EQUiiP project (www.equiip.eu) between 2016 and 2019. Jagdish Kaur  is a senior lecturer at the Department of English Language, Faculty of Languages and Linguistics, University of Malaya in Malaysia. She conducts research on English as a lingua franca, intercultural pragmatics and English-medium instruction. She has published her work in journals such as World Englishes, Journal of Pragmatics, Intercultural Pragmatics and Text&Talk.

  Notes on Contributors 

xi

Monique Kroese  works as a senior trainer of professional and intercultural skills at the Faculty of Economics & Business (FEB) of the University of Groningen. Working with both lecturers and students, she manages a number of projects aimed at making the faculty a more inclusive environment. She has worked with teams and individuals in businesses to enhance their effectiveness. Karen M. Lauridsen  is an associate professor (emerita) and educational developer at Aarhus University (Denmark), specializing in international programmes and English-medium instruction. She was the coordinator of IntlUni—The Challenges of the Multilingual and Multicultural Learning Space (2012–2015), and a partner in the EQUiiP Project—Educational Quality at Universities for Inclusive International Programmes (2016–2019). Most recently, she has also worked with evidencing the value (impact) of professional development activities. KML is a frequent speaker at higher education conferences on the internationalization of higher education, English-medium instruction and the creation of an internationalized learning experience for all students. Cristina  Mariotti  is Associate Professor of English in the Faculty of Political Science at Università di Pavia, Italy. She has done research on the cognitive processes involved in the content-based learning of English and incidental language acquisition in CLIL. Her interests also include interaction strategies in second language acquisition, English-medium instruction in academic settings and the use of subtitled audiovisual materials in language learning. She has published on these topics, taken part in EU-funded projects and presented her work at both national and international conferences. Jim McKinley  is Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics and TESOL at UCL Institute of Education, University of London. His research explores implications of globalization for second language writing, English language education and teaching in higher education. Some of his recent work can be found in Higher Education, Studies in Higher Education, and Teaching in Higher Education, and he is an editor and author of several recent books on research methods in applied linguistics. He is co-Editor-in-Chief of the journal System.

xii 

Notes on Contributors

Misganaw  Solomon  Mengistu is Vice President for Research and International Relations and a lecturer at St. Mary’s University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. His fields of studies are in educational research and evaluation, teaching English as a foreign language and English language and literature. He has published articles on higher education in Ethiopia and is involved in research on the challenges of internationalization in EMI tertiary education. Amanda  C.  Murphy  is Professor of English Language at Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore in Milan and Brescia, Italy. She is also Director of the Centre for Higher Education Internationalisation at the same institution. Most of her publications lie within the paradigm of corpus linguistics applied to contrastive linguistic themes, specialized text types and language learning. Her publications on themes linked to internationalization revolve around EMI, language, identity and culture. Through an MBA in Social Entrepreneurship delivered by Università Cattolica in several African countries, she is interested in collaborative trans-national education between Italy and the African continent. Jennifer  Valcke  is an educational developer for the Unit for Medical Education (UME) at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden. Her role includes teaching, training and advising on issues related to intercultural education and content and language integrated learning (CLIL) and ensuring quality in English-medium instruction (EMI). She provides support for educational leaders to implement KI’s internationalization strategy. Her research focuses on developing criteria for quality teaching and learning at university in English across disciplines. Other areas of research focus on the pronunciation of English as a lingua franca, teacher perceptions in the international classroom and the professional development of teachers. Ying Wang  is Lecturer of Applied Linguistics in Modern Languages and Linguistics at the University of Southampton. Her research interests include English as a lingua franca, English education, English-­medium instruction, and language ideologies, with the focus on China and Chinese speakers of English. She has published and presented interna-

  Notes on Contributors 

xiii

tionally in the said research areas. She has a monograph entitled Language ideologies in the Chinese context: Orientations Towards English as a lingua franca to be published by Mouton De Gruyter in June 2020. Robert  Wilkinson  (Maastricht University, Netherlands) is retired but continues to conduct research on English-medium instruction (EMI) and multilingualism. He worked at the Language Centre at Maastricht 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. He is Chair of the ICLHE Association. Christopher  Worthman is Professor of Secondary English in the Department of Teacher Education at DePaul University in Chicago. His research focuses on literacy development in in- and out-of-school settings and the role of literacy in identity formation and social transformation. He has written about critical literacy practices in adult education and community-based programmes, in-school writing development and magical realism as a way of re-presenting traumatic experiences. He is also the co-creator and current facilitator of Language and Literacy Practices Across the Academy, an international programme to prepare university instructors to teach in English and internationalize their curriculum.

Acronyms

BM BON CAE CEF/CEFR CFU CLIL CMI CPD CPE CUMEX EACEA EAIE ECTS ELF EMI ETP FAQ FCE FEB HE HEI

Bahasa Melayu—Malay language Beter Onderwijs Nederlands (Better Education Netherlands) Certificate of Advanced English Common European Framework (of Reference) B1/B2/C1/C2 levels of language competence Credito Formativo Universitario—Unit of University Education Credit (Italy) Content and Language Integrated Learning Chinese-medium instruction Continuing Professional Development Certificate of Proficiency in English Consortium of Mexican Universities Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency European Association of International Education European Credit Transfer System English as a lingua franca English-medium instruction English-taught programmes Frequently Asked Question First Certificate of English Faculty of Economics and Business (University of Groningen) Higher Education Higher Education Institution xv

xvi Acronyms

IAU iBT IELTS IHE IHES IPHEM JASSO KNAW L1 LLH LLPA LPI MEB(HE) MEXT MOE MOHE MOSHE MUN NES NNES NVAO PBL PPT SA TGUP TOEFL UG UM WHW

International Association of Universities internet based test (of English) International English Language Testing System Internationalization of Higher Education Internationalization of Higher Education for Society Internationalization Policy in Higher Education in Malaysia Japan Student Services Organization Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences First (mother tongue) Language Language Learning History Language and Literacy Practices across the Academy (DePaul University) Language and Pedagogy Institute, DePaul University Malaysia Education Blueprint (Higher Education) Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology in Japan Ministry of Education Ministry of Higher Education (Malaysia) Ministry of Science and Higher Education (Ethiopia) Model United Nations Native English speaker Non-native English speaker Dutch-Flemish Accreditation Organization Problem-based learning Microsoft PowerPoint (slides) Study Association (University of Groningen) Top Global University Programme (Japan) Test of English as a Foreign Language University of Groningen Maastricht University Higher Education and Scientific Research Act (Netherlands)

List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 Policy implementation at the three levels (macro, meso, micro level)35 Fig. 7.1 Edgar’s internationalization project 171 Fig. 7.2 Maria’s integration and support of English in a media processes research course 173 Fig. 7.3 Maria’s plan to support students’ English use 174 Fig. 8.1 Student roles at UG 187

xvii

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 8.1 Table 8.2 Table 10.1 Table 10.2 Table 10.3

TGUP goals from 2013 to 2023 30 Results of TGUP interim evaluation in 2016 30 Issues caused by vagueness of policy statements 31 Quality of EMI as perceived by students (N = 237)61 Cultural identity as perceived by students (N = 237)65 Academic staff whose study expenses are fully sponsored by the government of Ethiopia (MoSHE 2019) 92 Academic staff whose study expenses are fully sponsored by the government of Ethiopia, divided by country (MoSHE 2019) 93 Research questions and data 109 Grassroots discourse: questions, viewers and followers on zhihu.com119 “What is it like to be an international student at UG?” by Diandian Guo 184 The study association 188 Methodology: analysis, instruments and samples 235 International students’ opinions on the statement “The learning of English at school has been a positive experience for me” 238 Local students’ opinions on the statement “The learning of English at school has been a positive experience for me” 239

xix

xx 

List of Tables

Table 10.4

International students’ opinions on the statement “I was worried before starting this course” 239 Table 10.5 Local students’ opinions on the statement “I was worried before starting this course” 240 Table 10.6 International students’ opinions on the statement “It took time for me to get used to attending lessons where the subject matter is taught through English” 240 Table 10.7 Local students’ opinions on the statement “It took time for me to get used to attending lessons where the subject matter is taught through English” 241 Table 10.8 International students’ opinions on the statement “I think this course has enabled me to improve my competence in English”241 Table 10.9 Local students’ opinions on the statement “I think this course has enabled me to improve my competence in English” 241 Table 10.10 Website analysis of topics 243

1 EMI and the Internationalization of Universities: An Overview Hugo Bowles and Amanda C. Murphy

This introductory chapter1 describes the state of the art in the area of internationalization of higher education (IHE) and English-medium instruction (EMI) by setting out the key concepts, research methods and areas of controversy to be addressed in the various chapters of the volume. The first section of the chapter looks broadly at internationalization as a field, outlining the areas of study, and the findings of large-scale surveys  as well as identifying the most popular areas of research. The  Both authors are responsible for the overall design and argument of the chapter, the introduction and the conclusions. Section 1.1 was written by Amanda Murphy and 1.2 by Hugo Bowles. 1

H. Bowles Department of Law, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy e-mail: [email protected] A. C. Murphy (*) Centre for Higher Education Internationalisation, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 H. Bowles, A. C. Murphy (eds.), English-Medium Instruction and the Internationalization of Universities, International and Development Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47860-5_1

1

2 

H. Bowles and A. C. Murphy

second thematic section looks at how internationalization intersects with English-medium instruction, paying particular attention to language policy, the role of English as a lingua franca (ELF), and the teaching and learning of disciplinary content. The section concludes with some recommendations for research and teaching in EMI. Overall, we argue that the spread of EMI has outpaced research and that if the unfettered political-economic drive towards internationalization is to be successful and fair, researchers need to question whether its English language policies actually help the process of internationalization by producing sustainable economic and social development. Secondly, there needs to be a less ideological and more evidence-based research focus on the teaching and learning processes of EMI. Thirdly, English as a lingua franca is by now a given for international education, while other languages and cultures are undervalued in the concept of internationalized HE.  We hold that explicit recognition of local languages and cultures at policy level, engagement with them in the curriculum and the classroom, and the involvement of academics in this process, would be an effective counterweight to the threat to cultural identity posed by internationalization exclusively through English.

1.1 Internationalization of Higher Education Internationalization concerns all the dimensions of higher education, from its ideal, social and economic purposes, its management and policies, to the everyday tasks and functions of lecturers and students in the classroom. Research into the concept and process is carried out on both large and small scales and in quantitative or qualitative fashion. There are many mismatches between policy and practice in the field: while stakeholders maintain that the aim of internationalization is to prepare students for a globalized world and to improve the quality of education, large-scale research surveys find that priority activities are considered to be the recruitment of international students and the creation of ­opportunities for mobility (see also Aizawa and McKinley, Chap. 2; Kaur, Chap. 6); these activities point to the importance of procuring income rather than, for example, installing quality assurance mechanisms to ensure quality education. Other examples of disconnect emerge in this

1  EMI and the Internationalization of Universities: An Overview 

3

volume from research into discourse in the media about internationalization through English-taught programmes and the experience of students involved at grassroots level (see Wang, Chap. 5; Gabriëls and Wilkinson, Chap. 3). An emerging trend in internationalization research is the increasing importance given both to internationalization of the curriculum (Sanderson 2011; Clifford, V. et al. 2013; Leask 2015) and to pedagogical matters in general, both in terms of teacher training (see Worthman, Chap. 7) and from the point of view of students’ learning experiences (see Costa and Mariotti, Chap. 10), also outside the formal curriculum (see Haines, Kroese and Guo, Chap. 8).

1.1.1 Internationalization and Englishization As Hilary Kahn recently put it, “the term internationalization… [is] not consistently conceptualized or practised, even though different individuals might assume they are using these terms in the same way as others” (2019: 7). In her view, research on internationalization is not always “embraced by academia as genuine scholarship”. The term was used in politics in the nineteenth century before it began to be used in connection with higher education. In the Oxford English Dictionary, it is first attested in 1860 with reference to the “legal internationalization” of the Scottish crown with France, and in 1875 with reference to facilitating a scheme of “internationalization” of the Suez Canal; the OED defines the word simply as “an action or process of making something international in character, composition or scope”. In higher education, it is a buzzword that has gained currency since the 1980s and now represents one of the strategic goals of universities around the world, promoted particularly by university leadership or specially dedicated administrative units, and less obviously perhaps, by academics. Two well-known definitions of internationalization applied to higher education can be usefully cited: the first explains it as “the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions (primarily teaching/learning, research, service) or delivery of higher education” (Knight 2004). This definition purports to be politically neutral and focuses on the objectives and functions of education. An update on this definition, coined by the team responsible for

4 

H. Bowles and A. C. Murphy

the Report on Internationalization of Higher Education, requested by the European Parliament’s Committee on Culture and Education, introduces the idea of intentionality into the process, and specifies two goals. The 2015 definition reads: the intentional process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions and delivery of post-­ secondary education, in order to enhance the quality of education and research for all students and staff, and to make a meaningful contribution to society. (De Wit et al. 2015)

De Wit et  al.’s definition makes three additions to the original—that internationalization  is intentional, dedicated to educational improvement and affects society in a meaningful way. It is perhaps in terms of these last two aspects—improvement and social outcome—that recent developments in EMI have called university internationalization into question. Does EMI improve internationalization in such a way that its social consequences are really the ones that were intended? While the origins and Renaissance developments of scholarly and educational enterprises may have been international—see for example the historical studies of De Ridder-Symoens (1992) and Pedersen (2000)—it is sometimes forgotten that universities of more recent foundation, from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, had more national orientations (De Wit 2011: 6). The twenty-first century will face similar choices between, on the one hand, the need to educate graduates with an international worldview, preparing them for interconnected societies and systems with fluid borders, and, on the other, the need to take national cultural priorities into account. One such source of tension that EMI has brought to the fore is the effect of global English on the status of national languages (see Gabriëls and Wilkinson, Chap. 3) and a more general process of Englishization, understood as the increasing presence, importance and status of English at all levels in the educational domain (Lanvers and Hultgren 2018: 1). EMI is also one of the conduits for the commodification of higher education, leading to unequal access (e.g. in China, see Wang, Chap. 5) and an acritical attitude to the quality of the educational experience.

