Integrating Content and Language in Multilingual Universities [1st ed.] 9783030469467, 9783030469474

Citation preview

Educational Linguistics

Slobodanka Dimova Joyce Kling   Editors

Integrating Content and Language in Multilingual Universities

Educational Linguistics Volume 44

Series Editor Francis M. Hult, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, USA Editorial Board Marilda C. Cavalcanti, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil Jasone Cenoz, University of the Basque Country, Leioa, Spain Angela Creese, University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom Ingrid Gogolin, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany Christine Hélot, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France Hilary Janks, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Claire Kramsch, University of California, Berkeley, USA Constant Leung, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom Angel Lin, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada Alastair Pennycook, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia

Educational Linguistics is dedicated to innovative studies of language use and language learning. The series is based on the idea that there is a need for studies that break barriers. Accordingly, it provides a space for research that crosses traditional disciplinary, theoretical, and/or methodological boundaries in ways that advance knowledge about language (in) education. The series focuses on critical and contextualized work that offers alternatives to current approaches as well as practical, substantive ways forward. Contributions explore the dynamic and multi-­ layered nature of theory-practice relationships, creative applications of linguistic and symbolic resources, individual and societal considerations, and diverse social spaces related to language learning. The series publishes in-depth studies of educational innovation in contexts throughout the world: issues of linguistic equity and diversity; educational language policy; revalorization of indigenous languages; socially responsible (additional) language teaching; language assessment; first- and additional language literacy; language teacher education; language development and socialization in non-­ traditional settings; the integration of language across academic subjects; language and technology; and other relevant topics. The Educational Linguistics series invites authors to contact the general editor with suggestions and/or proposals for new monographs or edited volumes. For more information, please contact the Editor: Natalie Rieborn, Van Godewijckstraat 30, 3300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands. More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/5894

Slobodanka Dimova  •  Joyce Kling Editors

Integrating Content and Language in Multilingual Universities

Editors Slobodanka Dimova University of Copenhagen Copenhagen, Denmark

Joyce Kling University of Copenhagen Copenhagen, Denmark

ISSN 1572-0292     ISSN 2215-1656 (electronic) Educational Linguistics ISBN 978-3-030-46946-7    ISBN 978-3-030-46947-4 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46947-4 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved 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. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

In the early days of my career journey, universities were generally considered to be nationally oriented. They did not compete with each other. They offered programs and courses designed for a national market, and they scarcely looked across borders to see what others were doing. That was of course a myth. Actors in the universities – students and staff – at least some of them did look at what was happening elsewhere. I, for one, was excited and awakened by the internationalism among students during my time in Paris in 1968. Half a century ago. But who wouldn’t be? I recall a discussion, naturally in French, with a German and a Spanish colleague at around the same time. I was amazed how different their degree programs were from my own. Nominally, we were studying for comparable degrees in French in our different countries, Northern Ireland, Germany, and Spain, but there were so many differences and nuances. It was not easy to understand why one educational system placed emphasis on this or that while another did not. In each country, the focus was still resolutely national. Since those days, however, we have witnessed a dramatic change in higher education. Students, staff, institutions, and governing authorities do look across borders  – every day. This is of course partly as a response to the challenges of globalization and policy, both local and national. The tentacles of globalization seep through every level of society, whether we like it or not. To address this change, universities have adopted diverse internationalization practices and policies. In so doing, they have become more competitive not only in their research – for instance the publication pressure – but also in their recruitment of students and staff. The increased competition has made it essential for institutions to demonstrate the quality of their work and teaching, particularly in relation to other institutions. To demonstrate the quality of internationalization, universities are adapting the content of educational programs so that they reflect transnational and global trends and challenges in the disciplines concerned. Internationalization can of course be effectively conducted through the language of instruction that an institution has v

vi

Preface

always used as the medium for education. Stakeholders – students, teaching staff, as well as institutional management – in an internationalized program, however, will be readily aware of the need to understand the language and culture of others, and in doing so become cognizant of the impacts of their own cultures and languages on members of other cultures. Most universities indeed have long histories of offering courses in foreign language and cultures, occasionally even directly linked to the disciplinary content. The challenge today is how to amplify such a provision and make it soundly relevant to today’s students and staff. Thus, institutions are increasingly offering higher educational programs and courses where content and language are integrated. The goal in this endeavor is to enable students to acquire not only disciplinary knowledge but also become highly competent in an additional language, and specifically in how the language encapsulates the discipline. Universities have a choice about which language or languages to use when they internationalize programs. In theory, they could use the local language. In practice, it is “easy” for them to choose English. English is widely the most common foreign language taught in secondary schools. Programs with English as the medium of instruction are likely to attract foreign students, and the offer of English medium instruction (EMI) courses and programs may well facilitate the recruitment of international faculty. In both cases, management will expect to recruit highly motivated students and faculty of excellent quality. The institution would rise in the international rankings, gain prestige in student guides, and acquire better accreditation. It sounds like a win-win all round. However, we need to take account of the impacts of teaching in one single common language. Even if programs are in English, we should consider how best to design and implement content and language integrated programs so that they reflect optimally the needs of future society both nationally and internationally. This likely implies making increased provision in other languages too. Moreover, there are the great societal challenges, such as the unequal distribution of resources, poverty, and the environment. Addressing these is often part of the mission statements of universities. The challenges need to be met locally and globally, drawing on English as a lingua franca and other languages. Therefore, it is important for us to investigate what the optimal structure and the optimal process for the integration of content and language in higher education might be. My career journey started with straightforward language teaching, where I was focused on the impact and effectiveness of my teaching on individual high school students. I gradually became concerned with the broader impact, especially by means of teaching methodologies that might work with different types of students and teachers. In time, I grew interested in how multiple language learning has societal effects, and, later, in how societies and professions may impact the language or languages used. My journey has not stopped. The chapters in this book offer a timely insight for me to take stock of where my next staging post might lie. Likewise, I hope, for you. Together, the authors depict an awesome landscape for internationalized programs, especially with respect to

Preface

vii

EMI, the design and the implementation of such programs, and their impacts on the actors concerned. Through this book, the editors Slobodanka Dimova and Joyce Kling lead us on an exciting journey across different contexts to show the synergy and tensions between local languages and English, and their relationship with other languages in higher education contexts. Enjoy the adventure! Maastricht, The Netherlands  Robert Wilkinson

Contents

 Current Considerations on Integrating Content and Language in Multilingual Universities ��������������������������������������������������    1 Slobodanka Dimova and Joyce Kling Part I Theoretical and Political Underpinnings of Integrating Content and Language  English Medium Instruction: Disintegrating Language and Content?����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   15 Diane Pecorari  Integrating Content and Language: The Role of Other Languages Than English in an International University ����������������������������   37 Anne Holmen Part II Integrating Content and Language Across Contexts  Internationalizing Japan’s Undergraduate Education Through English Medium Instruction ����������������������������������������������������������   53 Annette Bradford  The Benefits, Challenges and Prospects of EMI in Croatia: An Integrated Perspective ������������������������������������������������������������������������������   75 Branka Drljača Margić and Irena Vodopija-Krstanović  Transitioning EAL Students from EFL Classes to EMI Programs at the University of Iceland ����������������������������������������������������������������������������   97 Birna Arnbjörnsdóttir  English Medium Instruction in Higher Education in Qatar: A Multi-­Dimensional Analysis Using the ROAD-MAPPING Framework ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  115 Zohreh R. Eslami, Keith M. Graham, and Hassan Bashir ix

x

Contents

 Internationalization Through Language and Literacy in the Spanish- and English-­Medium Education Context����������������������������  131 Davinia Sánchez-García Part III Content Teachers’ Reflections  Acknowledging the Role of Language in English Medium Instruction: Experiences from a Pilot Project Intervention at University of Copenhagen��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  153 Sanne Larsen and Frank Jensen  English Medium Instruction Through the Lens of a Content Teacher: Challenges, Adjustments, and Opportunities������������������������������������������������  167 Cristina del Campo  Postscript: Moving Forward in Integrating Content and Language in Multilingual Higher Education ����������������������������������������  179 Emma Dafouz

Contributors

Birna Arnbjörnsdóttir  Vigdís Finnbogadóttir Institute, Department of Languages and Cultures, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland Hassan Bashir  Liberal Arts Program, Texas A&M University-Qatar, Doha, Qatar Annette Bradford  Oxford EMI, Tokyo, Japan Cristina  del Campo  Department of Financial and Actuarial Economics and Statistics, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain Emma  Dafouz  Department of English Studies (Language and Literature), Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain Slobodanka Dimova  Centre for Internationalisation and Parallel Language Use, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark Zohreh  R.  Eslami  Department of Teaching, Learning and Culture, Texas A&M University and Texas A&M University-Qatar, Doha, Qatar Keith M. Graham  Department of Teaching, Learning and Culture, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA Anne  Holmen  Centre for Internationalisation and Parallel Language Use, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark Frank  Jensen  Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark Joyce Kling  Centre for Internationalisation and Parallel Language Use, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark Sanne  Larsen  Centre for Internationalisation and Parallel Language Use, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark Branka Drljača Margić  Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia xi

xii

Contributors

Diane Pecorari  Department of English, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong Davinia  Sánchez-García  Department of English Studies (Linguistics and Literature), Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain Irena Vodopija-Krstanović  Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia Robert Wilkinson  Retired (Maastricht University), Chair of ICLHE Association, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Current Considerations on Integrating Content and Language in Multilingual Universities Slobodanka Dimova and Joyce Kling

Abstract  Local linguistic diversity and growing teacher and student mobility in higher education (HE) around the world have resulted in increasingly multilingual teaching and learning contexts. This has provided HE institutions opportunities to offer instruction in more than one language—typically the local language(s) and English, but also other languages. This chapter provides an overview of different perspectives on integrating content and languages in multilingual HE institutions across various contexts. The overview includes the history, the issues, and the future considerations regarding integrating content and language in higher education (ICLHE) across the different contexts in order to identify local contextual factors that may contribute to the differences in the language policies and practices in HE. Keywords  Integrating content and language · ICLHE · Contextual factors