1  EMI and the Internationalization of Universities: An Overview 

5

1.1.2 Areas of Research and Publication in IHE As a research area, the internationalization of higher education crosses all social and disciplinary boundaries. Research by practitioners and academics covers sub-areas as diverse as university management, strategy and leadership, international relations for the development of partnerships between institutions, mobility (both real and virtual) of students and staff for study or societal projects, measurements of impact, individual and group research collaborations, and pedagogy in terms of contents and classroom practice (Heneghan and Hrisotov 2020: 36). The variety of possible methodologies is reflected in the current volume, which includes quantitative research based on questionnaires (see Gabriëls and Wilkinson, Chap. 3 and Costa and Mariotti, Chap. 10), official documents (see Murphy and Solomon, Chap. 4), content analysis of online question and answer forums and newspaper reports (see Wang, Chap. 5), and qualitative research conducted through focus groups and semi-structured interviews (see Kaur, Chap. 6 and Lauridsen, Chap. 9). Most of the authors in the volume adopt a mixed-methods approach. Since no single model of internationalization fits all contexts and institutions (Hudzik 2014), there is a plethora of case studies in the field, but large-scale quantitative surveys have also been carried out, particularly by international organizations that promote and sustain internationalization in HE, such as the European Association of International Education (EAIE) and the International Association of Universities (IAU). Through online questionnaires, they assess internationalization at international, national and institutional level, bringing trends in policies or currents of practices to light among the various stakeholders. Given the global reach of internationalization and its global aims, these surveys are important sources of information. Two examples of these surveys are the EAIE Barometer (Sandström and Hudson 2018) and the IAU Global Survey (Marinoni 2019), whose findings will be summarized in turn. The EAIE barometer, polling mostly HE leaders and administrative staff, is a wide-ranging survey across forty-­ five countries within the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). It investigates goals, strategies, priorities, risks and challenges, and the

6 

H. Bowles and A. C. Murphy

impact of EU and national policies. The most popular goals are to prepare students for a globalized world, enhance their employability and improve the quality of their education. A minority of institutions place financial benefits among their main goals, which contrasts with the fact that recruitment of international students, along with creating mobility opportunities, is a priority activity for more than half the institutions. Despite the professed interest in quality education, quality assurance mechanisms do not score high among priorities. Other less popular internationalization activities come under internationalization at home by changing the curriculum or the campus. Low priority is attached to trans-­ national education and engagement with the local community and society. A new research strand called internationalization of Higher Education for society (IHES) is an attempt to redirect energy in a different direction (see Brandenburg et al. 2020). The IAU survey reports on answers from 907 HEIs in 126 countries. In nearly all the institutions polled, internationalization is now part of mission/strategic plans, is driven by institutional leadership and the international office, and is funded from the institutional budget. While the most expected benefit is to enhance international cooperation and capacity building, and improve the quality of teaching and learning, risks to society are seen to be the commodification and commercialization of education programmes and brain drain. Obstacles to internationalization are considered to be the lack of financial resources, administrative hurdles and the lack of knowledge of foreign languages. On a global scale, a gap has emerged between the values attached to internationalization, which are mostly academic enhancement and institutional autonomy, and the activities carried out, which are student mobility, strategic partnerships and international research collaboration. Importance is also attributed to internationalization of the curriculum in most regions, interpreted either as creating activities where students’ international perspectives can be developed, or as professional development opportunities for staff. Research articles on internationalization have burgeoned in the last twenty years. A search of Elsevier’s Scopus database using the keywords “internationalization” and “higher education” produces 1858 articles since 2000. A search for the most frequent lexical three- or four-word phrases in the abstracts of these articles using the AntConc software

1  EMI and the Internationalization of Universities: An Overview 

7

(Anthony  2019)  produced a top six of “English-medium instruction”, “internationalization of the curriculum”, “teaching and learning”, “higher education systems”, “higher education policy” and “international student mobility”. The most popular research methodologies were “case study” and “semi-structured” interviews. These findings are a good indicator of current areas of interest and of research methodologies. As regards publications, the Global Perspectives on Higher Education series published by Sense/Brill has forty-five titles to date, while the younger Routledge series entitled Internationalization in Higher Education has published fifteen books so far. In the Sense/Brill series there is a focus on the quality of high-ranking universities, investigations into internationalization in particular countries or geographical areas, models and identity in specific types of universities (of Catholic orientation, for women only, or family-run), and campuses abroad. In the Routledge series, the monographs cluster into areas such as the theory and strategy of HEI, particular pedagogical themes, and aspects of study abroad and mobility, often with an intercultural perspective. Overall, the aims, functions and stakeholders in higher education suggest that it is a process that is mostly implemented top-down by institutional leadership. The EAIE barometer and the IAU global survey, which document how internationalization has moved from being an add-on activity in universities to being included in their strategic plans, show a certain amount of disconnect between the declared aims of internationalization (preparing students for the global workplace, improved quality of education) and the activities that are generally considered important, such as student mobility. In these global surveys, the internationalization of research does not feature as a high priority. Analysis of the Scopus database shows increasing importance being attributed to issues around the classroom: teaching through English, teaching and learning, and internationalization of the curriculum.

1.2 English-Medium Instruction In the IAU survey described above, one cited obstacle to internationalization is the lack of knowledge of foreign languages. Prior to the whole internationalization movement, which, at least in Europe, was given

8 

H. Bowles and A. C. Murphy

considerable momentum by the Bologna Process, practising foreign languages and interacting with foreign cultures was one of the main reasons why students began attending courses  at universities abroad. With the advent of the Erasmus mobility scheme, which allowed huge numbers of students and academic staff to move from one country to another, knowledge of a foreign language became less important. Courses started to be taught in English and students could acquire the social and professional advantages of study abroad without having to learn another language. So, although there has been an explosion in the number of English-taught courses across the world (Dearden 2015; Macaro et al. 2018), increased mobility has not led to greater or more varied language learning. There are a few counter-examples of internationalization where other languages thrive: one of Romania’s top universities, Babeș-Bolyai University (BBU) in Cluj, officially maintains Hungarian, German and Romanian as languages of instruction, representing the different ethnic groups in Transylvania (Szabo et al. 2020), while the University of the Basque Country is a well-documented example of a trilingual university (Lasagabaster 2015). However, the language of instruction is almost universally English, and EMI has now become the elephant in the internationalization room, requiring urgent attention from researchers and policymakers.

1.2.1 EMI: Culture, Teaching and Language Policy The exponential growth of English-taught programmes is well documented: figures from the EAIE-Study Portals publication of 2017, based on 1617 HE institutions in the EHEA that offer at least one English-­ taught degree programme, report that there are 68,000 English-taught Bachelor’s degrees in Europe, and 54,000 Master’s programmes. Clearly, teaching through English is a successful means of attracting international students and internationalizing at home, but it is problematic from several points of view; firstly, in terms of the quality of education, which is claimed to be one of the drivers of internationalization, and secondly, in terms of the marginalization of other languages and cultures. Quality of education is clearly linked to, but not limited to, English language

1  EMI and the Internationalization of Universities: An Overview 

9

proficiency: three of the chapters in this book (Chap. 2  Aizawa and Kinley—Japan; Chap. 6 Kaur—Malaysia; and Chap. 5 Wang—China) report on worries signalled by students (in the case of China) and academic staff (in Malaysia) about the poor quality of communication and interaction in the classroom, and limited learning efficiency. Language competence is also a matter of concern in Ethiopia, as reported in official documents (Murphy and Solomon, Chap. 4). Besides language proficiency, the training and  mindset of lecturers teaching through English is an important but neglected topic. Two chapters in this volume directly address the question of professional development for lecturers. Worthman (Chap. 7) illustrates a successful training programme for teachers from Mexico which shifts emphasis in the teachers’ minds and practice away from language onto the curriculum, while Lauridsen (Chap. 9) reports on strengthening the nexus between policy and academic practice for creating an international learning opportunity for students in the classroom, which, she argues, “does not happen by osmosis”. The lack of a multicultural perspective within internationalization is lamented particularly by researchers in China, Japan and South Korea (Piller and Cho 2013; Le Phan 2013; Williams 2015; Tsuneyoshi 2018; Aizawa and McKinsley Chap. 2, this volume). The threat English poses to national cultural identity and other languages is increasingly witnessed in the media, for example in Italy (Pulcini and Campagna 2015) and the Netherlands (Edwards 2016). In this volume, the complexity of the Dutch situation is illustrated by drawing at least partially on the student perspective: at Maastricht University, Gabriëls and Wilkinson (Chap. 3) report a preference for a form of multilingualism, rather than monolingualism, as do Costa and Mariotti (Chap. 10) in the Italian classroom. Interestingly, this contrasts in part with the view from international students in Groningen (see Haines, Kroese and Guo, Chap. 8), who declare that the adoption of ELF (as opposed to Dutch) in student associations outside the classroom helps the process of inclusion of international students; while expressing a certain openness to learning Dutch to connect with the outside community, English helps them integrate into the learning community within the university.

10 

H. Bowles and A. C. Murphy

In the era of burgeoning EMI and tension around national and cultural identity, language policies at national and institutional level are becoming a crucial issue. According to Spolsky (2004), there are three components in the language policy of a speech community: language planning and management, language practices (e.g. interaction between minority languages and a lingua franca), and beliefs about language and language use. While this categorization is only specifically adopted by Wang (Chap. 5), all three components emerge in a thread running through many of the chapters, pointing to a recurring and problematic gap between policies and actual practice, as well as a general lack of clarity within existing policies. The most heated debate about language planning and management is currently taking place in the Netherlands: Gabriëls and Wilkinson (Chap. 3) report on the discussions surrounding a law passed in 2019 called ‘Language and accessibility’, provoked by discussion at national level regarding the defence of the Dutch language in higher education. The consequences of a lack of policy, or having only a partial policy, can also be problematic, as shown in the case of Malaysia (Kaur, Chap. 6). Lack of clarity about what an existing policy actually entails is also a hindrance to effectiveness. Aizawa and McKinley (Chap. 2) point out that higher education reforms in Japan, such as the Top Global University Project that is intended to enhance the competitiveness of Japanese universities, state that courses are taught “in a foreign language” but do not explicitly say whether that language is English (although it inevitably is). Other areas of implicitness include the level of proficiency required to take or teach EMI courses, a notably unregulated issue worldwide. In China there is a similar level of implicitness: courses may be taught in English and the universities that do so receive financial help, indicating government support. From the analysis of the questions and answers on an online forum, Wang (Chap. 5) deduces a significant amount of concern among students about the level of proficiency required to attend EMI courses profitably. What seems obvious is that implicit, rather than clear, policies are another threat to quality. Recognition, or the lack of it, given to minority languages is also an important feature of language policy, as argued by May (2014). This is particularly clear in Ethiopia (Murphy and Solomon, Chap. 4), where communication outside the HE classroom or between students inside the

1  EMI and the Internationalization of Universities: An Overview 

11

classroom takes place in local languages, while instruction is delivered in English. At primary school, other languages are beginning to be given due recognition. In the interest of quality education, it may be necessary to extend this multilingual curriculum to secondary school and even higher education, given the inadequate performance on English tests at a national level. Highly relevant to this policy thread, though not featured in this volume, is the role of political economy in relation to language policy. A recent collection by Ricento (2015a) has challenged the widespread assumption that EMI automatically reaps material or social benefits for individual and societies. Romaine (2015), for example, argues persuasively that “pursuing English in the name of development without careful planning will continue to reinforce inequalities rather than foster national unity or increase economic competitiveness” (p. 254). ELT has not been shown to be cost-effective in developing countries (Coleman 2011: 15) and early exposure to English-medium instruction in low-income countries can even be detrimental to academic achievement and attainment of literacy (Romaine 2015). For Grin (2015), linguistic diversity is more advantageous to individuals and economies than the “banalization” (p. 129) of English through EMI and there are strong economic arguments that it is multilingualism rather than English proficiency that correlates with increased trade (Melitz 2008; Arcand and Grin 2013). According to Ricento (2015b) “the overall consensus is that money and human resources would be better spent in developing literacy and academic skills through local or national languages” (p. 290). If this is the consensus applying to schools in underdeveloped post-colonial countries, then it raises the question of whether EMI courses are also being ‘dumbed down’ at tertiary level (see Sect. 1.2.2) and, if so, of how it limits the development of literacy among university students.

1.2.2 EMI and English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) This section addresses the current state of play in EMI from the perspective of internationalized English. Dafouz and Smit (2014) have argued that university education worldwide should not be defined by a narrow, monolingual view of English but needs to adopt a multidisciplinary

12 

H. Bowles and A. C. Murphy

perspective that covers all the social practices involved in a university education. Since English is the only shared language in these settings, English as a lingua franca has become the language of communication in academic and non-academic university discourse and a focus of considerable controversy. Above all, there is uncertainty as to the effectiveness of teaching and learning through the medium of ELF. Since EMI interaction is conducted in ELF (Jenkins 2019), it would seem natural for practitioners to adopt an ELF perspective for teaching purposes. An ELF-orientation to language learning does not insist on following the native English model of grammatical and lexical correctness. Instead it emphasizes the importance of codeswitching and translanguaging practices,2 an understanding of the language of the host country and different language backgrounds of students, as well as an acceptance of and a focus on mutual intelligibility rather than an insistence on acquiring native speaker norms. ELF researchers have also proclaimed the irrelevance of native English speakers to ELF communication because their presumed lack of plurilingual skills is supposed to make them insensitive to ELF students’ language needs. In terms of pragmatics, ELF research in EMI has shown that plurilingual skills may be an advantage during one-­ to-­one or small group tutoring (Kaur 2010) and ELF pragmatic strategies have been successful in international contexts (see e.g. Björkman 2010). However, despite the communicative advantages of ELF, there is still little actual evidence that taking an ELF-orientation to pedagogy is a good fit for the learning needs of EMI students. It will not work, for example, in international class lectures or large classes where there may be up to twenty different first languages in play; it is difficult to see how a map of mutual intelligibility could even be established in such circumstances. For learning purposes, the more linguistically diverse a group of EMI students is, the more consistent the model of English provided by the lecturer may need to be—a unified and unifying model for a diversified and diversifying class. In claiming that EMI courses have too many native speaking lecturers and that institutions that are “overrun” by native  Translanguaging (Creese and Blackledge 2010; Canagarajah 2011) refers to using the linguistic features of one language to maximize the communicative potential of interaction in another. 2

1  EMI and the Internationalization of Universities: An Overview 

13

speakers produce unfairness (Jenkins 2019: 13), ELF researchers have also failed to acknowledge that university staff might be hired on the basis of their professional knowledge and experience in the teaching of subject content rather than whether or not they are native speakers of English. There is also evidence that ELF-endorsed codeswitching by lecturers and students into their own L1 or the L1 of the host country, is resented by students who do not understand that language. There has also been very little discussion in the ELF literature of how ELF interaction relates to learning processes. If the objective for students in higher education is to acquire specialized knowledge, is this aim best achieved through ELF? If ELF is regarded as the inevitable medium of communication in EMI, does lingua franca usage lessen our ability to learn? Are EMI courses inevitably going to be ‘dumbed down’ because ELF interaction struggles to achieve the level of linguistic sophistication that is needed for students to acquire new and complex ideas? If working in English as a second or third language is “so much harder” (Jenkins 2019) for EMI students, then what kind of impact does this extra cognitive load have on the quality of their learning and how can it be alleviated? In order to answer these questions, we need to look at the relationship between content learning and discourse in general.

1.2.3 EMI and Content Learning There are very few descriptions of how English discourse shapes learning in international university contexts. The English that is spoken and studied in EMI courses is under-researched for a number of reasons. Firstly, classroom research is time-consuming and expensive and it is often resisted by university authorities and lecturers for reasons of privacy. Secondly, although the aspiration that students can improve their English alongside their specialist knowledge of a particular subject is a feature of EMI policy-making and marketing and a motivating factor for its students, it is generally not sustained during the courses themselves. The finding that lecturers do not regard themselves as language teachers (Airey 2012) is well known, while institutional language support, usually in the

14 

H. Bowles and A. C. Murphy

form of traditional academic English classes, is sporadic. For policy-­ makers, improvement in students’ English is supposed to happen by immersion rather than through specific instruction. There is thus no university-led drive for research into the linguistic component of EMI. There are also a very limited number of domains in which students have been tested on content learning both in L2 English and in their L1. Comparison of examination results in the area of Business Studies (Dafouz et al. 2014), Financial Accounting (Dafouz and Mar Camacho-­ Miñano 2016) and Engineering (Tatzl and Messnarz 2012) show no difference between learning in the L1 and L2  in all types of assessment format. An exception to this is a tightly controlled study of interpreting by Reithofer (2013), who tested German L1 students’ comprehension of a fifteen-minute speech on post-colonial economics—one group of students listened to the speech given in ELF by an Italian L1 speaker, and the other group listened to it simultaneously interpreted into German. The ‘interpretation into German’ group scored consistently higher on the comprehension test than the ELF group. Reithofer’s study is persuasive evidence that ELF is a less effective medium for learning than interpretation from L1 in monologic situations such as university lectures. In the area of science learning, Yip and Tsang (2007) have argued that EMI students might experience greater learning difficulty in science than in other subjects even though they may be more motivated to learn. Their hypothesis is that scientific subjects require the mastery of a particularly demanding terminology combined with abstract thinking, for which students are not linguistically equipped. Other research suggests that this difficulty in learning science in L2 English causes teachers to slow down their content input (Thøgersen and Airey 2011) and is reflected in students’ rate of speech. Airey (2010) has shown that science students’ speech rate in scientific disciplinary explanations is much slower in English then in Swedish, and Airey et al. (2017) have claimed that L1 learning in Nordic countries is more time-efficient, arguing that more time may be needed for L2 students to achieve similar disciplinary results to those obtained on L1 programmes. The fact that learning science through EMI may ultimately be as successful as L1 learning but takes longer to achieve suggests that it may not be the acquisition of terminology which is at the heart of the problem of content learning in L2 English,

1  EMI and the Internationalization of Universities: An Overview 

15

but a cognitive difficulty in the sequencing of ideas that involve that terminology. Clearly, different disciplines place different kinds of cognitive/ discursive demands on students in English and we need to look to discipline-­focused studies in order to understand better how they can be overcome. The debate on the way language is organized within disciplines (Hyland 2002; Huckin 2003) used to be between a “wide-angle” perspective which argued that what ESL students of specialist subjects need from their language teachers was academic and professional study skills, and a “narrow-angle” perspective, which claimed that the teaching of content should best be left to the specialized teachers of the discipline. Narrow-­ anglers argue that academic skills are not general at all but discipline-­ specific and that research into academic discourse variation is now able to define the rhetorical practices of particular disciplines very accurately. Given that the discourse of individual disciplines is now describable by researchers, it is also instructable by teachers: Academic discourse helps to give identity to a discipline and we need to understand the distinctive ways disciplines have of asking questions, addressing a literature, criticizing ideas, and presenting arguments, so we can help students participate effectively in their learning. (Hyland 2011)

In line with Hyland, Airey has defined “disciplinary literacy” in EMI as “the ability to appropriately participate in the communicative practices of the discipline” (Airey 2011: 3) and argued that it should be a cornerstone of EMI language policy. Yet disciplinary literacy is not a new discovery. The ESP/EAP tradition has provided a vast literature of discipline-­specific language descriptions with a focus on teaching and learning in ESL contexts. This research, which is largely based on data from the Anglophone academic world, has been particularly influential in domains such as Economics and Medicine, which form the bedrock of most EMI programmes. By adding to the EMI learning-based studies in the areas of accounting, engineering and science, ESP/EAP research data on how content learning is shaped and achieved in particular disciplines can contribute substantially to programmes aimed at improving disciplinary literacy of EMI students.

16 

H. Bowles and A. C. Murphy

There is considerable evidence that the acquisition of terminology and the conceptual structure of particular disciplines are fundamental to successful EMI—what Lo and Macaro (2012) call the “pedagogical scaffolding that might enable students to arrive at a deeper understanding of the concepts and processes in the academic subjects” (p. 47). These processes are both discipline- and culture-specific and require pre-service and in-­ service teacher training as well as a high level of proficiency in English on the part of the teachers. They also require close collaboration between content specialists and language specialists (see the review in Lasagabaster 2018). Apart from the notion of explicitness (Kaur, Chap. 5), ELF research has very little to say about content learning. This is because ELF studies of EMI discourse tend to focus on how communication in ELF takes place and how it conforms to or deviates from ELF usage in other contexts, but pay very little attention to actual learning outcomes, how ELF usage relates to them and what ELF strategies might contribute to effective content learning. By treating EMI interactants as users rather than learners, it cannot explore how the discourse of EMI affects learning processes inside and outside the EMI classroom. It is certainly true, as Kirkpatrick has argued in Macaro et  al. (2017), that an English-only policy will not work in EMI and that code-switching and multilingual practices can be useful in areas where structural features “tolerate a good deal of turbulence without disrupting communication” (Mauranen 2012: 123). Yet the lexical simplification and use of the most frequent and entrenched vocabulary items, which is characteristic of ELF (Mauranen 2012: 91), may not necessarily provide an effective pedagogical scaffolding, particularly in the hard sciences where there is an expectation of linguistic accuracy in written texts and spoken interaction. ELFA research may indeed show how understanding is co-constructed through ELF (Mauranen et  al. 2010: 185), but not whether that co-construction is effective for content learning purposes. The insistence on mutual intelligibility as a privileged requirement for academic communication (Jenkins 2019) ignores the question of how long intelligibility takes to achieve and the depth of understanding that it involves; for example, ELF’s wellknown “let-it-­pass” principle may work well in ordinary casual conversation but perhaps not in focused tutorials where discussion needs to

1  EMI and the Internationalization of Universities: An Overview 

17

revolve around specific, complex concepts, or in oral examinations, where assessment of precision and accuracy is paramount. In sum, an ELForientation seems to be a much more difficult fit for university content learning than it is for language learning or CLIL  in schools because, unlike language learning or CLIL, EMI is more content-driven than language-driven. The communicative benefits of ELF do not necessarily coincide with learning benefits.

1.2.4 Recommendations for Research and Teaching in EMI • Non-ideological Discussion and Complementary Approach The ideological debate within EMI regarding native English or ELF has had a corrosive effect on the question of content learning, which is the raison d’être of the EMI course. Reithofer’s conclusion that “interpreting and ELF need not be considered mutually exclusive modes of communication, but can be seen as complementing each other” (Reithofer 2013: 68) is important in this respect. Researchers in EMI from both ELF and non-ELF perspectives need a much more nuanced approach to pedagogy that recognizes that research from both ELF and nativist ESP/EAP orientations can be complementary in EMI. This kind of complementary approach should analyse and utilize research results from both paradigms that are evidence-based and shown to be beneficial to learning. • Research on Interaction Pedagogical policy needs to be based on EMI studies of interaction, that is, a close descriptive analysis of what actually goes on inside and outside the classroom rather than what is perceived to take place. The contribution of ELF research is much more likely to come from analysis of EMI contexts where interaction and dialogue predominate, such as small group seminars and meetings. Here its understanding of how successful communication is maintained between speakers who do not share a first language is likely to be helpful in showing how knowledge is constructed and shared.

18 

H. Bowles and A. C. Murphy

• Cognitive and Empirical Studies of Content Learning in English L2 Since EMI stands or falls on the quality of student learning, it is on learning that EMI really needs to frame its research questions. There is a clear need for more empirical studies like those of Airey et al. (2017), Dufouz and Camacho-Miñano (2016) and Reithofer (2013), which explore learning in an EMI/ELF environment in relation to learning in comparable higher education L1 contexts. Although it is not financially practical for EMI courses to use interpreters rather than ELF speakers for lectures, Reithofer’s study shows that ELF lectures are not a particularly effective way of promoting understanding. If ELF lectures are inevitable in EMI courses, much more research needs to be done to improve their effectiveness for learning purposes. According to Dafouz et  al. (2014: 224–225), EMI research on content learning has been limited by difficulties in setting up interdisciplinary research groups, lack of access to students’ grades, a lack of standardized content exams for comparative purposes and institutional bias against possible negative results regarding content learning. These limitations need to be contrasted by establishing better communication across research groups and greater persistence in overcoming bureaucratic and political hurdles. Empirical testing of learning in EMI needs to be carried out in relation to a number of variables: 1. General variables –– the type of speech event involved (lectures, tutorials) –– the style of interaction required by the speech events

2. Subject-specific variables –– the degree of language production required by the subject –– the types of language learning required by the subject, for example, whether or not there is  an emphasis on discourse variation within the domain

1  EMI and the Internationalization of Universities: An Overview 

19

3. Class-specific language variables –– the linguistic makeup of the class (L1 typologies) –– lecturing style –– students’ learning strategies (students’ use of their L1 vs. their use of L2 or L3 English)

4. Examination language variables –– –– –– ––

the type of format (mid-term, course work, final exam) written or oral examination L1 of oral examiner and examinee culture-specific oral/written discursive expectations

• Discourse and Discipline EMI research needs to make greater use of past ESP/EAP research results into the way that disciplinary discourses are organized and learned. Hyland’s argument suggests that what is key to a student’s understanding of a particular discipline is an appreciation of how its distinctive features are used in it (Hyland 2011). EMI students therefore need both to be aware of the frequent fixed phrases that define a particular discipline and to be able to manage disciplinary variation in academic discourse. Alongside an understanding of variation, disciplinary literacy involves an understanding of the notion of genre. Genre analysis has provided a number of nuanced descriptions of discipline specific communicative practices of the kind that Airey is calling for in EMI. According to Swales (2002), the key to improving an understanding of genre is not to invoke prescriptive norms of writing but to turn the classroom into a “multidisciplinary laboratory” (p. 75) and to present genres and their features as objects of debate to be negotiated and recontextualized by the student through classroom discussion. Swales argues that the fluidity of this kind of approach is well suited to the hybridity and dynamism of contemporary genres as well as to the ever-changing flux of international student communities. It is therefore as much on the multidisciplinary as on the multilingual nature of EMI that its pedagogy needs to focus.