1  Introduction This volume provides a global perspective on integrating content and languages in multilingual higher education (HE) institutions. Local linguistic diversity and growing teacher and student mobility in HE around the world have resulted in increasingly multilingual teaching and learning contexts. This has provided HE institutions opportunities to offer instruction in more than one language—typically the local language(s) and English, but also other languages. Volumes focusing on Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) and Integrating Content and Language in Higher Education (ICLHE) have traditionally addressed issues related to how to teach English as an additional language in order to improve content learning in English medium instruction (EMI) contexts in S. Dimova (*) · J. Kling Centre for Internationalisation and Parallel Language Use, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 S. Dimova, J. Kling (eds.), Integrating Content and Language in Multilingual Universities, Educational Linguistics 44, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46947-4_1

1

2

S. Dimova and J. Kling

HE. Discussions in these volumes include student and teacher perceptions, teacher training, staff effectiveness, learning effectiveness, and program development. The volumes tend to address how focused language instruction and assessment can be utilized as a foundation for disciplinary content learning, without specific consideration of the diverse contexts (cf., Nikula, Dafouz, Moore, & Smit, 2016; Valcke & Wilkinson, 2017; Wilkinson & Walsh, 2015). Where this volume is unique is that across the chapters, the authors touch on areas that have been neglected, such as the role of additional languages other than English in HE, the need for a bridge between secondary and tertiary education in terms of adequate language training for content learning, Integrating Content and Language (ICL) endeavors at institutions across different educational contexts, and inclusion of the voices of content language teachers. These aspects take us beyond initial concerns of program implementation that include only the challenges and benefits of ICL. The chapters in this book are organized under three sections: “Theoretical and Political Underpinnings of Integrating Content and Language”, “Integrating Content and Language Across Contexts, and Content Teachers’ Reflections”. The first section consists of two chapters (“English Medium Instruction: Disintegrating Language and Content?” and “Integrating Content and Language: The Role of Other Languages than English in an International University”), which address the theoretical frameworks and the role of policy in ICLHE. Given the rapid expansion of ICL in HE, there has been a melding of ICL modes and methods in both terminology and practice. During the initial stages of ICL implementation, researchers and practitioners experimented with different theoretical frameworks and instructional approaches. This resulted in inconsistent application of terminology. In an attempt to remedy the inconsistency, authors have offered clear and compelling explanations delineating and defining these practices (cf., Dafouz, 2014; Dafouz & Smit, 2020; Macaro, 2018; Pecorari & Malström, 2018). As we move forward now, in what perhaps can be considered a next phase of research on ICLHE, we must reconsider the terminology we use to define the ICLHE constructs in order to establish more precise and consistent reference to the constructs to enable us to have more comparable research. In the chapter “English Medium Instruction: Disintegrating Language and Content?”, Pecorari does just this by addressing different approaches to ICL. She disambiguates the overlap and highlights the distinguishing features of the different terms and concepts through an overview of the history of ICL. She then exemplifies the application of these concepts through two comparative case studies from very different contexts (Sweden and Hong Kong). While Pecorari provides a clear explanation of immersion, CLIL, and EMI, in the chapter “Integrating Content and Language: The Role of Other Languages than English in an International University”, Holmen provides argumentation for and exemplification of a range of FL teaching approaches taken at the University of Copenhagen (UCPH) in connection with a 5-year project governed by a local language policy and focused on ICLHE and multilingualism. Five chapters (“Internationalizing Japan’s Undergraduate Education through English Medium Instruction”, “The Benefits, Challenges and Prospects of EMI in Croatia: An Integrated Perspective”, “Transitioning EAL Students from EFL

Current Considerations on Integrating Content and Language in Multilingual Universities

3

Classes to EMI Programs at The University of Iceland”, “English Medium Instruction in Higher Education in Qatar: A Multi-Dimensional Analysis Using the ROAD-MAPPING Framework”, and “Internationalization through Language and Literacy in the Spanish English Medium Education Context”) are included in the second section, “Integrating Content and Language Across Contexts”. This section provides a glimpse into key aspects of ICL in EMI courses and programs across specific contexts. Given the current worldwide ideologies, English holds a unique position across diverse disciplines. It is considered strongly desirable among graduates and has a strong influence on educational policy. However, with the implementation of EMI courses and degree programs being increasingly linked to internationalization and the development of global citizens who are both linguistically and culturally savvy, we need to revisit the role of other languages in HE to highlight how EMI reinforces multilingualism and draws on competencies and skills of all the actors. Therefore, although the emphasis of most of the chapters is EMI, we want to focus on the interaction of English and other languages in HE and the integration of content. While EMI is at the heart of the collection in this volume, the authors link the implementation of EMI in non-Anglophone HEs with a constellation of other languages in their contexts. The contexts represented in the chapters describe the challenge of not only maintaining the local/national language(s) for educational purposes, but often additional regional as well as other foreign languages (FLs) needed to address current disciplinary demands. Thus, this volume provides a broad perspective through a comparative overview of the political, socio-cultural, and academic similarities and differences of EMI across different contexts (i.e., North-east Asia, Northern and Southern Europe, and the Middle East) as well as the different ICL modes and methods in HE. The last section, “Content Teachers’ Reflections”, comprises two chapters (“Acknowledging the Role of Language in English Medium Instruction: Experiences from a Pilot Project Intervention at University of Copenhagen” and “English Medium Instruction through the Lens of a Content Teacher: Challenges, Adjustments, and Opportunities”) written by ICL practitioners. These chapters offer insiders’ perspectives of ICL from non-native English-speaking content teachers working with non-native English-speaking students in EMI courses in Denmark and Spain, respectively. These two chapters (especially “English Medium Instruction through the Lens of a Content Teacher: Challenges, Adjustments, and Opportunities”) include personal narratives and reflections on personal experiences working in ICL settings. Through the varied range of educational support projects and interventions, educational policies, and regional challenges presented in all chapters, the one-size-fitsall fallacy becomes evident, because what could be considered an appropriate course of action for one context may not be relevant for another. However, we can also see commonalities that we can draw on and learn from, given our needs and context. Thus, in addition to descriptions of immersion, CLIL, and EMI, the authors in this volume also describe the need for models that build on aspects of language for

4

S. Dimova and J. Kling

academic purposes (LAP) and language for specific purposes (LSP) as elements of Content Based Instruction (CBI). CBI, like CLIL, is a language education approach designed to enhance FL proficiency through content instruction so that students learn the language while using it in relation to specific courses or concepts. Although the terms CBI and CLIL are often used interchangeably, distinction between the two has been coined on the European front as ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ CLIL.  Hard CLIL has been described as an approach that is linked directly to specific content courses, taught by trained content teachers who are typically themselves bilingual speakers in a homogenous language setting. In contrast, soft CLIL (i.e., CBI) is typically taught by language teachers who may or may not share the students’ first language(s). In this setting, language learning outcomes are at the forefront and content is not usually assessed (sometimes referred to as an adjunct CLIL model) (Dalton-Puffer, 2017). Since the 1980s, CBI has been linked more directly with FL teaching approaches in North America (cf., Brinton & Snow, 2017), while CLIL’s roots stem from European initiatives established at the turn of the century to meet the increasing need for FL enhanced content instruction. Regardless of the label and type of approach, the authors’ descriptions of ICLHE interventions and initiatives in this volume point to the need for enhanced cooperation between content teachers and language teachers and increased team-teaching and language support for both teaching and learning by means of variations on this soft-CLIL/CBI model.

2  Methodology As is apparent from the table of contents, this book is not a compilation of research studies related to ICLHE. Instead, this volume includes chapters that provide comprehensive conceptual synthesis of contextual information, research findings, and practical applications provided by leading ICLHE researchers from each represented setting. The chapters intentionally cover a wide range of geographically, culturally, and educationally different areas in order to generate a new understanding of the cross-contextual variation in ICL. The contextualized overviews of the status of ICL across the geographic areas has helped us to identify patterns and advance the scholarship in the field. At first glance, the volume may appear to offer an unbalanced selection of chapters due to the various degrees of awareness and focus on ICL. However, the perceived lack of balance reflects the discrepant ICL realities found across different HE settings. Juxtaposing ICL in two distinct contexts, one where English is an FL and the other where English serves as an official language, the chapter “English Medium Instruction: Disintegrating Language and Content?” (Sweden and Hong Kong) discusses the different dimensions in HE that can be applied for analysis of ICL. The chapter “The Benefits, Challenges and Prospects of EMI in Croatia: An Integrated Perspective” (Croatia) depicts a situation that commonly occurs during initial implementation of FL medium instruction. At this stage, the focus on lecturers’ and

Current Considerations on Integrating Content and Language in Multilingual Universities

5

students’ attitudes towards the language shift dominates both in public debates and in research, while selection of ICL approaches, methods, and practices fail to receive relevant attention. Although researchers and practitioners from various European contexts will find the Croatian situation all too familiar, it may be informative for the many institutions in other contexts that lack experience and stand still at the planning stages of ICL. On the other hand, the chapter “Internationalizing Japan’s Undergraduate Education through English Medium Instruction” (Japan) explains the possibility to establish different ICL models in order to address variation in students’ educational backgrounds and FL proficiency levels. While  the chapters “Transitioning EAL Students from EFL Classes to EMI Programs at The University of Iceland” (Iceland) and “English Medium Instruction in Higher Education in Qatar: A Multi-Dimensional Analysis Using the ROAD-MAPPING Framework” (Qatar) present a model of ICL based on offering courses of English for academic purposes (EAP) or foundation courses, the chapter “Integrating Content and Language: The Role of Other Languages than English in an International University” (Denmark) offers examples of language for specific purposes (LSP) courses as an ICL method. Instead of provision of separate EAP or LSP courses, the chapter “Acknowledging the Role of Language in English Medium Instruction: Experiences from a Pilot Project Intervention at University of Copenhagen” (Denmark) discusses the possible involvement of language teachers to support content learning in an FL, and the chapters “Internationalization through Language and Literacy in the Spanish English Medium Education Context” and “English Medium Instruction through the Lens of a Content Teacher: Challenges, Adjustments, and Opportunities” (Spain) discuss how content teachers themselves can integrate language and content in their pedagogical approaches. In addition to the comprehensive overviews of ICL in different contexts, two chapters, “Acknowledging the Role of Language in English Medium Instruction: Experiences from a Pilot Project Intervention at University of Copenhagen” and “English Medium Instruction through the Lens of a Content Teacher: Challenges, Adjustments, and Opportunities”, represent the content teacher voices. Finally, it is through a transparent clarification of the academic culture, opportunities, and challenges faced in the diverse geographic regions represented in this book that we can begin to draw on experience and learn from each other. Thus, the structure of the chapters presented here was intentionally designed to allow for comparable overview of the history, the issues, and the future considerations regarding ICLHE across contexts in order to identify local contextual factors that may contribute to the differences in the language policies and practices in HE.