20 

H. Bowles and A. C. Murphy

• ELF and EMI Research Coverage ELF research needs to cast its net wider if it is to avoid a charge of elitism. As Ricento (2015b) notes, “domains in which ELF research has been conducted are skewed toward interactions between relatively privileged, highly educated, multilingual individuals who represent a tiny subset of the global workforce for whom English is largely irrelevant in their daily lives” (2015a: 285). ELF research on language usage in less privileged EMI contexts such as post-colonial underdeveloped countries is badly needed. • EMI, Other Languages and the Role of Lecturers Given the domination of EMI, research needs to understand the specific relationship between EMI and an internationalized curriculum, while opening up to other languages. Lauridsen and Lillemose (2015) examine the interaction of language, culture and didactics in a multilingual and multicultural learning space; pedagogical research needs to explore where and how well such multilingual practices work in the interests of improving the quality of internationalized education at home. In the development of this process, the involvement of lecturers and academics is crucial.

1.3 Conclusions Given that EMI is the default choice for universities wishing to internationalize, we need to understand how the way EMI is conducted relates to the internationalization process. If internationalization is to lead to a genuinely global vision, then the content, purpose and workings of the language of instruction need to be better defined and understood. This challenge can partially be met by clear language policies that define the occasions on which the medium of instruction should be used and regulate necessary levels of language proficiency for both students and teachers. Policies could also usefully include local languages and cultures in a

1  EMI and the Internationalization of Universities: An Overview 

21

more explicit way, in order to acknowledge the diversity which is an intrinsic feature of internationalization and provide students with a more realistic global outlook (Finland Ministry of Education and Culture 2018). Looking ahead, however, a convincing educational case for internationalization through EMI has still not been made. Doing a university course through EMI does not necessarily mean that students learn disciplines better or more thoroughly than they would in their own language. The research recommendations made in Sect. 1.2.4 would be beneficial in providing a more solid foundation for the learning advantages of EMI than is currently the case. Finally, the ideological assumption that internationalization through EMI improves societies is still questionable, for two main reasons. First, the role of English, and languages generally, in socio-economic development may simply be overrated—“communication skills, sadly, do not make economies; they are put to use within existing production structures and their being put to use at all is dependent on events in the real economy” (Block et al. 2012: 21–22). Secondly, EMI is at the same time “a pathway and an obstacle to development” (Romaine 2015: 253). On the one hand, it is a way out of poverty for some individuals but it also perpetuates non-inclusivity and inequality because it is not accessible to all. If EMI is to help to guarantee broad-based social and economic development and to promote the universal values to which it aspires (see Valcke, Chap. 11), more political economic studies of university-based populations with a focus on the presumed socio-economic benefits of EMI would clearly be beneficial.

References Airey, J. (2010). The ability of students to explain science concepts in two languages. Hermes, 45, 35–49. Airey, J. (2011). The disciplinary literacy discussion matrix: A heuristic tool for initiating collaboration in higher education. In M.  Gustafsson (Ed.), Collaborating for content and language integrated learning [Special Issue]. Across the Disciplines, 8(3). Retrieved February 29, 2020, from https://wac. colostate.edu/atd/special/clil/.

22 

H. Bowles and A. C. Murphy

Airey, J. (2012). ‘I don’t teach language.’ The linguistic attitudes of physics lecturers in Sweden. AILA Review, 25, 64–79. Airey, J., Lauridsen, K. M., Räsänen, A., Sal, R., & 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(4), 561–576. Anthony, L. (2019). AntConc (Version 3.5.8) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Retrieved February 29, 2020, from https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software. Arcand, J.-L., & Grin, F. (2013). Language in economic development: Is English special and is linguistic fragmentation bad? In E. Erling & P. Seargeant (Eds.), English and development: Policy, pedagogy and globalization (pp.  243–266). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Björkman, B. (2010). Spoken Lingua Franca English at a Swedish Technical University: An investigation of form and communicative effectiveness. Unpublished PhD thesis, Stockholm University. Block, D., Gray, J., & Holborow, M. (2012). Neoliberalism and applied linguistics. London: Routledge. Brandenburg, U., De Wit, H., Jones, E., Leask, B., & Drobner, A. (2020). Internationalisation in higher education for society. Concept, current research and examples of good practice. Bonn: DAAD. Canagarajah, S. (2011). Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for research and pedagogy. In L.  Wei (Ed.), Applied linguistics review (Vol. 2, pp. 1–28). New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Clifford, V., Henderson, J., & Montgomery, C. (2013). Internationalising the curriculum for all students: The role of staff dialogue. In J. Ryan (Ed.), Cross-­ Cultural teaching and learning for home and international students: Internationalisation of pedagogy and curriculum in higher education (pp. 251–264). London: Routledge. Coleman, H. (2011). Developing countries and the English language: Rhetoric, risks, roles and recommendations. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Dreams and realities: Developing countries and the English language (pp.  9–23). London: British Council. Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 103–115. Dafouz, E., Camacho, M., & Urquía, E. (2014). ‘Surely they can’t do as well’: A comparison of business students’ academic performance in English-medium

1  EMI and the Internationalization of Universities: An Overview 

23

and Spanish-as-first-language-medium programmes. Language and Education, 28(3), 223–236. 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., & Smit, U. (2014). Towards a dynamic conceptual framework for English-medium education in multilingual university settings. Applied Linguistics, 37(3), 397–415. De Ridder-Symoens, H. (1992). A history of the university in Europe. Vol I: Universities in the middle ages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. De Wit, H. (2011). Internationalization of higher education: Nine misconceptions. International Higher Education, 64, 1–6. De Wit, H., Egron-Polak, E., Howard, L., & Hunter, F. (2015). Internationalisation of Higher Education. Directorate-General for Internal Policies, European Parliament. Retrieved June 13, 2020 from ­http://www. europarl.europa.eu/studies. Dearden, J. (2015). English as a medium of instruction: A growing phenomenon (pp.  1–34). London: British Council. Retrieved February 29, 2020, from https://www.britishcouncil.org/education/ihe/knowledge-centre/englishlanguage-higher-education/report-english-medium-instruction. Edwards, A. (2016). English in the Netherlands: Functions, forms and attitudes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.. Finland Ministry of Education and Culture. (2018). Multilingualism as a strength. Retrieved February 29, 2020, from https://minedu.fi/en/. Grin, F. (2015). The economics of English in Europe. In T.  Ricento (Ed.), Language policy and political economy (pp.  119–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heneghan, D., & Hrisotov, D. (2020). Looking to the future. EAIE forum (pp. 36–37). Amsterdam: EAIE. Huckin, T. (2003). Specificity in LSP. Iberica, 5, 3–17. Hudzik, J. (2014). Comprehensive internationalization: Pathways to success. London: Routledge. Hyland, K. (2002). Specificity revisited: How far should we go? English for Specific Purposes, 21(4), 385–395. Hyland, K. (2011). Disciplinary specificity: Discourse, context and ESP.  In A. Johns, B. Paltridge, & D. Belcher (Eds.), New directions in English for specific purposes research (pp. 6–24). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

24 

H. Bowles and A. C. Murphy

Jenkins, J. (2019). English medium instruction in higher education: The role of English as Lingua Franca. In X. Gao (Ed.), Second handbook of English language teaching (pp.  1–17). Cham: Springer International Handbooks of Education. Kahn, H. (2019). Coming to terms. In D. Proctor (Ed.), The Internationalisation Research Agenda, Forum Winter 2019 (pp. 7–8). Amsterdam: EAIE. Kaur, J. (2010). Pre-empting problems of understanding in English as a lingua franca. In A. Mauranen & E. Ranta (Eds.), English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and findings (pp. 107–123). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars. Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5–31. Lanvers, U., & Hultgren, A. K. (2018). The Englishization of European education. Foreword. European Journal of Language Policy, 10(1), 1–11. Lasagabaster, D. (2015). Language policy and language choice at European Universities: Is there really a ‘choice’? European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 255–276. Lasagabaster, D. (2018). Fostering team teaching: Mapping out a research agenda for English-medium instruction at university level. Language Teaching, 51(3), 400–416. Lauridsen, K. M., & Lillemose, M. K. (Eds.). (2015). Opportunities and challenges in the multilingual and multicultural learning space. Final document of the IntlUni Erasmus Academic Network 2012–15. Retrieved February 29, 2020, from http://intluni.eu. Le Phan, H. (2013). Issues surrounding English, the internationalization of higher education and national cultural identity in Asia: A focus on Japan. Critical Studies in Education, 54(2), 160–175. Leask, B. (2015). Internationalization of the curriculum. Abingdon: Routledge. Lo, Y., & Macaro, E. (2012). The medium of instruction and classroom interaction: Evidence from Hong Kong secondary schools. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(1), 29–52. Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J., & Dearden, J. (2018). A systematic review of English medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching, 51(1), 36–76. Macaro, E., Hultgren, A., Kirkpatrick, A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2017). English medium instruction: Global views and countries in focus: Introduction to the symposium held at the Department of Education, University of Oxford on Wednesday 4 November 2015. Language Teaching, 50(3), 1–18.

1  EMI and the Internationalization of Universities: An Overview 

25

Marinoni, G. (2019). IAU 5th Global Survey. International Association of Universities, DUZ MedienHaus. Retrieved February 29, 2020, from https:// www.iau-aiu.net/Global-survey-on-Internationalization. Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by non-native speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mauranen, A., Hynninen, N., & Ranta, E. (2010). English as an academic lingua franca: The ELFA project. English for Specific Purposes, 29(3), 183–190. May, S. (2014). Contesting public monolingualism and diglossia: Rethinking political theory and language policy for a multilingual world. Language Policy, 13(4), 371–393. Melitz, J. (2008). Language and foreign trade. European Economic Review, 52(4), 667–699. Pedersen, O. (2000). The first universities: Studium generale and the origins of university education in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Piller, I., & Cho, J. (2013). Neoliberalism as language policy. Language in Society, 42(1), 23–44. Pulcini, V., & Campagna, 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 (English in Europe 3) (pp. 65–87). Boston and Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Reithofer, K. (2013). Comparing modes of communication: The effect of English as a lingua franca vs. interpreting. Interpreting, 15(1), 48–73. Ricento, T. (Ed.). (2015a). Language policy and political economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ricento, T. (2015b). ‘English,’ the global Lingua Franca? In T. Ricento (Ed.), Language policy and political economy (pp.  276–304). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Romaine, S. (2015). The Pushmi-Pullyu of language policy and political economy. In T. Ricento (Ed.), Language policy and political economy (pp. 252–275). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sanderson, G. (2011). Internationalisation and teaching in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(5), 661–676. Sandström, A., & Hudson, R. (2018). The EAIE barometer: Internationalization in Europe. Amsterdam: EAIE. Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swales, J. (2002). On models in applied discourse analysis. In C. Candlin (Ed.), Research and practice in professional discourse (pp.  61–77). Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong Press.

26 

H. Bowles and A. C. Murphy

Szabo, L., Miscoiu, S., & Kiss, A. (2020). Balancing local mother tongues with international languages. Blog Post, February 20, 2020. Retrieved November 29, 2020, from www.EAIE.org. Tatzl, D., & Messnarz, B. (2012). Testing foreign language impact on engineering students’ scientific problem-solving performance. European Journal of Engineering Education, 38(6), 620–630. 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(3), 209–221. Tsuneyoshi, R. (2018). The internationalization of Japanese education: ‘International’ without the ‘Multicultural’. Educational Studies in Japan: International Yearbook, 12, 49–59. Williams, D.  G. (2015). A systematic review of English Medium Instruction (EMI) and implications for the South Korean higher education context. ELTWorldOnline.Com. Special Issue on CLIL, 1–23. Yip, D. Y., & Tsang, W. K. (2007). Evaluation of the effects of the medium of instruction on Science learning of Hong Kong secondary students: Students’ self-concept in Science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(3), 393–413.

2 EMI Challenges in Japan’s Internationalization of Higher Education Ikuya Aizawa and Jim McKinley

2.1 Introduction EMI and internationalization of higher education (HE) are inextricably intertwined, with some scholars referring to the phenomenon as the Englishization of higher education (Kirkpatrick 2011; Galloway and McKinley 2019). In Japan, the most recent government HE initiative was initiated in 2016, known as the Top Global University Programme (TGUP). Compared to other previous initiatives (e.g. Go Global Japan, Global 30), which were focused primarily on increasing the number of international students and EMI programmes, the TGUP expands on the objectives of these previous initiatives in its additional focus on the role

I. Aizawa (*) Department of Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK e-mail: [email protected] J. McKinley UCL Institute of Education, London, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 H. Bowles, A. C. Murphy (eds.), English-Medium Instruction and the Internationalization of Universities, International and Development Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47860-5_2

27

28 

I. Aizawa and J. McKinley

of research in the internationalization of Japanese universities, such as research excellence and international collaboration. While the TGUP avoids identifying the expansion specifically of English taught programmes, a significant part of the project’s objectives still resembles previous initiatives, such as the Global 30’s targeted expansion of EMI (see Rose and McKinley 2018). Although EMI is gaining momentum and TGUP is well-funded, little research to date has been carried out to evaluate the impact of this policy implementation on language planning in its Japanese participant universities. To build on the Japanese education ministry’s (MEXT 2018) interim evaluation of the TGUP in 2016, this chapter will both critically review this recent interim evaluation and explore the literature around how stakeholders, including institutional managers, teachers and students, encounter various challenges associated with the implementation of EMI. The chapter concludes by arguing that the recent government policy is implicit yet aggressive in its aim to target improvement of the national and global profile of Japanese institutions in the ranks of top global universities. These reforms and change processes present complex challenges for university education and management at different policy diffusion levels.