3  History National and/or university language policies play a role in the choice of language(s) of instruction in HE. These language policies may be used to secure a reasonable balance between the use of an FL and the use of the local language(s) for teaching,

6

S. Dimova and J. Kling

research, administration, and public outreach, or they may serve to support the promotion of nationally- or institutionally-based strategies. The historical overviews presented in the chapters throughout this volume provide the backgrounds and rationales behind the development of the language policies regarding language(s) of instruction. In fact, the chapters suggest several different contextual patterns resulting from the different political, educational, and historical variables that contribute to the development and ultimate implementation (or lack) of language policy and support in HE: (1) EMI trends at non-Anglophone universities, (2) Anglophone university branches, (3) post-colonial influences on policies, and (4) multilingual practices in HE. EMI Trends at Non-Anglophone Universities  Most chapters discuss the policies and practices related to EMI implementation at non-Anglophone universities, which has been a growing trend in Europe and Asia (see chapters “Internationalizing Japan’s Undergraduate Education through English Medium Instruction”, “The Benefits, Challenges and Prospects of EMI in Croatia: An Integrated Perspective”, “English Medium Instruction in Higher Education in Qatar: A Multi-Dimensional Analysis Using the ROAD-MAPPING Framework”, “Internationalization through Language and Literacy in the Spanish English Medium Education Context”, and “English Medium Instruction through the Lens of a Content Teacher: Challenges, Adjustments, and Opportunities”). According to the language policies in the countries discussed in this volume, English is introduced as an additional medium of instruction to the local or national language(s) for the purpose of internationalization of the HE, i.e., to increase international student and teacher recruitment, as well as to obtain access to research published in international journals. Although some similarities can be noted across these different contexts, the language policies and practices associated with EMI vary. For instance, UCPH and the University of Iceland (UI) include the local language, Danish and Icelandic, respectively, and English as part of their HE language practices. UCPH refers to this practice as parallel language use (see chapters, “Integrating Content and Language: The Role of Other Languages than English in an International University” and “Acknowledging the Role of Language in English Medium Instruction: Experiences from a Pilot Project Intervention at University of Copenhagen”) and UI the term simultaneous parallel code use (see chapter “Transitioning EAL Students from EFL Classes to EMI Programs at The University of Iceland”). In both cases, the education degrees do not specify the medium of instruction, and both the national language and English are operational languages at the university for administrative and instructional purposes. Bachelor and Master’s degrees at Complutense University of Madrid in Spain and Japanese universities can be offered in the national language(s), (e.g., Spanish and Japanese, respectively) or in English. At Complutense University, students can receive an EMI degree if 75% of their coursework is in English, which means they are allowed to take some Spanish medium courses as well (see chapter, “English Medium Instruction through the Lens of a Content Teacher: Challenges, Adjustments, and Opportunities”). In Japan, on the other hand, different EMI models have been

Current Considerations on Integrating Content and Language in Multilingual Universities

7

established to cater to different student populations, ranging from full immersion in English (the Deijima model), predominantly English with some Japanese medium courses (the Crossroads program), and mostly Japanese with some English medium courses (the Global Citizen model) (see chapter, “Internationalizing Japan’s Undergraduate Education through English Medium Instruction”). While language policies and practices may be evident in contexts where EMI has been implemented for a decade or longer, in contexts such as Croatia, where EMI is in its early days, the university language policies and practices are still at an introductory stage and are yet to be fully developed. As seen with other universities across Europe (Dimova, Hultgren, & Jensen, 2015), during the implementation stages, the focus rests mostly on identifying teachers’ and students’ needs and attitudes towards EMI, as well as identifying possible consequences of teaching and learning in English (see chapter, “The Benefits, Challenges and Prospects of EMI in Croatia: An Integrated Perspective”). Anglophone University Branches  Foreign university branches (e.g., North American, British) have also served as agents in the implementation of EMI in non-­ Anglophone countries. At first glance, these branch universities seem to share many characteristics with the local non-Anglophone universities that have implemented EMI, if we take into account that most students and a large percentage of teachers are second language (L2) speakers of English. However, as Eslami, Graham, and Bashir point out in the chapter “English Medium Instruction in Higher Education in Qatar: A Multi-Dimensional Analysis Using the ROAD-MAPPING Framework”, the EMI contexts at these branch universities are remarkably different than the EMI contexts at national non-Anglophone universities because the branch universities import the curricula, the educational values, and the educational and language policies from the Anglophone educational systems. In other words, a lack of alignment between the local educational system and the university exists, and in some cases, students need to attend foundation programs in order to be qualified to continue their education in university programs at the branch university or in the United States or the United Kingdom. Moreover, students pay high tuition fees to attend the branch universities, which means these institutions carry more prestige than local universities and only the affluent levels of the country’s population have access to their educational programs. Sometimes the foreign branch universities can influence the language policies at local universities. For example, to compete with the foreign universities, Qatar University has been changing the medium of instruction back and forth between Arabic and English, which has also influenced decisions about language instruction in elementary and secondary education in the country. Post-colonial Influences  The influences of the colonial past on current language policies and practices in HE are evident in Pecorari’s  chapter “English Medium Instruction: Disintegrating Language and Content?” and Arnbjörndóttir’s chapter “Transitioning EAL Students from EFL Classes to EMI Programs at The University of Iceland”. Pecorari explains that English remains the medium of instruction in the

8

S. Dimova and J. Kling

HE in Hong Kong partly because the country was a British colony until 1997, despite the population’s moderate proficiency in English and Cantonese as the L1 of the majority. In Iceland, which was a Danish colony, on the other hand, the FL curricula put equal emphasis on learning English and Danish in primary and secondary education, despite the students’ need to develop English academic skills for the EMI programs at the university, as Arbjörnsdóttir notes in her chapter. Although students may need to develop proficiency in Danish to enter universities in Denmark or for business purposes later in their careers, Danish seems to lack direct connection with HE within the country borders. Multilingual Practices in HE  Although most policies focus on the uses of the local language(s) and English, a growing concern exists that other languages are being neglected. Instruction in other foreign languages is lacking despite past traditions for teaching a number of modern and classical languages (see chapter, “Internationalizing Japan’s Undergraduate Education through English Medium Instruction”), and despite the recent needs analyses that point to the value of languages for research purposes as well as for students´ readiness for the global labor market. For example, the chapter, “Integrating Content and Language: The Role of Other Languages than English in an International University” provides insights into university strategies that focus on developing new ways of combining different language competences with subject-based learning. Finally, in all contexts, regardless of their historical and socio-cultural influences, concerns regarding potential domain loss have been raised. Domain loss refers to the loss of domain-specific terminology in the national language(s) due to the widespread uses of EMI, or other FLs as media of instruction in HE. Therefore, the centrality of including the local/national language(s) in HE is strongly recommended, whether as part of a parallel language use policy, translanguaging, or multiple-­language course offerings.

4  Current Issues With the ever-increasing need for multilingualism to meet the demands of globalization, supporting language proficiency is at the heart of each of the chapters in this volume. Alongside language proficiency, the chapters raise numerous contextual issues stemming from political, financial, logistic, procedural, ideological, and pedagogical factors that are typically addressed in relation to two overarching themes: (1) student readiness for learning through an FL and (2) support for teaching content in FL. Student Readiness for Learning Through an FL  Across contexts, there has been a great deal of discussion related the role of FL instruction in secondary education in relation to the development of academic language for HE (cf., Macaro, 2018). In

Current Considerations on Integrating Content and Language in Multilingual Universities

9

this volume, two chapters specifically address this topic and offer insights from two vastly different contexts. Eslami et  al. (chapter  “English Medium Instruction in Higher Education in Qatar: A Multi-Dimensional Analysis Using the ROADMAPPING Framework”) highlight the challenges that result from a shifting implementation of language policy for language of instruction in secondary school that can leave students lacking adequate proficiency in the language of instruction for content learning in both secondary and tertiary education. The authors call for more specific policy development to ensure students’ FL proficiency for academic use in genre specific content areas in HE. Similarly, Arbjörnnsdóttir (chapter “Transitioning EAL Students from EFL Classes to EMI Programs at The University of Iceland”) expresses concern regarding students’ readiness to study in an additional language in HE and the lack of adequate FL instruction and exposure in specific academic disciplinary literacies. The cases these authors present highlight student challenges that arise when they are expected to be able to jump from foreign language (i.e., English) instruction for general purposes to discipline specific topics and courses with little scaffolding in place. The described educational policies highlight the disconnect between the educational levels and the resulting gaps for students to meet instructional goals and learning outcomes related to FL use in tertiary education (see chapter, “English Medium Instruction: Disintegrating Language and Content?”). Given the lack of appropriate development of academic FL proficiency at the secondary level, several chapters emphasize the need to raise awareness for necessary language support. Although courses on LAP or LSP are helpful, using different ways of ICL in academic courses (i.e., soft- and hard-CLIL) enhances relevant language development to support content learning. A soft-CLIL approach is exemplified in the chapter “Acknowledging the Role of Language in English Medium Instruction: Experiences from a Pilot Project Intervention at University of Copenhagen”, in which Larsen and Jensen describe their experience in an applied natural science course at Master’s level. For this course, language teachers and content teachers work together to provide language instruction developed specifically to meet the needs of graduate students preparing to write their Master’s theses. In the chapter “English Medium Instruction through the Lens of a Content Teacher: Challenges, Adjustments, and Opportunities”, on the other hand, del Campo provides her reflections on implementing a hard-CLIL approach in teaching a bachelor level course in social sciences. When teaching her content, del Campo addresses the language challenges of a multilingual, multicultural student cohort. The descriptions offered by these authors demonstrate the breadth of opportunities and challenges of providing language support for students to achieve the ICL learning goals. Support for Teaching Content in an FL  Throughout the book, we read about a call for and implementation of competence development assistance for teachers including: (1) identifying threshold FL proficiency for teaching content courses, (2) providing structured linguistic pedagogical training, and (3) implementing team-teaching.