2.2 D  riving Forces Behind EMI Expansion in Japanese Higher Education EMI has been introduced rapidly in higher education in many countries, promoted by various government initiatives to achieve the perceived benefits, such as reinforcing mobility of international students and faculty members and enabling domestic students to improve English language proficiency. Coinciding with the global expansion of the English language, a number of key reasons were proposed in recent Japanese government guidelines, such as the Selection for FY 2014 Top Global University Project (MEXT 2014), for the introduction of EMI, including nurturing global human resources by using English at universities to boost domestic students’ career prospects and to improve the domestic labour market

2  EMI Challenges in Japan’s Internationalization of Higher… 

29

and the performance of Japanese companies internationally (Yonezawa 2014). In essence, although we need more empirical evidence about improved job opportunities for domestic students via EMI, we agree that improving domestic students’ English proficiency should lead to enhanced career opportunities as envisaged by the Japanese government’s objectives. This predominant focus on English and subsequent push for EMI is in line with the rising prominence of English as a lingua franca.

2.3 O  verview of Japan’s Recent Higher Education Initiative: TGUP In Japan, various higher education policies (e.g. Go Global Japan, Global 30) have been introduced by MEXT in recent decades to secure the position of Japanese research universities in global rankings. These educational reforms include increasing the number of EMI courses and attracting high-quality students, researchers and faculty members from overseas (see Rose and McKinley 2018). As a result of this increased pressure to internationalize, in 2015, MEXT announced that over one-third of Japan’s nearly 800 universities offered undergraduate EMI programmes, an almost 38% increase from 2008 (MEXT 2015). In 2014, MEXT proposed their most recent initiative: the Top Global University Project, or ‘TGUP’, a ten-year, multimillion dollar investment initiative with the aim “to enhance the international compatibility and competitiveness of higher education in Japan, and to offer prioritized support for the world-class and innovative universities that lead the internationalization of Japanese universities” (MEXT 2014: 1). A total of 37 universities were selected: 13 universities classified as Type A given annual funding (JP¥420m, US$3.5m), viewed as research-oriented universities that are expected to compete for ranking in the top 100 world universities, and 24 universities as Type B, or ‘global traction universities’ (JP¥172m, US$1.4m), identified as innovative universities that can provide models for the internationalization of Japanese society. According to the most recent figures from MEXT (2018), by the end of this ten-year initiative, in 2023 these 37 TGUP-funded universities are

30 

I. Aizawa and J. McKinley

expected to achieve the goals identified in Table 2.1 to internationalize their institutions. The evaluation criteria included diversity, mobility, support systems for domestic and international students, language ability, the number and percentage of courses in a foreign language and the number of degree programmes that students can complete only in a foreign language (generally understood to be English) (JSPS 2014). In addition to these ten-year goals, after two years of the implementation of this initiative, MEXT also carried out an interim evaluation of the progress of these 37 universities based on the criteria in 2016 presented in Table 2.2, offering positive overall results of this policy dissemination (MEXT 2018). Table 2.1  TGUP goals from 2013 to 2023 Goals

2013

2023

1. International students 2. Domestic students with university study abroad experience 3. Courses taught in a foreign language 4. Students with sufficient English proficiency 5. Courses requiring only foreign languages to graduate 6. International students living with Japanese students in a mixed student dormitory 7. Foreign faculty members

49,618 16,055

102,757 2.07 times 61,517 3.83 times

Increase

19,533 78,589 652

55,928 2.86 times 264,881 3.37 times 1,226 1.73 times

5,184

19,471

3.76 times

12,401

21,842

1.76 times

Source: MEXT (2019) Table 2.2  Results of TGUP interim evaluation in 2016 Reported goals

2013

1. International students 2. Domestic students with university study abroad experience 3. Courses taught in a foreign language 4. Students with sufficient English proficiency

49,618 69,119 1.39 times 16,055 23,532 1.46 times

5. Courses requiring only foreign languages to graduate

2016

Increase

19,533 32,846 1.68 times 78,589 N.A. (see below)a 652

873

1.33 times

“Although the number of students reaching the English language requirements has risen to some extent, we still require further efforts to achieve the target”. (MEXT 2018: 1) Source MEXT (2018: 1) a

2  EMI Challenges in Japan’s Internationalization of Higher… 

31

Despite this seemingly successful result of the implementation of TGUP, these perceived goals of TGUP on the policy statements are implicit. For example, the definition of ‘courses taught in foreign languages’, ‘international students’, ‘teachers’ criteria’ and ‘sufficient language levels required for a university degree’ are not explicitly defined. This means that stakeholders at the classroom level (university teachers and students) cannot consistently interpret these policy guidelines. To illustrate these implicit policy statements, Table  2.3 outlines potential issues around the lack of clarity of these policy statements associated with six of the TGUP objectives. Table 2.3  Issues caused by vagueness of policy statements Implicit statements 1. International students

2. Domestic students with university study abroad experience

Issues

Research

93.4% of students are from Asia Rakhshandehroo and Ivanova (2020), Tamtam (38.4% from China and 24.2% et al. (2012) from Vietnama). Does “international students” primarily mean Asian students? What is the definition of the phrase “international students”? The policy states “Study abroad Murata et al. (2019), Rakhshandehroo and that gives students credits”. Ivanova (2020) Does this include intensive short-term study programmes that also give students university credits (e.g. summer English courses)? Where are the students’ study abroad destinations? Anglophone countries or the Outer and Expanding circles (e.g. China, Singapore, Thailand)? (continued)

32 

I. Aizawa and J. McKinley

Table 2.3 (continued) Implicit statements 3. Courses taught in a foreign language

4. English proficiency

5. Courses requiring only foreign languages to graduate

Issues

Research

Does a foreign language mean Rose and McKinley (2018), Pun and Macaro English or any other foreign (2019), Macaro et al. language? (2018) What are the criteria required for a course to be classified as EMI? What are the definitions and aims of these EMI courses? Rakhshandehroo and Does “students” only refer to Ivanova (2020), Mori domestic students? (2011), Brown and Should non L1 English speakers Bradford (2018) (from China and Vietnam) also benefit from English language support? How do we measure students’ English proficiency? Do the universities use their own version of English tests or standard tests, for example, IELTS? What is the English entry level set by the universities? Aizawa and Rose (2019), Does this refer to the entire Macaro (2018) degree or single modules? Are any particular disciplines more conducive to EMI, such as STEM subjects?

Japan Student Services Organization (JASSO) (2019)

a

It appears that these implicit policy guidelines are not only problematised in Japan but also in other EMI contexts, according to research pertaining to the implicit policies analysed for their studies. For example, in Malaysia, Ali (2013) identified vague specification for students’ language proficiency in a Malaysian university’s policy, stating that students must have “excellent English proficiency”, and “the ability to communicate in English through their academic courses” (p.  80) to study through EMI. Considering the high level of English proficiency needed to study in English (Mori 2011), an explicit threshold policy seems more

2  EMI Challenges in Japan’s Internationalization of Higher… 

33

appropriate. These studies suggest that explicit policy statements enable stakeholders at the classroom level to implement the policy more effectively and alleviate current challenges when the policy is translated topdown. The drive for EMI normally comes from policymakers, HE administrators and university leaders, often in response to government initiatives, rather than being sought by stakeholders (i.e. students and teachers) themselves (Botha 2013). This has led to gaps between EMI policy and practice, discussed next.

2.4 Gaps Between EMI Policy and Practice The EMI phenomenon is expanding so rapidly that keeping up with this movement requires considerable effort for universities with EMI offerings. Leong (2017) indicates that the implementation of EMI requires a rapid change in university operation, such as setting up professional development courses for lecturers, and supplementary English courses for domestic students to help them adapt to the new English-speaking situation. Furthermore, Byun et al. (2011) also note that instructors face severe challenges in making adaptations as not only are they required to deliver courses in English, but also to write articles in English for publication in internationally renowned journals. Despite these efforts, various researchers (e.g. Yip et al. 2007) have conceded that positive outcomes of EMI are not guaranteed. In Japan, an in-depth qualitative study was conducted by Leong (2017) to investigate how EMI policies are enacted in universities. The findings were based on semi-structured interviews with deans and directors of language centres in four Japanese universities with EMI offerings to illustrate how stakeholders had responded to the push for EMI in their institutions. The study concluded that there were a range of activities planned and undertaken by the universities but also a number of negative factors (e.g. a lack of certified EMI teachers, stakeholders’ insufficient English competence), which severely impeded the successful implementation of the EMI policies. This highlights a clear gap between the aims of the policy and the consequences of the practice.

34 

I. Aizawa and J. McKinley

In the same vein, case studies have been conducted at Japanese universities to explore EMI practices. One investigated three EMI classes in three different faculties (McKinley 2018), showing that while language support may be fundamental in one area, it may not exist in others. Another case study undertaken by Aizawa and Rose (2019) investigated how a university’s TGUP is being enacted in practice at two different levels: the meso (university) and micro (stakeholder) levels. The study illustrates how one Japanese university interpreted the HE policy in its strategic plan (meso level), and how students and teachers interpreted the university’s plan and put it into practice (micro level). In-depth textual analysis and semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore students’ and teachers’ views on EMI implementation at their university. The findings suggest that the meso language policy goals put out by the university did not trickle down to the micro level as envisioned, indicating underlying challenges arising from policy provision and dissemination. Therefore, implementation of EMI initiatives may be understood differently at the meso (university) and micro (stakeholders) levels, suggesting that in a particularly centralised educational system such as Japan’s (Goodman and Phillips 2003), decision-making on educational policies is typically dominated by top-down management without teacher or student input. Reporting this gap in EMI implementation between the meso and micro levels, various scholars (e.g. Tsuneyoshi 2005; Bradford 2012) express serious doubts about successful EMI implementation and indicate that EMI implementers, including universities (meso), students and teachers (micro), encounter a range of challenges associated with the introduction of EMI in Japan.

2.5 Conceptual Framework for Understanding EMI Challenges Emerging from TGUP To explore the EMI-related challenges stemming from the implementation of TGUP, the following conceptual framework (Fig. 2.1), inspired by a study conducted by Ali (2013) in Malaysia, is invaluable. Ali’s study

2  EMI Challenges in Japan’s Internationalization of Higher… 

35

Level: Macro level Stake holders: Policy makers, the Ministry of Education, and Higher Education administrators

Level: Meso level Stake holders: University, university leaders

Level: Micro level Stake holders: Students and teachers The current focus Policy implementation at the three levels: Macro, Meso and Micro

Fig. 2.1  Policy implementation at the three levels (macro, meso, micro level)

explored data at three levels of policy implementation: national (macro), university (meso) and stakeholders (micro). Ali’s (2013) study primarily reveals gaps between macro, meso and micro levels. For example, at the macro level, students are expected to improve English through content learning; however, at the meso level, policy guidelines did not provide specific plans to facilitate students’ learning, such as English language support. At the micro level, it was found that content and language teachers did not communicate with each other sufficiently to discuss their roles as to whether they were solely responsible for content or/and language teaching. Therefore, Ali (2013) found that the disconnect between the multiple levels of policy implementation risks impacting on students’ learning of both language and content. This multi-layered framework highlights the usefulness of examining policy implementation at several levels to fully understand how an EMI policy is being translated from one level to another, and to explore challenges regarding EMI policy implementation.