10

S. Dimova and J. Kling

In relation to EMI, several chapters address the need to establish language proficiency certification for content teachers in order to identify their language needs for teaching (see chapters “English Medium Instruction: Disintegrating Language and Content?”, “The Benefits, Challenges and Prospects of EMI in Croatia: An Integrated Perspective”, and “Internationalization through Language and Literacy in the Spanish English Medium Education Context”). The authors stress the need for assessment tools that provide formative feedback to content teachers regarding the characteristics of their oral language production for teaching in a multilingual classroom (e.g., the Test of Oral English Proficiency for Academic Staff [TOEPAS] administered at UCPH [Dimova & Kling, 2018]). Such tools can function as a type of systematic needs assessment that can serve as the foundation for tailor-made, individualized, competence development training. Another way of addressing the needs of current content teachers in HE is through designated training schemes as described by Drljača Margić & Vodopija-Krstanović in the chapter “The Benefits, Challenges and Prospects of EMI in Croatia: An Integrated Perspective” and Sanchéz-Garciá in the chapter “Internationalization through Language and Literacy in the Spanish English Medium Education Context”. Content teachers tend not to consider themselves language teachers so they are unsure how to proceed and address their students’ language issues in the classroom. Therefore, training programs that raise awareness among content teachers to the issues related to student learning through an FL are vital. For example, del Campo (see chapter “English Medium Instruction through the Lens of a Content Teacher: Challenges, Adjustments, and Opportunities”) recounts her colleagues’ apprehensions about teaching in their FL and stresses her own progress as the result of targeted competence development and subsequent experience in the EMI classroom. Collaboration between language teachers and content teachers in ICL also provides opportunities for content teachers to become aware of the linguistic difficulties students encounter and the available tools and strategies they can apply to support their students (Swerts & Westbrook, 2013). These collaborations help content teachers develop appropriate language for effective classroom communication through the use of both soft- and hard-CLIL approaches (see  chapters, “Internationalization through Language and Literacy in the Spanish English Medium Education Context” and “English Medium Instruction through the Lens of a Content Teacher: Challenges, Adjustments, and Opportunities”, and Kling & Larsen, 2018). The chapters written by the content teachers present not only the strength of these teachers’ agency in moving ICL forward but also their individual and unique competence development needs. Finally, while many of the current issues described across the chapters in this volume require extensive planning and resources, institutions can promote ICLHE through other incentives in order to enhance content teachers’ motivation to teach in an FL. These incentives could be something as simple a reduction in teaching load or establishment of curriculum and material development teams as applied in the Croatian and Spanish examples (see chapters “The Benefits, Challenges and Prospects of EMI in Croatia: An Integrated Perspective”, “Internationalization

Current Considerations on Integrating Content and Language in Multilingual Universities

11

through Language and Literacy in the Spanish English Medium Education Context”, and “English Medium Instruction through the Lens of a Content Teacher: Challenges, Adjustments, and Opportunities”).

5  Conclusions The trend of internationalization and globalization of HE is evident across all contexts represented in the chapters of this volume, and EMI has become an instrument for recruitment of international students and lecturers and an opportunity to access international research. However, an increased acknowledgment of the multilingual settings in the internationalized universities, as well as the role of other FLs can also be noted. Instead of debates revolving around the negative impact of EMI on local languages and educational systems, discussions begin to focus on how to balance different languages at the university in a healthy linguistic ecosystem that enhances students’ learning of disciplinary content (Dafouz & Smit, 2014). Moreover, the differences between instruction at Anglophone and non-Anglophone universities are recognized, so instead of trying to import foreign educational and pedagogical values, the centrality of the local educational culture and language(s) are emphasized (see chapters “Internationalizing Japan’s Undergraduate Education through English Medium Instruction” and “Internationalization through Language and Literacy in the Spanish English Medium Education Context”). Given the variation in historical and sociocultural factors that influence educational policies, one conclusion we reach is the strong need to recognize and identify the local dimensions when planning content instruction and language support at individual institutions. While there is much to learn from peer universities, there is danger in adopting practices and procedures from other institutions without local adaptations. Thus, when proceeding with educational policy initiatives, the needs and requirements of the local stakeholders and context should be carefully considered. ICLHE made its mark at the turn of the century. Since that time, an abundance of research expanded at an extraordinary rate seeking to determine the outcomes of changing the medium of instruction in HE and to identify best practices regarding ICL in teaching and learning. We have learned what we can from surveying the actors. Twenty years since the promotion of student and teacher mobility with the Bologna declaration, this book provides insights into current practice. The following chapters, though written by authors from around the world, show common patterns of both growth and concern. Concerns regarding student proficiency and content achievement, as well as content teacher proficiency and professional competencies and identities abound. While these concerns are well-founded, students and teachers involved in ICLHE, working through an L2, should not be scrutinized more than those working in their L1 (and vice-versa). We believe this volume provides some evidence about how these concerns can be addressed in a broad range of

12

S. Dimova and J. Kling

approaches; there is no one way – context determines the path. We hope that this volume provides a foundation that aids in proceeding to the next stage.

References Brinton, D., & Snow, A.  M. (2017). The evolving architecture of content-based instruction. In A. M. Snow & D. M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language (2nd ed., pp. 2–20). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Dafouz, E. (2014). Integrating content and language in European higher education: An overview of recurrent research concerns and pending issues. In A. Psaltou-Joycey, E. Agathopoulou, & M. Mattheoudakis (Eds.), Cross-curricular approaches to language education (pp. 289–304). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholars. Dafouz, E., & Smit, U. (2014). Towards a dynamic conceptual framework for English-medium education in multilingual university settings. Applied Linguistics, 37(3), 397–415. Dafouz, E., & Smit, U. (2020). ROAD-MAPPING English medium education in the internationalized university. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. Dalton Puffer, C. (2017). Same but different: CLIL and CBI. In A. M. Snow & D. M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language (2nd ed., pp. 151–164). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Dimova, S., Hultgren, A. K., & Jensen, C. (Eds.). (2015). English-medium instruction in European higher education (Vol. 4). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. Dimova, S., & Kling, J. (2018). Assessing English-medium instruction lecturer language proficiency across disciplines. TESOL Quarterly, 52(3), 634–656. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.454 Kling, J., & Larsen, S. (Eds.). (2018). The language strategy – More languages for more students. University of Copenhagen. https://cip.ku.dk/english/morelanguages/ Macaro, E. (2018). English medium instruction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Nikula, T., Dafouz, E., Moore, P., & Smit, U. (Eds.). (2016). Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Pecorari, D., & Malmström, H. (2018). At the crossroads of TESOL and English medium instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 52(3), 497–514. Swerts, S., & Westbrook, P. (2013). Preparing students and lecturers for English medium instruction at the University of Copenhagen. Sprogforum, 56, 71–78. Valcke, J., & Wilkinson, R. (2017). Integrating content and language in higher education: Perspectives on professional practice. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Wilkinson, R., & Walsh, M. L. (Eds.). (2015). Integrating content and language in higher education: From theory to practice. Frankfurt-am-Maim, Germany: Peter Lang.

Part I

Theoretical and Political Underpinnings of Integrating Content and Language

English Medium Instruction: Disintegrating Language and Content? Diane Pecorari

Abstract  The integration of content and language (ICL) takes place in a number of different forms, and is referred to by a number of different terms. This chapter examines English medium instruction (EMI) by situating it among other forms of ICL. It begins with a portraits of three common forms of ICL: immersion, content and language integrated learning, and EMI. The respective characteristics of these forms of instruction are contrasted, and the evidence for their success is taken up. Cameos of EMI in two different settings are provided. The chapter concludes by identifying ways in which other forms of ICL can inform EMI. Keywords  English medium instruction · Content and language integrated learning · Immersion · Multilingual higher education

1  Introduction A saying in Swedish holds that a beloved child has many names (kärt barn har många namn). If that is true, then the integration of content and language (ICL) must be truly loved, because it is referred to by a multiplicity of terms. A non-­ exhaustive list appears in Fig. 1. To some extent, this list reflects duplication. For example, “English taught programmes” (Wächter & Maiworm, 2014) appears to convey neither more nor less than “English medium instruction”. Similarly, the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) (Chamot & O’Malley, 1987) is described as being “designed for limited English proficient students” and as promoting “academic language development in English through content-area instruction in science, mathematics and social studies” (p. 227). This description corresponds very closely to that of the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) model, which “teaches D. Pecorari (*) Department of English, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 S. Dimova, J. Kling (eds.), Integrating Content and Language in Multilingual Universities, Educational Linguistics 44, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46947-4_2

15

16

D. Pecorari

cognitive academic language learning approach (CALLA; Chamot & O'Malley, 1987) content and language integrated learning (CLIL) content-area language instruction (Cantoni-Harvey, 1987) content-based instruction (CBI) content-based second language instruction (Brinton, Snow & Wesche, 1989) dual language instruction English-medium education in multilingual university settings (EMEMUS; Dafouz & Smit, 2016) English-medium instruction (EMI) English-taught programmes (ETPs) enriched education (Cloud, Genesee, & Hamayan 2000) immersion integrated language teaching model (Enright & McCloskey,1988) language-content-task (LCT) framework (Short, 2002) sheltered content instruction (Echevarría & Graves, 1998) simultaneous parallel code use (Arnbjörnsdóttir & Ingvarsdóttir, 2015) sustained content teaching (Pally & Bailey, 2000) theme-based and adjunct language instruction (Brinton, Snow, & Wesche, 1989) Fig. 1  Terms referencing the integration of content and language

subject area curriculum to students learning through a second language using techniques that make the content material accessible and also helps develop the students’ second language skills” (Short, Echevarría, & Richards-Tutor, 2011, p. 364). However, pedagogical differences can be identified among the approaches listed in Fig.  1. It is common to differentiate them according to the relative emphasis placed on language and content (Airey, 2016; Lyster & Ballinger, 2011; Stoller, 2008; Tsou & Kao, 2017). At one end of the continuum are forms such as sheltered content instruction (Echevarría & Graves, 1998), an approach to teaching the nonlanguage curriculum to learners who need support in the language of instruction. Toward the other end of the continuum is content-based second language instruction (Brinton, Snow, & Wesche, 1989), which positions subject content as a vehicle for the effective development of language skills. It has been widely noted (e.g., Macaro, Curle, Pun, An, & Dearden, 2018) that one form of ICL, namely English medium instruction (EMI), is particularly salient because it is undergoing a rapid expansion. However, as Macaro (2018) notes, “there is a lack of definition, specification and consensus” (p. 15) regarding EMI. It is a potentially problematic situation for higher education globally to pursue a new pedagogical direction which is undefined and poorly understood. The overall purpose of this article is to discover what can be learned about this underspecified phenomenon by means of situating it in the broader context of ICL. Toward this end, the next two sections describe EMI and two other forms of ICL, and contrast them. Section 4 then examines the extent to which these pedagogical approaches can be considered as successful. Next, the variety of EMI practices are described in order to illustrate the relationship between the success of EMI and the form of its

English Medium Instruction: Disintegrating Language and Content?

17

implementation. In the final section, implications for educational policy and teaching practice are raised.

2  Forms of ICL A close examination of all of the terms in Fig. 1 falls outside the scope of this chapter. Instead, in addition to EMI, two terms which are widely used and which present interesting contrasts are given closer inspection: immersion and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Because the aim of this section is contrastive, the descriptions that follow aim to capture the prototypical features. At the same time, it is important to recognize that the real-world manifestations of these pedagogical approaches are varied.

2.1  Immersion Lyster (2007) defines immersion in this way A form of bilingual education that aims for additive bilingualism by providing students with a sheltered classroom environment in which they receive at least half of their subject-­ matter instruction through the medium of a language that they are learning as a second, foreign, heritage, or indigenous language. In addition, they receive some instruction through the medium of a shared primary language, which normally has majority status in the community. (p. 8)

The first systematic study of immersion education was Lambert and Tucker’s (1972) work on an immersion school created in Québec in the 1960s. At the time, the status of the French language was strengthening in the province, and this caused Anglophone families to believe that their children’s future prospects would be improved by a good command of French. The response was to create a school in which Anglophone children could receive education through the medium of French, but in a way which acknowledged that they were not first language (L1) users of French. Immersion provision is offered in languages ranging from the mainstream to the threatened, in places as diverse as Swedish in Finland (Björklund & Mård-Miettinen, 2011), the indigenous Hawaiian language in Hawai’i (Wilson & Kamana, 2011), Irish in Ireland (Duibhir, 2011), and English in China (Hoare, 2011). Swain and Lapkin (2005) identified eight central characteristics of immersion (based on Swain & Johnson, 1997). These are that: • the language used as the medium of instruction (i.e., the immersion language) is the learners’ second language (L2). • the curriculum mirrors that prescribed for mainstream (i.e., non-immersion) students.

18

D. Pecorari

• the development of learners’ L1 is also supported. • the objective is additive bilingualism (i.e., the development of the L2 does not jeopardize the development of the L1). • learners encounter the L2 primarily in the classroom, since they have another home language. • learners are broadly similar in their proficiency in the target language. • immersion teachers are bilingual. • classroom practices are those of the host community. (p. 172) Immersion, then, is positioned in the center of the language-and-content continuum; outcomes in both domains are central to its objectives.

2.2  CLIL If immersion was the outcome of parental aspirations in North America, CLIL is the product of the rather aspirational European MT  +  2 ideal, that is, the idea that European citizens should be able to communicate in two languages in addition to their mother tongue. Dalton-Puffer and Smit (2013) say that CLIL is: …about using a foreign language or a lingua franca, not a second language. Students will encounter the language of instruction mainly in the classroom, since it is not regularly used in the wider society they live in. The dominant CLIL language is English, reflecting the fact that a command of English as an additional language is increasingly regarded as a key literacy feature world-wide. (p. 546).

They go on to ascribe these characteristics to it: • • • •

CLIL learners begin their L2 after acquiring literacy in their L1. CLIL teachers are frequently not L1 users of the language of instruction. CLIL teachers are not ordinarily language teachers. CLIL involves “content” lessons taught through the L2 combined with separate, explicit language instruction.

They conclude that “CLIL can be seen as a foreign language enrichment measure packaged into content teaching” (2013, p. 546). In CLIL, therefore, instruction is explicitly delivered to secure both content and language learning. However, compared with immersion, its language-learning objectives are more modest; where immersion aims to produce bilinguals, CLIL is a form of foreign language teaching. In this sense, CLIL can be seen as closer to the content end of the ICL continuum, with language development as an adjunct, but planned-for, outcome.

2.3  EMI Definitions of EMI typically include four features, either by identifying them explicitly or by implication

English Medium Instruction: Disintegrating Language and Content?

19

1 . English is used for instructional purposes. 2. English is not itself the subject being taught. 3. Language development is not a primary intended outcome. 4. For most participants in the setting, English is an L2. (Pecorari & Malmström 2018, p. 499) A typical definition is this: English-Medium instruction is when non-language courses in for instance medicine, physics or political science are taught in English, to students for whom it is a foreign language. As often as not, it is also taught by a lecturer who does not have English as a first language (L1). (Hellekjær, 2010, p. 11)

It can be noted that Hellekjær’s definition does not make explicit reference to the idea that language development is not the main objective of EMI (point three, above). However, equally, it omits any reference to language-learning objectives, something which is included in discussions of immersion and CLIL, and that absence is telling. Others raise this point explicitly: EMI implies that content–which is given in English–is the priority. Some incidental language learning is expected due to exposure but without any specific language learning goals. English (language) learning is not assessed. (Aguilar, 2017, p. 726)

Dearden (2014) concurs, defining 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” (p.  2). Contrasting it with CLIL, she points out that, “CLIL has a dual educational objective built into its title (the enhancement of both content and language) whereas EMI does not” (p. 4). EMI, then, is far to the content side of the continuum. The discussion above has drawn both on definitions of immersion, CLIL and EMI, and discussions of characteristics that they are understood to have in their prototypical forms. This is not to assert that these understandings are uncontestable or uncontested; quite the reverse is true. This can be exemplified with regard to the question of settings for EMI. EMI is frequently understood to refer to a phenomenon which takes place outside of the English speaking world, and indeed that is included in the definition from Dearden, quoted above. However, a dissenting position is taken by Walkinshaw, Fenton-Smith, and Humphreys (2017), who point to the presence of large numbers of international students in places like Australia, and say “in our view, any discussion of EMI in Asia-Pacific needs to encompass both Anglophone and non-­ Anglophone contexts” (p. 10). A recent survey of research identifying itself as relating to EMI found both positions represented. The majority of studies surveyed were indeed outside the English-­ speaking world, but a substantial minority (17%) were set in countries, such as Australia, with English as an official or dominant language (Pecorari & Malmström, 2018). Another example of the varied, not to say contested, understandings of EMI relates to the frequently asserted idea that CLIL is used more widely in pre-tertiary

20

D. Pecorari

education and “less favoured in higher education” (Airey, 2016, p. 73), while the term EMI tends to refer to practices in higher education (HE) institutions. The same survey (Pecorari & Malmström, 2018) found only partial support for this idea. A clear majority (87%) of the self-identified studies on EMI were set in tertiary institutions, but this left a sizeable minority of exceptions. Examples include Paulsrud’s (2014) study of the use of English in Swedish upper-secondary schools, which was entitled English-medium instruction in Sweden. A counter example is Costa and Coleman’s (2013) work, A survey of English-medium instruction in Italian higher education, which uses the term CLIL (among others) to describe course offerings in Italian universities (as do a number of researchers, such as Aguilar and Rodríguez [2012], in the Spanish university context). It can therefore be concluded that it is meaningful to speak of a broadly shared understanding of what is intended by terms like EMI, or CLIL, or other terms for different forms of ICL, but unanimous acceptance of those understandings does not exist.

3  Contrasting Forms of ICL The previous section identified a number of respects in which the three models of ICL dealt with here differ from each other. This section contrasts them to bring the similarities and differences into sharper relief. This comparison can be structured around Swain and Lapkin’s (2005; cf. Swain & Johnson, 1997) list of eight central characteristics of immersion (see Table 1).

Table 1  Characteristics of ICL Feature Medium of instruction Curriculum Support for L1 Intended language outcomes Exposure to L2

Immersion An L2 (or L3, etc.) Mainstream Present Additive bilingualism Primarily classroom Student proficiency Homogeneous level Teacher proficiency Fluent level Cultural teaching Local context

CLIL A foreign language

EMI English, usually an L2

Mainstream Present Foreign language skill enhancement Primarily classroom

Mainstream Absent Absent, or deprioritized; possibly subtractive Primarily classroom

Homogeneous

Heterogeneous

Fluent

Varied and untested

Local

Local and international

English Medium Instruction: Disintegrating Language and Content?

21

3.1  Medium of Instruction In immersion, the language of instruction is an L2 (or, as Swain & Lapkin, 2005 note about increasingly multicultural Canada, sometimes a third language [L3]), and as seen above, a wide variety of languages are learned in immersion settings. In CLIL settings, the language of instruction is generally conceived of as a foreign, rather than a second language for learners. In principle, the first “L” in CLIL could be any language, but it has been widely noted that, despite the plurilinguistic ideology which gave rise to CLIL, it is increasingly in practice English (Eurydice, 2006; Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2010; Smit & Dafouz, 2012). By definition, in EMI, English is used for instructional purposes.