36 

I. Aizawa and J. McKinley

2.6 Aims of EMI at the TGUP Universities As EMI is believed to offer various benefits to institutions and stakeholders, there is a considerable variety of ways to interpret the overall aims of EMI. For example, in Japan, a study exploring success in EMI at one of the TGUP universities in Tokyo (Rose et al. 2019) concluded that success in EMI is interpreted by business majors as a combination of final grades, lecture comprehension, English language proficiency gains and long-­ term career advancement. One of the main perceived benefits of EMI is students’ development of English proficiency in addition to content knowledge (Galloway et al. 2017). However, the oft-cited definition of EMI in Japan as proposed by MEXT is “courses conducted entirely in English, excluding those whose primary purpose is language education” (MEXT 2014). Based on this definition, EMI focuses exclusively on content knowledge transmission through English without the explicit aim to achieve English language learning goals. This implicit policy may create a situation where students are expected to complete their degrees with no expectations of language learning, which may in turn affect content learning. Wilkinson (2015) echoes this single aim of EMI in the Japanese HE setting, noting that EMI professors see themselves as subject specialists rather than English language experts (also reflected in McKinley 2018); they merely use the language to convey content knowledge. This content-focused primary aim of EMI also mirrors the definition of medium of instruction introduced by UNESCO (2003): The language of instruction in school is the medium of communication for the transmission of knowledge. This is different from language teaching itself where the grammar, vocabulary, and the written and the oral forms of a language constitute a specific curriculum for the acquisition of a second language other than the mother tongue. (p. 17)

Although MEXT’s definition of EMI is exclusively linked to content knowledge acquisition, literature centred in Japan suggests that EMI, in reality, serves a dual aim in which students are expected to improve both content and linguistic knowledge in parallel, aligning with Taguchi’s (2014) definition—“curricula using English as a medium of instruction

2  EMI Challenges in Japan’s Internationalization of Higher… 

37

for basic and advanced courses to improve students’ academic English proficiency” (p. 89). Galloway et al. (2017) found from their large-scale survey study (n = 455) that 183 Japanese university students (40%) who elected to study through EMI expressed their perceived linguistic improvement as the primary reason for enrolling in EMI courses. Although there is very little robust empirical evidence to claim that EMI improves students’ English language skills (Jiménez-Muñoz 2014), the development of language skills is one of the key drivers for students and parents to enrol in EMI degree programmes (Chalmers 2019). Regarding the terminological confusion surrounding definitions of EMI (Thompson & Mckinley 2018), Brown and Bradford (2017) argue that in Japan there is no shared understanding of conceptual approaches such as content and integrated learning (CLIL), integrating content and language in higher education (ICLHE), or content-based instruction (CBI); researchers in wider global contexts also adopt these terms synonymously without explicitly articulating the differences in their intended learning aims (Ament and Pérez-Vidal 2015). MacGregor (2016) also found from her case study exploring the perceptions of language-­teaching experts in Japan that her participants did not also differentiate CLIL from CBI/EMI. For EMI to prosper in Japan, EMI should be conceptually differentiated from other similar yet inherently different terms. Overall, MEXT’s definition of EMI is problematic because its macro-­ level policy decision is not being interpreted by the stakeholders (i.e. university teachers and students) at the meso and micro level as envisaged by policymakers at the top. Instead, the interpretation of its definition remains context driven based on personal decisions of individual EMI instructors. Currently, the relative positions of language and content in learning objectives are unclear. Consequently, the absence of a clear structural arrangement of a curriculum discourages content and language teachers from working effectively together to achieve synergy between the two domains. The extent of language support provided to students from their content teachers ultimately boils down to the decisions of individual EMI instructors. In response to the government’s content learning-oriented policy, Brown and Bradford (2017) acknowledge problems with the definition of EMI, offering a new version reflecting a dual aim: to explain the nature

38 

I. Aizawa and J. McKinley

of EMI adopted in Japan more effectively and to acknowledge that institutions do not consistently include a language learning aim. This is not to suggest that institutions should have the choice, but rather that some choose not to include language learning in EMI (“it may or may not include the implicit aim of increasing students’ English language abilities” p. 330). Given that English language acquisition is widely accepted as a by-product of EMI, the lack of explicitly formulated English language learning goals suggests that universities see language learning goals as a subsidiary aims of EMI courses. It is presumed that English is learnt secondarily and incidentally, yet this implicit goal is considered to be sufficient (Unterberger and Wilhelmer 2011). To ensure successful EMI implementation, MEXT should make the aim of language learning in their policy statements explicit so that stakeholders are able to implement the policy more effectively and alleviate the current confusions that emerge when the policy is translated from the top to the bottom.

2.7 L anguage-related Issues Faced by Students and Teachers in EMI One of the oft-reported issues in relation to EMI implementation at the micro level is language-related challenges experienced by students (e.g. Tsuneyoshi 2005; Hellekjaer 2010; Wilkinson 2013). Students’ linguistic challenges have been researched extensively in a growing body of EMI literature, often summarised as difficulty in taking notes from academic texts (Andrade 2006); comprehending classes (Hellekjær 2010); understanding instructors’ accents (Tange 2012); and understanding academic texts due to insufficient vocabulary knowledge (Kırkgöz 2005). The lack of English proficiency among EMI students is one of the most recurrent obstacles to EMI implementation (e.g. Hu et al. 2014; Chapple 2015). Some researchers (Hellekjær 2010; Wong and Wu 2011) assert that EMI students who lack adequate English proficiency graduate without sufficient content knowledge. While students’ low English proficiency level is one factor hindering EMI, instructors’ English proficiency must also be taken into account.

2  EMI Challenges in Japan’s Internationalization of Higher… 

39

Linguistic challenges presented by EMI instructors include teachers’ reduced ability to use accessible language (Tange 2012); the lower academic content quality and quantity due to lack of proficiency (Wilkinson 2005); and increased workload and preparation time due to the limited language ability (Tsuneyoshi 2005). In EMI, teaching and language skills are closely intertwined. Instructors’ limited English skills can serve as a serious factor negatively affecting the quality of EMI teaching (Başıbek et al. 2014; Werther et al. 2014), leading to simplified lecture content (Chapple 2015). This in turn undermines their own confidence (Goodman 2014), and changes how much they can accommodate students’ needs (Vinke et al. 1998). In Japan, a limited number of studies have been carried out to explore EMI teachers’ language-related challenges (Ishikura 2015). Bradford (2012) interviewed 27 members of three Japanese EMI universities to examine linguistic challenges experienced by teachers, claiming that most of the faculty members expressed their own perceived limitations with using English, noting in particular that longer preparation time was necessary for delivering an EMI lecture. In addition to achieving sufficient language proficiency, EMI instructors are also expected to change their usual pedagogical style and develop new teaching skills to meet the demands of EMI pedagogy in multicultural classroom contexts in which both domestic and international students study in English. In other words, teachers are also required to achieve both linguistic and pedagogical development through teaching EMI.  Although teachers’ linguistic challenges are evident in a growing body of literature, no organisational or pedagogical guidelines exist which explicitly state expectations of English ability of EMI instructors (Mahboob 2014). Aizawa and Rose (2019) consistently found that at the macro and meso level, TGUP policy guidelines do not explicitly discuss the specific criteria for EMI teachers’ linguistic ability, yet expect them to be equipped with sufficient proficiency to deliver courses in English. It is a matter of debate as to whether any specific criteria for teachers should be explicitly stated within the guidelines. Leong (2017) provided evidence from a case study in Japan that one university had to institute a new recruitment policy, claiming that explicit criteria for teachers’ English proficiency enables EMI

40 

I. Aizawa and J. McKinley

universities to avoid recruiting teachers who are not competent enough to explain content knowledge in English. Despite being a crucial factor clearly identified in the literature, faculty members’ English proficiency is not emphasised in policy documentation. We can see that there is a discrepancy between policy and practice — the absence of discussion of teachers’ English proficiency on the policy front, and on the practical front the stakeholders’ expressed need for more explicit discussion. One issue, however, is that EMI provision is outpacing its research. EMI can be interpreted as a relatively new pedagogical approach to content and L2 learning; research into stakeholders’ required level of language proficiency is still scarce (Dafouz et al. 2014; Ament and Perez-­Vidal 2015). Although we have established that English skills and EMI learning and teaching are closely related, evidence has to be substantiated to confirm the level of English required for both students and teachers at no cost to their disciplinary teaching and learning.

2.8 Medium of Instruction Low linguistic proficiency among EMI students not only hinders their academic performance, but also in some cases serves as a challenge for an EMI course to be considered genuine (Macaro 2005; Borg 2015). In numerous EMI settings, it has been shown that a course identified as EMI does not necessarily mean English-only instruction (Botha 2013; Hu et al. 2014; Borg 2015). Codeswitching (i.e. shifting between L1 and L2 for convenience) and translanguaging (i.e. resourcing the L1 to support the use of the L2) are common (see Bowles and Cogo 2016), often due to students’ insufficient linguistic ability and instructors’ attempts to clarify lecture contents in the L1 (see e.g. Evans 2002 regarding EMI in Hong Kong). In Japan, Tanabe (2004) emphasises the need to examine the question of language usage in EMI, stating that MEXT’s policies expect the exclusive use of English for university teaching and learning. Comparing the difference between Korea and Japan, Byun et al. (2011) also acknowledge the difficulty in implementing an exclusively English policy in universities, claiming that the situation is similar in Korea.

2  EMI Challenges in Japan’s Internationalization of Higher… 

41

Various Japanese studies (e.g. Galloway et  al. 2017) have claimed that EMI instructors with Japanese L1 continue to use Japanese due to their students’ insufficient linguistic knowledge. Seeing that the L1 is commonly used in EMI in Japanese HE, policies present an unrealistic expectation of English language use without sufficient understanding of actual classroom practice. Aizawa and Rose (2019) identified two types of language of instruction policy in the TGUP participant universities’ policy guidelines: explicit and implicit. Universities with explicit policies clearly delineate the exact proportion of English and Japanese, whilst those with implicit policies are less clear, with practices indicating indistinct boundaries around language use. Existing literature claims that EMI national and university policies are predominantly explicit about the language of instruction (Evans 2002; Tanabe 2004). Ali (2013) expresses some reservations regarding implicit policy in university EMI policy in Malaysia, claiming that every stakeholder can interpret implicit policy differently and use both languages to varying degrees. Since implicit policy is poorly interpreted and is shown to be impractical in determining what percentage of each language to use, explicit policy seems to be more appropriate for Japanese universities. Currently, there is no guidance in the policy to suggest how much Japanese and English should be used and how this decision should be made. An explicit policy could include new guidelines regarding how much Japanese should be permitted alongside English. As a result, teachers in particular could more autonomously use Japanese as a principal language and English as a supplementary one. This would help low-English proficiency students in EMI classes.

2.9 Discussion and Recommendations To minimise this inconsistency between policy and practice, many researchers have suggested the importance of institutional and governmental support for stakeholders (e.g. Borg 2015). As for teachers’ support, for example, Al-Ansari (2000) suggests that students can achieve higher academic literacy when content teachers have received English-­ medium teaching training. Similarly, Vinke et al. (1998) emphasises the

42 

I. Aizawa and J. McKinley

need for screening teachers’ English skills, and for offering teacher training programmes that focus on the use of English for teaching content lessons. As for students’ support, Westbrook and Henriksen (2011) claim that students’ English levels should be checked regularly through the programme, to allow them to benefit from language support and employ effective learning methods in EMI. Thompson et al. (2019) highlight a subsidiary benefit of in-sessional academic English courses (e.g. ESP and EAP) in developing not only students’ academic English but also their confidence (i.e. self-efficacy) towards success in learning through English. The current pedagogical infrastructure does not ensure adequate support for EMI provision in Japan. Wilkinson (2015) summarised the EMI provisions of one EMI university in Japan, claiming that although the government has pushed through HE policies to promote EMI, very little pedagogical training appears to have been offered to EMI teachers working under these new policies. Another study by Leong (2017), investigating the constraints of EMI implementation, administered five semi-structured interviews with L1 Japanese professors (n  =  5) at four EMI Japanese universities. The study revealed that the lack of teacher training and teachers’ insufficient linguistic ability to run EMI courses were expressed as critical issues by all the participants. Thus, despite the challenges faced by stakeholders associated with EMI implementation, there seems to be a lack of governmental and institutional support in many EMI contexts, including Japan. Further investigation is needed to check whether Wilkinson’s and Leong’s results can be confirmed elsewhere. A second way to improve the connection between policy and practice should come from EMI research. Further empirical research should be carried out to inform some of the research questions: the English language level required for EMI teaching and learning; whether EMI improves students’ English language knowledge; aims of EMI; the role of L1 in EMI; challenges faced by students and teachers; support and training schemes offered to EMI teachers and students. As EMI phenomena have outpaced its research and theorisation, the current implementation of the TGUP initiative has not been substantiated by empirical research but has been subject to different interpretations by its implementers at both the meso and micro levels. We conclude that stakeholders should

2  EMI Challenges in Japan’s Internationalization of Higher… 

43

take into consideration the gap between policy goals and actual implementation in such a critical policy planning strategy for Japan’s national higher education. The government and universities should make their policy statements more explicit so that stakeholders are able to implement the policy more effectively and alleviate current challenges when the policy is translated from the top to the bottom.

2.10 Conclusion This chapter has provided an overview of the discussion around stakeholders’ lack of proficiency in English compared to both governmental and institutional expectations, and highlighted that EMI courses are not, in practice, always conducted in English, but rather delivered in ways in which English features largely, but not exclusively. The inconsistencies in both university EMI policies and reported practices are problematic, as Japanese university students with lower English proficiency need language support. These students would therefore clearly benefit from explicitly including language learning as an aim of EMI, and resourcing their L1 in EMI classes.

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(6), 1125–1142. Al-Ansari, S. (2000). Sheltered curricular exposure and unsheltered extra-­ curricular exposure as factors influencing the development of academic proficiency in ESL. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 38, 175–194. 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(1), 73–92. Ament, J. R., & Pérez Vidal, C. (2015). Linguistic outcomes of English medium instruction programmes in higher education: A study on economics under-

44 

I. Aizawa and J. McKinley

graduates at a Catalan university. Higher Learning Research Communications, 5(1), 47–67. Andrade, M. S. (2006). International students in English-speaking universities: Adjustment factors. Journal of Research in International Education, 5(2), 131–154. 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. Borg, S. (2015). English medium instruction in Iraqi Kurdistan: Research report for the British Council. Retrieved from http://englishagenda.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/attachments/teaching_english_publication_ en_web_version_v1.pdf. Botha, W. (2013). English-medium instruction at a university in Macau: Policy and realities. World Englishes, 32(4), 461–475. Bowles, H., & Cogo, A. (Eds.). (2016). International perspectives on English as a lingua franca: Pedagogical insights. Springer. Bradford, A. (2012). Adopting English-taught degree programs. International Higher Education, 69, 8–10. Brown, H., & Bradford, A. (2017). EMI, CLIL, and CBI: Differing approaches and goals. In P. Clements, A. Krause, & H. Brown (Eds.), Transformation in language education. Tokyo: JALT. Brown, H., & Bradford, A. (2018). Teaching subject-content through English: CLIL and EMI courses in the Japanese university. In Teaching English at Japanese universities: A new handbook (pp.  103–108). Milton: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315147239-11. 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: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 62(4), 431–449. Chalmers, H. (2019). The role of the first language in English medium instruction. OUP ELT Position Paper. Retrieved from https://elt.oup.com/feature/global/ expert/emi?cc=gbandselLanguage=en Chapple, J. (2015). Teaching in English is not necessarily the teaching of English. International Education Studies, 8(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5539/ ies.v8n3p1.

2  EMI Challenges in Japan’s Internationalization of Higher… 

45

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(3), 223–236. Evans, S. (2002). The medium of instruction in Hong Kong: Policy and practice in the new English and Chinese streams. Research Papers in Education, 17(1), 97–120. Galloway, N., Kriukow, J., & Numajiri, T. (2017). Internationalisation, higher education and the growing demand for English: An investigation into the English medium of instruction (EMI) movement in China and Japan. London: British Council. Galloway, N., & McKinley, J. (2019). Englishization of higher education. In H. Mohebbi, & C. Coombe (Eds.), Research questions in language education and applied linguistics. Springer. Goodman, B. A. (2014). Implementing English as a medium of instruction in a Ukrainian university: Challenges, adjustments, and opportunities. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 9(2), 130–141. Goodman, R., & Phillips, D. (2003). Can the Japanese change their education system? Oxford: Symposium Books. Hellekjær, G.  O. (2010). Lecture comprehension in English-medium higher education. Hermes: Journal of Language and Communication Studies, 45, 11–34. Hu, G., Li, L., & Lei, J. (2014). English-medium instruction at a Chinese university: Rhetoric and reality. Language Policy, 13(1), 21–40. Ishikura, Y. (2015). Realizing internationalization at home through English-­ medium courses at a Japanese university: Strategies to maximize student learning. Higher Learning Research Communications, 5(1), 11–28. JASSO. (2019). Heisei 30 Nendo Gaikokujin Ryugakusei Zaiseki Jyokyo Chosa Kekka [2018 Survey of enrollment of International students in Japan]. Retrieved from https://www.nisshinkyo.org/news/pdf/B-30-2.pdf Jiménez-Muñoz, A. J. (2014). Measuring the impact of CLIL on language skills: A CEFR- based approach for higher education. Language Value, 6(1), 28–50. JSPS. (2014). Super Global Univeristy Sousei Shien; Shinsa Kijun [Top Global University Project/Selection criteria]. Retrieved from https://www.jsps.go. jp/j-sgu/data/download/01_sgu_kouboyouryou.pdf Kırkgöz, Y. (2005). Motivation and student perception of studying in an English- medium University. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 1(1), 101–123.

46 

I. Aizawa and J. McKinley

Kirkpatrick, A. (2011). Internationalization or Englishization: Medium of instruction in today’s universities. CGC Working Papers Series 2011/003. Leong, P. (2017). English-medium instruction in Japanese universities: Policy implementation and constraints. Current Issues in Language Planning, 18(1), 57–67. Macaro, E. (2005). Codeswitching in the L2 classroom: A communication and learning strategy. In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges, and contributions to the profession (pp.  63–84). Boston, MA: Springer. Macaro, E. (2018). English medium instruction. Oxford: 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(01), 36–76. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444817000350. MacGregor, L. (2016). CLIL in Japan: University teachers’ viewpoints. In P. Clements, A. Krause, & H. Brown (Eds.), Focus on the learner. Tokyo: JALT. Mahboob, A. (2014). Meeting the challenges of English-medium higher education in Hong Kong. IRAL—International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 52(2), 183–203. McKinley, J. (2018). Making the EFL to ELF transition at a Global Traction University. In A. Bradford & H. Brown (Eds.), English-medium instruction at universities in Japan: Policy, challenges and outcomes (pp. 238–249). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. MEXT. (2014). Selection for the FY 2014 Top Global University Project. Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/26/09/__icsFiles/ afieldfile/2014/10/07/1352218_02.pdf MEXT. (2015). Heisei 25 Nendo No Daigaku Ni Okeru Kyouiku Nai You Tou No Kaikaku Joukyou Ni Tsuite [About the state of affairs regarding university reforms to education in 2013]. Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/a_ menu/koutou/daigaku/04052801/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2016/05/ 12/1361916_1.pdf MEXT. (2018). Super Global Daigaku Sousei Shien Jigyo Chukan Hyoka Kekka No Soukatsu [Summary of mid-term evaluation results of Super Global University Project]. Retrieved from https://www.jsps.go.jp/j-sgu/ data/kekka/h29_sgu_chukan_kekkasoukatsu.pdf MEXT. (2019). Suji De Miru Super Global Daigaku [Future visions of Top Global Universities]. Retrieved from https://tgu.mext.go.jp/goal/index.html Mori, J. (2011). G30 and its implications for Japan. Kyoto University International Center Research Bulletin, 1, 63–71.

2  EMI Challenges in Japan’s Internationalization of Higher… 

47

Murata, K., Iino, M., & Konakahara, M. (2019). Realities of EMI practices among multilingual students in a Japanese University. In Linguistic diversity on the EMI Campus: Insider accounts of the use of English and other languages in universities within Asia, Australasia, and Europe (pp. 149–171). Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429020865. Pun, J., & Macaro, E. (2019). The effect of first and second language use on question types in English medium instruction science classrooms in Hong Kong. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(1), 64–77. Rakhshandehroo, M., & Ivanova, P. (2020). International student satisfaction at English-medium graduate programs in Japan. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education Research, 79(1), 39–54. 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, 1–13. https:// doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1590690 Rose, H., & McKinley, J. (2018). Japan’s English-medium instruction initiatives and the globalization of higher education. Higher Education, 75(1), 111–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0125-1. Taguchi, N. (2014). English-medium education in the global society. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 52(2), 89–98. Tamtam, A. G., Gallagher, F., Olabi, A. G., & Naher, S. (2012). A comparative study of the implementation of EMI in Europe, Asia and Africa. Procedia— Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47(C), 1417–1425. Tanabe, Y. (2004). What the 2003 MEXT action plan proposes to teachers of English. The Language Teacher, 28(3), 3. Tange, H. (2012). Organising language at the international university: Three principles of linguistic organisation. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33(3), 287–300. Thompson, G., Aizawa, I., Curle, S., & Rose, H. (2019). Exploring the role of self-efficacy beliefs and learner success in English medium instruction. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. https://doi. org/10.1080/13670050.2019.1651819. Thompson, G., & McKinley, J. (2018). Integration of content and language learning. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.) (Project Editor: Margo DelliCarpini; Volume Editor: Shahid Abrar-ul-Hassan), TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (1st ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 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.

48 

I. Aizawa and J. McKinley

UNESCO. (2003). Education in a multilingual world. UNESCO Education Position Paper. Paris: UNESCO. Unterberger, B., & Wilhelmer, N. (2011). English-medium education in economics and business studies: Capturing the status quo at Austrian universities. ITL—International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 161, 90–110. Vinke, 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(3), 383–394. 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(5), 443–462. Westbrook, P. N., & Henriksen, B. (2011). ‘Bridging the linguistic and affective gaps’: The impact of a short, tailor-made language course on a Danish university lecturer’s ability to lecture with confidence in English. In R. Cancino, L.  Dam, & K.  Jæger (Eds.), Policies, principles, practices: New directions in foreign language education in the era of educational globalization (pp. 188–212). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. Wilkinson, D. (2015). Educational reforms and development in Japan: Language and culture education for global competitiveness. International Journal of Higher Education Management, 17(4), 555–566. Wilkinson, R. (2005). The impact of language on teaching content: Views from the content teacher. Rev. version of paper presented at the Bi- and multilingual universities—Challenges and future prospects conference at Helsinki. 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.  3–26). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 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). New  York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Yip, D., Coyle, D., & Tsang, W. (2007). Evaluation of the effects of the medium of instruction on science learning of Hong Kong secondary students: Instructional activities in science lessons. Education Journal, 35(2), 77–107. Yonezawa, A. (2014). Japan’s challenge of fostering “global human resources”: Policy debates and practices. Japan Labor Review, 11(2), 37–52.

3 Resistance to EMI in the Netherlands René Gabriëls and Robert Wilkinson

3.1 Introduction Since 2017, there has been a serious public debate in the Netherlands about the so-called Englishization (verengelsing) of higher education in the Netherlands. Almost three-quarters of the master’s courses at Dutch universities are in English (Vereniging van Hogescholen en Vereniging van Universiteiten 2018: 67). In addition, more and more bachelor’s programmes are switching to English-medium instruction (EMI), as defined by Dearden (2014).1 Many contributors to the debate in the media have  Dearden (2014: 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”. Englishization (verengelsing) is not clearly defined in the debate, apparently used to designate the process by which higher education courses and management systems increasingly switch to English. The KNAW (2017: 4) defines it as “de sterk toenemende invloed van Engelstalig onderwijs in opleidingen en in de besturing van instellingen al dan niet ten koste van het Nederlands” 1

R. Gabriëls (*) • R. Wilkinson Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 H. Bowles, A. C. Murphy (eds.), English-Medium Instruction and the Internationalization of Universities, International and Development Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47860-5_3

49

50 

R. Gabriëls and R. Wilkinson

expressed concern about the position of the Dutch language, arguing among other matters that the quality of education is declining, and that the decline of Dutch as an academic language due to Englishization would have repercussions for the cultural identity of the Netherlands. Concerns about the Englishization of higher education are the subject of public controversy not only in the Netherlands (e.g. Edwards 2016), but also in other countries (e.g. Sweden—Airey 2004; Italy—Pulcini and Campagna 2015; France—Blattès 2018; Spain (Catalonia)—Elliott et al. 2018; Germany—Lanvers 2018) and regions (Europe—Hultgren 2016; Lanvers and Hultgren 2018). While it is important to be aware of the similarities and differences between controversies about the Englishization of higher education in various countries, we focus in this chapter on the congruences and incongruences between what is said in public discourse about EMI programmes on the one hand and the experience of such programmes in practice in the Netherlands. We first examine issues raised in a landmark court case and the accompanying public controversy (Sect. 3.2) and contrast the opinions raised with the perceptions of key stakeholders, students following an EMI programme (Sects. 3.3 and 3.4). Due to space limitations, we focus on two issues that were central to the public controversy about Englishization: the quality of education and the supposed effect of EMI programmes on the Dutch cultural identity. Our comparison of this public controversy and students’ perception of EMI programmes adds to a burgeoning debate on Englishization throughout Europe and elsewhere.

3.2 T  he Public Debate on the Englishization of Higher Education We conducted a systematic review of key issues in the recent Englishization controversy through an analysis of recent articles in various Dutch newspapers and policy documents. To establish our newspaper corpus in a

[the strongly increasing influence of English-language education in training and in the management of institutions, whether or not at the expense of Dutch]. Englishization has been glossed as simply “an increased use of English” (Hultgren et al. 2015: 1).

3  Resistance to EMI in the Netherlands 

51

similar way to Lanvers (2018), we searched the LexisNexis database of all Dutch national and regional newspapers (https://www.lexisnexis.nl/) using the following search words: verengelsing (Englishization), kwaliteit van het onderwijs (quality of education), taalbeleid (language policy) and culturele identiteit (cultural identity). Although our remit was the current debate, we conducted a systematic search from September 2012 until February 2019, retrieving the full text of 181 newspaper reports, some of which were syndicated copies, supplemented by additional news reports from March 2019. In addition, we screened the website of Beter Onderwijs Nederlands (BON; Better Education Netherlands), an association of intellectuals and teachers that campaigns for the improvement of the quality of education and which triggered the controversy and initiated the court case (https://www.beteronderwijsnederland.nl). We also screened official policy documents. The public controversy about Englishization in higher education from May 2018 till February 2020 had its origins earlier. In May 2017, BON threatened to start a lawsuit because in their view too many EMI programmes are detrimental to the quality of education (BON 2017). A year later BON carried out its threat. On 18 May 2018, BON sued the University of Twente, Maastricht University (UM) and the Education Inspectorate, citing the universities’ bachelor’s programmes in psychology as examples. According to BON, Englishization not only has “disastrous consequences for the quality of education, but also for the Dutch language proficiency of graduates. The inspectorate acknowledges these problems too, but has nevertheless failed to take action” (BON 2018a).2 BON emphasized that if the majority of Dutch students are to practise a profession in the Netherlands where they have to master the Dutch language at a high level, it is important that they are trained at that level. In addition, BON argued that the English proficiency of teachers and students was not good enough to allow them to express themselves fluently and with adequate precision at an academic level. BON took the case to court because it was convinced that the University of Twente, Maastricht University and the Education Inspectorate were violating the Higher Education and Scientific Research  All quotes in this section were originally in Dutch. Translation by authors.