3.2  Curriculum All three of these forms are school- or university-based, and so curricular objectives are central to them. The mainstream (i.e., non-ICL) curriculum is intended to be delivered in immersion (Cammarata & Tedick, 2012; Swain & Lapkin, 2005). Similarly, CLIL exploits the opportunity to teach the regular curriculum in another language. As discussed above, curricular objectives are primary and language objectives either neglected or relegated to a less important role in EMI.

3.3  Support for the L1 In its original form, immersion provided support for students’ L1 by means of including English (in the case of French immersion in Canada) on the curriculum. As Swain and Lapkin (2005) note, in ethnically and linguistically pluralistic societies, immersion students (as well as non-immersion students) have a variety of L1s, and not all are supported within the curriculum. However, immersion is by intent supportive of bilingualism. Similarly, CLIL curricula typically include the L1 as a timetabled subject (Dalton-Puffer & Smit, 2013). By contrast, because EMI treats language as a neutral vehicle for communication, the L1 of learners in EMI settings is generally disregarded. As with immersion, many EMI classrooms have students with multiple L1s, making it difficult in practical terms to incorporate them. The lack of attention to L1s is likely also to be a function of tendency to use the label EMI in tertiary settings. In many parts of the world, L1 language skills are not a standard part of the undergraduate or postgraduate curriculum. University students are adults and therefore presumed to be competent and proficient users of their L1. It is however noteworthy that students in university settings acquire the disciplinary discourses of their chosen subjects, along with the subject content. In a full EMI setting, because the L1 is unsupported,

22

D. Pecorari

this may leave learners able to communicate effectively about their subjects in English but not in their L1.

3.4  Language Outcomes Immersion regards language learning outcomes as inextricably linked with content learning and therefore places the two on an equal footing (Lyster, 2007, p.  6). Immersion is ambitious in terms of its language-learning objectives: it aims to produce bilinguals, with the immersion language complementing, rather than crowding out, the home language. Swain and Lapkin (2005) say that the objective of additive bilingualism “is perhaps the most defining feature of immersion” (p. 173). CLIL, too, makes language-learning outcomes a conscious objective, and is additive insofar as it aims to extend students’ language skills in a foreign language. However, the expectations of CLIL may be more modest. Lasagabaster and Sierra (2010) say that “the goal of immersion programmes is to reach an L2 proficiency similar to that of native speakers, whereas CLIL programmes cannot have such a far-reaching objective” (p. 372). If they differ in terms of their levels of ambition, both immersion and CLIL have explicitly articulated and planned-for language-learning aims. The case of EMI is considerably different. EMI is typically introduced in order that English can function as a lingua franca and facilitate internationalization. Language-learning objectives are therefore much more subdued. Coleman goes so far as to state that “foreign language learning in itself is NOT the reason why institutions adopt English medium teaching” (2006, p. 4; emphasis in the original). This view could be partially critiqued as something of an overstatement; there is, after all, ample evidence that many participants in EMI believe that it is beneficial for the development of their English language skills (e.g., Li & Wu, 2017; Pecorari, Shaw, Irvine, & Malmström, 2011; this point is returned to below in the section on the successes of ICL). There is, therefore, reason to think that decisions to implement EMI are guided not only by the present value of English in permitting universities to internationalize, but also by the future value to students in having acquired this door-opening proficiency. However, even if improved English proficiency is sometimes an intended outcome of EMI, there is no doubt that it is a second-order concern. The received understanding of EMI’s intended outcomes could therefore be stated like this, “EMI implies that content–which is given in English–is the priority. Some incidental language learning is expected due to exposure but without any specific language learning goals” (Aguilar, 2017, p. 726). In EMI, then, language learning objectives are casual if they are articulated at all. Indeed, in one sense the outcome of EMI in terms of language development could be argued to be subtractive. Part of the language development which occurs at university, regardless of the language of instruction, is disciplinary: subject-specific terminology is learned along with the concepts represented by the terms, the written

English Medium Instruction: Disintegrating Language and Content?

23

and spoken genres used in the subject area are mastered, etc. In an EMI setting, students forego the opportunity to experience that development in the L1.

3.5  Exposure to L2 In immersion, exposure to the target language is significant; 50% of classroom hours are frequently taken as a sort of minimum threshold (Lyster, 2007). In addition, although immersion students have a different home language, the target language is in use in the wider society, thereby providing opportunities for additional exposure. In CLIL, the target language is also used for a meaningful (though varying) number of instructional hours. Unlike in immersion, in a CLIL setting (such as Olsson’s 2016 study of CLIL with English as the target language in Sweden), the target language is not usually in wide use outside of the CLIL classroom. To the extent that prototypical EMI is generally regarded as happening outside of the English-speaking world, learners have similarly limited exposure to English outside the classroom. This is true for full EMI settings such as the program in Taiwan studied by Li and Wu (2017), and even more so for partial EMI, such as the context in Iceland described by Arnbjörnsdóttir and Ingvarsdóttir (2015). In addition, since students in tertiary education frequently have fewer contact hours than those in primary and secondary, even classroom exposure time may be reduced. The extent of exposure varies greatly. For example, an EMI classroom at a Danish university may include both local and international students. Outside of the classroom but within the university (the library, the canteen), and in the wider society, local students will interact to a great extent in Danish, while most international students will continue to interact in English and/or their L1. However, for both groups of students, exposure to English is likely to be both qualitatively and quantitatively different compared to L2 users of English studying as international students in the English-speaking world (Macaro et al., 2018; Pecorari & Malmström, 2018).

3.6  Student Proficiency Level In terms of students’ proficiency, immersion and CLIL bear great similarity to each other. In both settings, students have reasonably homogeneous language levels. In addition, both forms of instruction accommodate, in various ways, the fact that their learners are not L1 users of the target language. EMI differs in both of these respects. Since EMI is not intended primarily as a means of language development, an assumption (however well or poorly founded) must be made that students in the EMI classroom are capable of academic study in English. However, the strength of this assumption depends in large part on the pathways which lead students to the classroom, and they are often quite variegated.

24

D. Pecorari

Since internationalization is an important driver for EMI, its implementation frequently leads to internationally diverse groups. For example, in Sweden any given EMI classroom is likely to contain some local students and some international students from a host of countries of origin (possibly including a small number who have English as their L1). Their proficiency in English, and therefore their suitability for EMI, are assessed in different ways. The local students are assumed to have adequate proficiency in English by virtue of having completed upper secondary education, including compulsory English. International students may have demonstrated proficiency by means of the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) or the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), or they may have had the requirement waived for a variety of reasons.

3.7  Teacher Proficiency In immersion, teachers are expected to be bilingual, and are often native speakers, and in CLIL, to be proficient in the language of instruction, though they are less likely to be L1 users of the language of instruction (Dalton-Puffer & Smit, 2013). By contrast, teachers in EMI are all too frequently simply assumed to be proficient in English. This is at least in part yet another consequence of the tertiary orientation of much EMI. Since it is all but impossible to function as an academic without frequent use of English, university teachers are assumed to be able to do so. Manifestly, though, the skills needed to read, or indeed write, a research article in English are not those needed to lecture or lead a seminar in English. Mechanisms for assessing teachers’ proficiency and supporting their development are rare; a systematic approach to doing both such as that found at the University of Copenhagen (e.g., Dimova & Kling, 2018) is the exception rather than the rule. Beyond external measures of suitability to teach in English (or another target language), teachers in immersion and CLIL are largely self-selecting. Teachers have usually made a deliberate choice to teach in a CLIL or immersion program, rather than a monolingual school. The opposite is true in many—perhaps most—EMI settings. As EMI continues its rapid expansion, teachers who have hitherto taught in their L1 find themselves facing an unexpected transition to the use of English. Further, language skills interact with other competences, as illustrated by a study of the use of English by L2 speakers in lectures and classroom groupwork sessions at a Swedish university (Björkman, 2008a, 2008b). Although non-standard features were plentiful, they were found to disrupt communication only infrequently; communication strategies, supporting materials such as slides, etc., were available to offset potentially problematic linguistic formulations. Success in teaching through the medium of a second language is thus a function both of teachers’ linguistic proficiency and their skill as teachers. Here again, the fact that much EMI happens at tertiary level is relevant. Primary and secondary teachers typically undergo both training and certification. At university level, the

English Medium Instruction: Disintegrating Language and Content?

25

importance of pedagogical training is increasingly recognized but it is far from universal, and certification for university teachers is less widespread still. This is not to say that university teachers lack pedagogical skills, but rather that the measures which would ensure good skills are less systematic than at lower educational levels. Nor is it to say that EMI teachers lack adequate proficiency in English (as Macaro et al., 2018, note the available evidence is limited). However, while immersion and CLIL teachers are selected in part for their ability in the target language, the same is not true for teachers in EMI settings. Taken together, these points tend to indicate that the potential for encountering teachers underprepared to teach in English is significantly greater in EMI than in CLIL or immersion.

3.8  The Cultural Teaching Context Swain and Lapkin (2005) note that in immersion, “the classroom culture is that of the local L1 community” (p. 172). The same can be said of CLIL, and, to a great extent, EMI. However, while the first two forms involve students who are stakeholders in the local community, EMI, at least at tertiary level, is intended to promote internationalization, and in many places has been implemented specifically to bring non-locally invested actors to the classroom. From this comparison, it can be seen that while immersion and CLIL differ in many significant respects (as noted by Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2010), they both provide pathways to enhanced language proficiency in a target language while providing opportunities for development in the L1. They both seek efficiencies by providing target language exposure while content is being taught. These objectives are scaffolded. By contrast, EMI neither presupposes nor works systematically for language development in the same way as CLIL or immersion. Nor, in practice, does it always acknowledge the difficulties of working through the medium of an L2. In other words, CLIL and immersion are both pedagogical approaches. EMI, by contrast, is not a pedagogy (Kling, 2017), it is a phenomenon. It is the result of using a lingua franca to create a flow of academics, students, and revenues in the neoliberal university: a sterile form of instruction in contrast with the more fertile pedagogical spaces of CLIL and immersion.

4  Success or Failure? The discussion above suggests that EMI tends to assume, rather than work proactively, toward the preconditions for success. However, this is less meaningful if EMI nonetheless delivers good outcomes. The purpose of this section is to consider how successful EMI is in its outcomes. Here too, CLIL and immersion are considered for the sake of contrast.

26

D. Pecorari

With its relatively longer history, immersion has generated a larger body of literature and more information is available about its outcomes than for CLIL or EMI. The initial immersion experience in St. Lambert, Canada was evaluated by Lambert and Tucker (1972), and subsequently numerous studies of immersion settings have been carried out. These show consistent benefits (Baker & Lewis, 2015). Cammarata and Tedick (2012) summarize the literature in this way: English-speaking immersion students of various academic abilities, regardless of ethnic or socioeconomic backgrounds, are capable of achieving high levels of functional proficiency in the immersion language while at the same time achieving academically as well as or better than non-immersion peers on standardized tests administered in English. (pp. 252-253)

Some drawbacks are associated with immersion, but these tend to be minimal. For example, immersion students can experience small delays in learning their L1, but these are temporary (Baker & Lewis, 2015). While native-like receptive skills may be acquired, productive skills lag and are less likely to reach a native-like level (Cammarata & Tedick, 2012). However, on balance, immersion appears reliably to deliver on its promise, producing good skills in the target language without compromising the rest of the curriculum. Less research is available to speak to the effectiveness of CLIL (and indeed, this has been identified as an area in need of research; cf. Coyle, 2007). Costa and Coleman (2013) report a generally positive picture, and this is echoed by Olsson (2016). A theme which emerges from her review of the literature is that CLIL students often do better than non-CLIL students on various language measures. However, the gap between the two groups does not widen as they progress through their respective educational pathways. This suggests the possibility that stronger results on measures of language proficiency by CLIL students may be due to them being a self-selecting sample; in other words, their success in CLIL could be attributable to what they bring to the classroom, as well as what happens when they get there. Still less is known about the outcomes of EMI. In their state-of-the-art article, Macaro et al. (2018) reviewed 83 studies related to EMI in higher education and found only seven which directly measured language-learning outcomes, and five which directly measured content understanding, in addition to some others which used self-assessment measures of accomplishment in one domain or the other. Perhaps not surprisingly, given the fact that this is clearly an incipient literature base, results are mixed. On the basis of this small number of studies, it is not possible to conclude with confidence that EMI is beneficial to the learning of either English or subject content; indeed, there is some reason for adopting a skeptical stance toward the idea. With little direct evidence for the success or failure of EMI, some indication can be sought from a body of literature reporting the perceptions of students and teachers. They can be categorized, in a word, as ambivalent. A survey of Swedish academics found that they did perceive EMI as beneficial to their students’ English language development (Pecorari Shaw, Malmström, & Irvine, 2011). However, they also expressed a range of problems, including the idea that their students’

English Medium Instruction: Disintegrating Language and Content?

27

proficiency in English was not equal to the task, and that students tended to remain quiet in class and avoid participating in discussions or asking questions when English was the language of instruction (Maricic, Pecorari, & Hommerberg, 2017). Students in Iceland (primarily in partial EMI) reported similarly mixed views in response to a survey (Arnbjörnsdóttir & Ingvarsdóttir 2015). They did see positive aspects, with 25% saying the exposure to English brought advantages, but they also said (44%) that it was more work and (37%) it was difficult (this echoes findings from a partial EMI setting in Sweden in Pecorari et al., 2011). Italian universities responding to a survey shared the belief that the use of English was a double-edged sword. Between a third and a quarter said that some aspects of students’ language skills were developed (though a fifth reported a cautious “don’t know”). Nearly a third (30%) said that the greatest problem in implementing EMI was a lack of proficiency on the part of teachers, and about the same proportion (31%) attributed the problem to students’ proficiency (Costa & Coleman, 2013). In Taiwan, Li and Wu (2017) surveyed students about EMI and found that most reported some positives, such as some degree of improvement in their ability to communicate in English and their confidence in doing so. However, they also expressed a clear view that EMI had made the learning experience more difficult. In short, as Tsou and Kao (2017) conclude, this body of literature tends to suggest that there is great ambivalence to English. On one hand, EMI was considered to have double benefits in helping students acquire content knowledge and improve English language at the same time. On the other hand, the depth of class interaction and knowledge dissemination remained questionable due to the implementation of EMI (p. 12).

It would be possible to argue that since EMI’s aim is the modest one of conveying course content through a lingua franca, and not the more ambitious double (language and content) objectives of CLIL and immersion, its success should be evaluated only in terms of how well course content is learned. The existing (rather small) body of literature addressing that question does not point unambiguously to significant, systematic failures in that respect, so perhaps EMI should be judged fit for purpose according to that narrower standard. Against that view are two objections. First, as noted above, some degree of language development is a wished-for outcome of EMI in many cases. More importantly though, if expectations of EMI relate only to course content, then its potential value is halved with respect to forms which balance language and content. It has further been seen that many participants in EMI find that it makes the experience of teaching and learning more arduous, if not poorer. As a result, EMI’s cost-benefit ratio must be regarded as poorer. Two conclusions can be drawn from this brief review. First, at least as far as CLIL and EMI are concerned, there is a need for a significant amount of further research to establish the extent to which these forms of education promote learning of various sorts (and, perhaps more urgently, which factors can be adapted to promote optimal learning). Second, though, there appears to be a continuum of success: immersion can work better than monolingual education; CLIL can work

28

D. Pecorari

satisfactorily; and EMI appear to be only partially successful, with the limited returns secured at the expense of significant discomfort for participants.

5  Two Cases The discussion so far has aimed at presenting a generalized picture of typical ICL settings. However, the details of the specific educational and geographical settings shape the way it is implemented. In this section two sharply differing EMI settings are presented in cameo: Sweden and Hong Kong. The purpose of this comparison is not just to demonstrate the significant differences in practice in EMI around the world (although research on EMI could perhaps beneficially make the scope of those differences more salient); the primary purpose is to illustrate that specific factors have the potential to create good preconditions for success in EMI—or not.

5.1  Sweden Sweden is generally perceived as a place where English is spoken widely and well. For example, it placed first among the 88 countries compared in EF’s 2018 English Proficiency Index (EF Education First, 2016). English has a strong position in Swedish society. Films and television programs—apart from those for small children—are subtitled rather than dubbed. Advertising and product labelling are frequently in English. A commonplace expression used to explain the choice to use English in a particular instance is alla kan ju engelska—“after all, everyone can speak English”. Indeed, English is so pervasive that concerns are not infrequently expressed about the status and future of Swedish. Simultaneously, it is acknowledged that a prominent role for English is inevitable: with a population of fewer than ten million, communicating with the world must be done in English. With the exception of a small number of international schools and heritage language programs, Swedish is the language of pre-tertiary education. English is a required subject throughout most of the primary and secondary years. Sweden, like many European countries, has actively tried to widen participation in higher education, and 39% of the adult population have attended at least 2 years of university, with the figure rising to 46% among the younger adult population (Swedish Higher Education Authority, 2016). Much university instruction has long involved partial EMI in a number of forms. One of the most common is for teaching and assessment to be conducted in Swedish, with textbooks in English (as is the case in Iceland; see Arnbjörnsdóttir, chapter “Transitioning EAL Students from EFL Classes to EMI Programs at The University of Iceland” in this volume). More recently, like many European countries, Sweden has embarked enthusiastically on full EMI and has seen a rapid increase in the

English Medium Instruction: Disintegrating Language and Content?

29

number of university programs taught in English. Initially this was primarily at the Master’s level, but EMI has started to expand downward to undergraduate programs. The expansion of EMI has been driven primarily by the familiar reasons relating to internationalization: to attract international academic staff, to attract international students, to facilitate Erasmus and other partnerships, etc. A widespread belief exists that EMI will result in incidental language acquisition, to the benefit of students, a belief which is sometimes expressed as engelska på köpet, which can be roughly translated as, “English for free with your purchase”. However, apart from in language courses, language development is virtually never identified as a formal intended learning outcome. A passing mark in the English subject in upper secondary school is a required qualification for admission to any university program, and it is not usual for English medium programs to set a higher requirement for English proficiency. There is, therefore, a tacit assumption that all students should arrive at university with adequate skills in English to succeed in partial or full EMI. There is reason to question this assumption, as Hellekjær (2010) found for a reasonably similar group of Norwegian students. University lecturers express concern about their own and their students’ levels of proficiency (Airey, 2011). Students report unhappiness and poorer learning when even elements of a course are in English (Pecorari et  al., 2011). Many people with experience teaching Swedish students believe that they are stronger in what Cummins (2008) has termed basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) and weaker in cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP). The expectation of readiness for EMI is in some ways an extension of the general university culture, which provides very little in the way of support for academic literacy in Swedish as well. There is no routine provision of “freshman composition” or other universal support for the development of academic literacy. Universities typically have consultation centers, which offer help with academic writing in English or Swedish, but they are accessed on an on-demand basis, and their services reach a minority of the student population. Students who enroll on a full EMI program have made a conscious choice to do so, but those on programs nominally taught in Swedish nonetheless encounter partial EMI, as for instance when the textbook is in English. Sometimes a switch to English is made on an ad hoc basis with little forewarning, when a faculty member who does not speak Swedish is assigned to teach a course, or when an exchange students signs up for a course. If students are expected to be able to take English in their stride, that expectation is stronger still for academic staff. Like academics everywhere, they face the necessity of using English to engage in the research community. The tacit expectation is that their professional competence in English extends to the ability to teaching and assessing in English. Little support for teaching in English exists. For most university teachers, EMI has been introduced mid-career. In short, the implementation of EMI in Sweden has been underpinned by the twin assumptions that the preconditions for it (in terms of English proficiency) are in place, and that the costs associated with it will be outweighed by the benefits. Neither of those assumptions has been rigorously tested.