2

52 

R. Gabriëls and R. Wilkinson

Act (WHW).3 According to Article 1.3, paragraph 5, higher education must be aimed at “promoting expression skills in Dutch” (BON 2018a). In addition, according to BON, 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. BON believed that the need for solely EMI programmes had not been demonstrated. The two universities were the target of the lawsuit because they had the highest percentage of EMI programmes at bachelor’s level. BON demanded a moratorium on Englishization for at least a year to allow political and educational institutions the time to develop a new language policy that complied with existing laws. BON dropped the proceedings against the Education Inspectorate because this institution promised to investigate compliance with the law. The lawsuit received considerable media attention. Opinions differed about the consequences of Englishization for the quality of education. In contrast to BON, Rick de Graaff, professor of Bilingual Education at the University of Utrecht, emphasized that the effect that studying in English has on students’ Dutch is not known because no research has been done on it. But De Graaff expects that there is little chance that the Dutch will deteriorate as a consequence of students following EMI programmes: “These students still live in the Netherlands, they interact with Dutch people and they get the language every day through the media” (Bouma 2018). In contrast, Annette de Groot, emeritus professor of Experimental Psycholinguistics at the University of Amsterdam, argues that she is not against multilingualism, but believes that the complete Englishization of courses does not improve the quality of education: Our knowledge of English does not match that of Dutch. In English, for example, it is much more difficult [for Dutch speakers] to express nuances, to use metaphors, to argue well. Because your English vocabulary is limited, your explanation is often too simple. Moreover, as a teacher you often have to think longer about how you are going to say something. It takes more effort to find the right words, so that you have less time and attention  Despite similarities, this case differs from the Politecnico di Milano case (Pulcini and Campagna 2015) as it concerns an existing EMI situation, not a proposal. 3

3  Resistance to EMI in the Netherlands 

53

to concentrate on other matters, for example the structure of your argument. (de Bruin 2018)

Such opinions reflect the research findings of, for example, Vinke (1995) and Klaassen (2001). More strongly, in an article provocatively entitled “English as the language of instruction destroys higher education”, Felix Huygen (2017), member of the board of BON, also bemoans the loss of quality that the Englishization entails. He refers to a report from the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences (KNAW 2003: 13), which claims that the use of English as medium of instruction leads to experienced Dutch teachers losing about 30% of quality.4 Therefore, the KNAW advised that bachelor’s programmes should be offered in Dutch. Besides the quality of higher education, the impact of Englishization on cultural identity was also a central issue in the public controversy. The assumption is that language is constitutive of the cultural identity of individuals and collectives (Guerra 2016; Preece 2019). The importance of language for cultural identity is demonstrated by the recent research report “Thinking of the Netherlands” from the Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau (SCP 2019). For this report, Dutch citizens were asked which elements they consider constitutive of Dutch identity. Apart from symbols (Dutch flag, canals, windmills, etc.) and traditions (King’s Day, ice-­ skating, Liberation Day, etc.), the Dutch language was mentioned as the paramount binding factor. The report states: “In a multilingual and globalized landscape, language will be experienced more consciously as a commonality” (SCP 2019: 30). Against this background, it is understandable that the question of cultural identity is often mentioned in the public controversy about Englishization. In an appeal entitled “Government must protect Dutch at university”,5 194 eminent professors, writers and representatives of the cultural sector argued: “By not appreciating Dutch, they [the universities that embrace Englishization] are ignoring its important role in shaping our national identity and traditions” (BON 2019a). It is not ­uncommon  The source of the 30% claim is, however, contentious. KNAW cites research from Vinke (1995) but interprets as quality what she terms words per minute and speech rate. 5  De Volkskrant published an abridged version. BON put the whole text on its website. 4

54 

R. Gabriëls and R. Wilkinson

for the protagonists in this controversy to speak in terms of the end of the Dutch language. Marcel Zijlstra states: “In a century, Dutch will be the working language of only a small class of ‘deplorables’. The rest of the population will speak English, or at least a Low-Countries variant of it” (Zijlstra 2018). However, Jan de Caluwe, professor at Ghent University, doubts that the Dutch language will vanish: Many people think that Dutch is threatened because we use more and more English words. But that’s not true. Because no language is lost by the inclusion of foreign words. A language that refuses to record foreign words would therefore be worse than one that does. It is simply impossible to come up with a word for every possible loan word, which must then also be accepted by everyone. (de Bruin 2018)

Opponents of the Englishization of higher education often stress that Dutch as an academic language is important for the preservation of the cultural heritage of the Netherlands. Lotte Jensen, professor of Dutch literary history at the Radboud University in Nijmegen, cannot see the added value of writing theses in English about Dutch classical literary authors, such as the writer Joost van den Vondel (1587–1679): One of my students had to write her thesis on Vondel in English, because the research master’s degree is in English and the Examination Board requires it. All quotes from Vondel had to be translated into English. (Jensen 2017)

Paul Scheffer, professor of European Studies at Tilburg University, emphasizes that the Dutch language is not only an expression of the culture and history of the Netherlands, but it is also of great importance for democracy. The “demos” is largely based on a shared language: If Dutch does not come into use at the universities, new generations of students become disengaged from the language community that is so important for democracy. Those who do not give students academic training in their own language alienate the future upper class of society. We see the emergence of a new class society in which the chasm between the low educated and the highly educated is being widened. (Scheffer 2018)

3  Resistance to EMI in the Netherlands 

55

The KNAW also makes the connection between language and democracy, and the role that science plays in this: “Science has an important task to make democracy function well: 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: 42). On 6 July 2018, the District Court of Utrecht ruled on the case (Rechtspraak 2018). According to the judge, the two universities provided good reasons why they offer psychology programmes in English. Therefore, they had not broken the law. Furthermore, the judge did not want to intervene in the ongoing political debate about the Englishization of higher education. His task was only to determine whether the defendants were acting in accordance with the law. The two universities were happy with the judge’s decision. Although the judge rejected a moratorium, BON too was pleased to highlight that the judge offered starting points to combat Englishization. For example, the judge drew attention “to the codes of conduct of the universities. This must show the necessity of a language other than Dutch as the working language of study programmes” (BON 2018b). Moreover, according to BON, the court did not rule out that, after the Education Inspectorate’s investigation, it would be the case that universities that offer EMI programmes do not in fact comply with the law. On 21 December 2018, the Education Inspectorate’s report was published (Inspectie van het Onderwijs 2018). This mainly covers research into the codes of conduct of educational institutions that regulate the use of another language. According to Article 7.2 of the Higher Education and Scientific Research Act (WHW), universities should have such a code of conduct, but the report revealed that 34 out of 77 institutions do not. It concludes with the following strong statement: National language policy (including legislation) and the language policy of institutions should weigh up the various advantages and disadvantages of using a language other than Dutch. The codes of conduct in their current form do not succeed in showing that desired consideration. In many cases the code of conduct is absent and if there is a code, then the interpretation is often brief. They therefore do not comply with the current law. (Inspectie van het Onderwijs 2018: 37)

56 

R. Gabriëls and R. Wilkinson

Two days before the publication of this report, the Minister of Education, Culture and Science Ingrid van Engelshoven, as formal head of the Education Inspectorate, presented a proposal for the amendment of Article 7.2 of the Higher Education Law (Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen 2018). The amendment aims to ensure quality and accessibility of higher education for Dutch students and at the same time do justice to the status of Dutch as an academic language. BON reacted with pleasure that the proposed amendment prescribes how institutions in education should motivate deviations from Dutch as the medium of instruction (BON 2019b), but with dissatisfaction that the bill to change the law no longer states that institutions must demonstrate the necessity for deviation from Dutch. By replacing the word ‘necessity’ with the word ‘interest’, BON feared that the door would be opened for further Englishization of higher education. The more EMI programmes attract international students, the greater the interest to offer such programmes, and the easier it is to justify their existence. Many in the debate worried about the consequences of Englishization for Dutch students. According to the 194 prominent figures mentioned earlier, Englishization reduces the resources for Dutch students, and for the development of Dutch language skills that are critical for their future: The large influx of foreign students—mainly caused by Englishization—in part has the consequence that less and less money is available per student. (…) Because of their choice for ever-increasing Englishization, universities and universities of applied sciences place themselves not only outside the law, but also outside society, and degenerate to enclosed enclaves for privileged citizens and foreigners. They do not promote cohesion in society through a common language for higher and lower educated people, but rather increase the already visible dichotomy. (BON 2019a)

In addition to BON, the 194 eminent signatories were also uncertain whether the Minister of Education, Culture and Science would actually do something about Englishization. They fear the collapse of Dutch as an academic language:

3  Resistance to EMI in the Netherlands 

57

When students no longer learn Dutch at an academic level, we ultimately lose the ability to come up with complex ideas in that language and exchange them. From higher education, English will trickle down to the underlying layers of the educational building and gradually displace Dutch as a language of culture and science. (BON 2019a)

If the budget for higher education were also spent on international students as a result of Englishization, this could reduce students’ access to Dutch programmes. The fact that many universities support internationalization was, in the opinion of the 194, due to the money they hope to earn from international students they attract. The Dutch historian and psychologist Eelco Runia 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 arrived. (Runia 2019: 71)

Several other scholars have emphasized that through the commodification of higher education universities are forced to attract as many international students as possible (Lorenz 2008; Münch 2009; Radder 2010). To address the status of Dutch as an academic language and to solve the problem of accessibility for Dutch students in higher education, Van Engelshoven, the Minister of Education, Culture and Science, announced in July 2019 her intention to reduce the growth in the number of international students and to introduce strict rules for the language of instruction. In autumn 2019, she presented a bill called “Language and accessibility”, the aim of which is to preserve the valuable aspects of internationalization while at the same time ensuring the accessibility of education and the role of the Dutch language (Van Engelshoven 2019). The minister believes that universities that offer an English-language study programme must demonstrate its added value, which has to verified by the Dutch-Flemish Accreditation Organization (NVAO). Before the proposed law was discussed in the Dutch parliament on 11 December, Jensen and colleagues published Against English. Plea for Dutch (Jensen et  al. 2019). In this book, writers, scholars and

58 

R. Gabriëls and R. Wilkinson

intellectuals claimed that the Englishization 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 book received a lot of media attention and led to amendments to the proposed law. The law was adopted by the Dutch parliament on 19 December 2019. However, that did not end the debate about Englishization. It flared up again because the University of Twente had 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 criticized the University of Twente’s language policy received confirmation of their view that Englishization was not being stopped in practice. The question remains whether the new legislation regarding language policy will be policed and enforced seriously.

3.3 Student Perceptions: Methods To investigate the extent to which the contentions in the public debate concerning quality and identity were reflected among one important group of stakeholders, students, we examined the responses to a questionnaire survey among 280 Dutch and international students at Maastricht University, the Netherlands, as well as conducting two focus groups among the same cohort. The site of the study, Maastricht University, is distinctive. The university has adopted a bilingual policy and its teaching is based on the principles of problem-based learning (PBL). PBL prescribes student-centred, small-group learning structured around a systematic approach to tackling study issues formulated as problems. In EMI, problem-based learning requires students to have more English proficiency than in the context of traditional university education where they mainly listen passively to lectures and do not have much to say themselves. PBL used to differentiate Maastricht University from most other Dutch universities. However, the relative success of PBL as a teaching method (e.g. see Vos and de Graaff

3  Resistance to EMI in the Netherlands 

59

2004; Cohen-Schotanus et al. 2008) has led many other Dutch universities to adopt various forms of student-centred learning. The questionnaire was administered in 2018 and 2019 among 280 students of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences who were following an elective course ‘Power and Democracy’. In this course students participate in 12 two-hour tutorial groups during which they learn to reflect on issues related to power and democracy. The questionnaire comprised a total of 78 statements in addition to demographic and background items. The statements covered perceptions of language competence, EMI, educational democracy, linguistic justice, barriers and facilitators, variable language use (language switching), quality of education, and job/career. Most items in the questionnaire were drawn from interview studies (Wilkinson and Gabriëls 2017, 2020) and other research (e.g. Lueg and Lueg 2015). Students were fully informed of the purpose of the study and the questionnaire and assured of anonymity. All students signed an informed consent form. Students were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement about both quality of education (four items) and cultural ­identity (four items). They rated their perceptions on a bipolar five-point Likert-type scale: 1 = totally disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; 5  =  totally agree. Each item also offered a “not applicable” option. The questionnaire was implemented electronically in Qualtrics (www. qualtrics.com), and conducted independently and anonymously via the university centre for data and information management MEMIC.  For this chapter, we identified eight statements that largely mirrored the claims about the quality and identity of EMI in public discourse (de Bruin 2018) in order to tap the students’ perceptions. In the analysis we have collapsed all the agree responses and the disagree ones. Two hundred and thirty-seven students (84.6%) responded to the questionnaire (120 in 2018 and 117 in 2019). Because the students in the two years were following the same unchanged course, and because there are no significant demographic differences between the two groups, we have combined the responses.6 The results of the questionnaire were  We do not claim that our research is representative of all students of Maastricht University. There are probably differences between faculties. 6

60 

R. Gabriëls and R. Wilkinson

analysed using SPSS 24. As the Likert-type scale is non-dichotomous and ordinal, we present frequencies (Field 2018). Differences in response options are not equal, indicating that the ‘distance’ between for example ‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’ would not be the same as that between ‘agree’ and ‘neutral’. For this reason, it is not appropriate to present mean and standard deviation (Field 2018). Thus, the conditions for analysis using ANOVA do not apply. We therefore used a chi-square test to identify whether the opinion of Dutch students differed from that of non-Dutch students. A significance value of p