30

D. Pecorari

5.2  Hong Kong As a former British colony, Hong Kong is also strongly influenced by English. English is the sole medium of instruction in some schools and used for the teaching of some selected subjects in many more. Regardless of the medium of instruction policy of a given school, English is a compulsory subject. The EF report (2016) which placed Sweden first for proficiency in English ranked Hong Kong 30th, in the category “moderate proficiency,” but this ranking risks obscuring an important feature: the average Hong Kong resident does not have “moderate proficiency;” there is a large segment of the population with very high attainments in English, and another with extremely limited proficiency. While Sweden is forced to depend on English for some purposes in part because of the small number of L1 speakers of Swedish globally, Hong Kong, with Chinese as the majority L1, does not experience the same linguistic isolation. However, the predominant variety of Chinese in Hong Kong is Cantonese, rather than Puntonghua. The differences between the two varieties are extremely salient in spoken Chinese and less prominent, but still existent, in the written form. Of eight public Hong Kong universities, seven are exclusively English medium, and the tendency has been toward an expansion of the use of English. The Chinese University of Hong Kong was founded as a provider of Chinese medium tertiary instruction but has transitioned over time to offering an increasing number of courses in English. An effort to expand participation in higher education has resulted in about half of the adult population attending some form of post-secondary education (Census and Statistics Department, 2017). Admission to university, and thus to EMI, is based on scores on a public examination, which tests English among other subjects. The apparent assumption is that a satisfactory score indexes adequate proficiency for university study in English. The available evidence for this is mixed; there is a widespread belief that when the group of students is homogeneous, and the students and the teacher all are Chinese speakers, lessons which are nominally English medium may be conducted in Chinese. This would suggest a degree of discomfort with using English. However, in a study of the experiences of Hong Kong university students, Evans and Morrison (2011) found that they struggled significantly during their first year with language-related challenges but were generally able to overcome the challenges. The fact that English is a mandatory school subject for all pupils but used in broader contexts than the English classroom only by a minority suggests that Hong Kong university students are likely to have stronger CALP than BICS. Significant English language support is available from language centers which offer academic writing courses, independent study resources, drop-in writing consultations, and the like. Apart from such courses, language development is rarely formalized as an explicit learning outcome. Because EMI is deeply rooted in the history of education in the territory, it is understood that the choice to attend university, or to teach at university, implies the choice to engage in EMI.  Given that English is the operational language of universities, academics recruited from

English Medium Instruction: Disintegrating Language and Content?

31

outside of the city will have gone through a selection process, including interviews and usually test lectures in English. While this is a long way from a comprehensive assessment of the ability to teach in English, it nonetheless serves as some sort of check on the effectiveness of teachers for the English medium classroom.

5.3  What the Contrasts Can Tell Us As noted above, Macaro (2018) has pointed out that EMI is conceptualized in rather varied ways by the research community. These two cameos show that it is also implemented and practiced rather differently around the world. While too little is understood about the factors which lead to successful EMI, it is reasonable to think that it would be beneficial to apply a pedagogy which takes account of the realities of the setting. Kling (2017) provides a list of five such principles for EMI: • For EMI to function successfully, both students and teaching faculty must have a threshold proficiency level of English. • Students should receive both peer and teacher feedback on their English usage in written papers and reports, as well as oral performance. • Students’ development of general, academic and disciplinary language needs to be supported through both ad hoc and established CLIL/CBI training—both pre-­ sessional (with a language expert) and throughout regular courses (with a content and/or language expert). • In the EMI classroom, teachers can use the diversity of the student population, as well as the FL courses material, as a teaching and learning resource for the understanding of the development of the target educational culture and cross-­ cultural competence. • Content teachers are trained to use explicit pedagogical strategies for the multilingual, multicultural learning space of the EMI classroom, taking into account the linguistic diversity and English proficiency of their students. (p. 223) In the remainder of this section, these principles will be applied to these two contrasting EMI settings. Proficiency in English  In both settings, it is assumed that secondary education gives students adequate proficiency for EMI. This assumption is largely untested; however, the available evidence for Sweden provides a basis for concern, while in the Hong Kong setting the existing research is slightly more optimistic. In neither setting are teachers routinely screened for English proficiency, but in Hong Kong, the recruitment process would expose a lack of proficiency, which could be problematic. In addition, because most university programs are English medium, most locally recruited teachers (as well as many internationally recruited ones) will have attended an English-medium university program themselves, demonstrating an ability to perform academically in English. Neither of these factors applies to the same

32

D. Pecorari

extent in Sweden. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that there are fewer safeguards on teachers’ proficiency in Sweden. Feedback to Students Addresses Language as Well as Content  Data speaking to the prevalence of this practice is lacking, but in both settings, language development is generally only explicitly named as a learning outcome in language courses. Teachers who work with the principle of constructive alignment (Biggs, 1996) are therefore unlikely to be giving such feedback. Support for Students’ Language Development  In both settings, the need to support academic literacy is recognized. In the case of Sweden, support is available on a smaller scale, is voluntary, and is typically taken up by students who perceive themselves as weak in writing. In Hong Kong, voluntary support sits alongside an offering of courses, which reaches virtually all undergraduates. The Multilingual Setting Is Drawn on as a Resource  While the recent interest in translanguaging has meant that linguists are keen to regard multilingual practices as a resource, the layperson’s view is lagging behind. In both settings, for partially different reasons, there is a tendency for both teachers and students to believe that EMI should mean English-only. Content Teachers Are Trained to Deliver EMI  In Sweden, pedagogical training for university teachers is mandated by law. Training specifically for the EMI classroom is not, and while some programs have been developed in isolation, as yet there is no systematic provision. Hong Kong similarly lacks widespread or systematic measures to prepare teachers for the English medium classroom. More generally, professional development courses for university teachers are less common, so, unlike in Sweden, there is no infrastructure to scaffold the growth of preparation for EMI. This comparison supports a cautious conclusion that in Hong Kong, where EMI is more mature, some elements which are likely to favor the success of EMI are in place, while they are lacking in Sweden, which is still undergoing a transition to EMI. However, it is also clear that there is room to do more in both settings.

6  Conclusion Section 4 showed that some forms of ICL are more successful than others, while Section 5 concluded that some EMI settings provide students and teachers with the preconditions for success better than others. A key differentiator is an awareness that language plays an important role in teaching and learning. Intended learning outcomes are more likely to be achieved when they are explicitly articulated and planned for. Immersion and CLIL achieve their intended outcomes by making the

English Medium Instruction: Disintegrating Language and Content?

33

medium of instruction a centerpiece of planning and provision. On those occasions when an EMI setting problematizes language, it creates an opportunity, for example through the realization that language support is needed. However, EMI frequently misses this opportunity by treating English as a neutral vehicle for communication. This inherent risk in EMI is of concern given the enthusiasm with which it is pursued. This has been widely documented in Europe, where the number of EMI programs continues to increase (though Wächter & Maiworm, 2014, note a levelling off in the rate of expansion). Similarly, Asia is seeing expansion in EMI, in places such as South Korea (Im & Kim, 2015) and Taiwan (Tsou & Kao, 2017). In the light of this growth, it is sobering to consider Dafouz, Hüttner, and Smit’s (2018) observation that, in EMI contexts, “educational issues and language policies and practices are surprisingly implicit or dangerously simplified in the political agendas of most tertiary institutions” (p. 541). This situation is highly problematic. The very notion of the integration of content and language implies that those two things are integral to the learning experience in HE. There is therefore a gap between an understanding of language as integral to HE pedagogy and its frequent invisibility in the decisions which shape HE policy, and in teaching practice. In a higher educational landscape which is rapidly turning to EMI, educational quality will depend on first recognizing and then closing that gap, by means of adopting functional aspects of other ICL pedagogies. Future research can serve this endeavor by problematizing the pedagogical sterility of EMI and exploring what can be accomplished by incorporating elements of richer ICL practices into EMI.

References Aguilar, M. (2017). Engineering lecturers’ views on CLIL and EMI. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20, 722–735. https://doi.org/10.1080/1367005 0.2015.1073664 Aguilar, M., & Rodríguez, R. (2012). Lecturer and student perceptions on CLIL at a Spanish university. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15, 183–197. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2011.615906 Airey, J. (2011). Talking about teaching in English: Swedish university lecturers’ experiences of changing their teaching language. Ibérica, 22, 35–54. Airey, J. (2016). EAP, EMI or CLIL? In K. Hyland & P. Shaw (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes (Routledge handbooks in applied linguistics) (pp. 95–107). Milton Park, NY: Routledge. Arnbjörnsdóttir, B., & Ingvarsdóttir, H. (2015). Simultaneous parallel code use: Using English in university studies in Iceland. In A. H. Fabricius & B. Preisler (Eds.), Transcultural interaction and linguistic diversity in higher education: The student experience (pp.  142–163). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Baker, C., & Lewis, G. (2015). A synthesis of research on bilingual and multilingual education. In W. E. Wright, S. Boun, & O. García (Eds.), The handbook of bilingual and multilingual education (1st ed.).(pp. 109–126). Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics. Chichester, UK/Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

34

D. Pecorari

Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32, 347–363. Björklund, S., & Mård-Miettinen, K. (2011). Integrating multiple languages in immersion: Swedish immersion in Finland. In D. J. Tedick, D. Christian, & T. W. Fortune (Eds.), Immersion education: practices, policies, possibilities (Bilingual Education & Bilingualism 83, pp. 13–35). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Björkman, B. (2008a). English as the lingua franca of engineering: The morphosyntax of academic speech events. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 7, 103–122. Björkman, B. (2008b). ‘So where we are?’ Spoken lingua franca English at a technical university in Sweden. English Today, 24. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078408000187. Brinton, D., Snow, M. A., & Wesche, M. B. (1989). Content-based second language instruction. New York, NY: Newbury House Publishers. Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D. J. (2012). Balancing content and language in instruction: The experience of immersion teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 96, 251–269. Cantoni-Harvey, G. (1987). Content-area language instruction: Approaches and strategies. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Census and Statistics Department. (2017). 2016 Population By-census. https://www.bycensus2016. gov.hk/en/bc-index.html Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1987). The cognitive academic language learning approach: A bridge to the mainstream. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 227. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586733 Cloud, N., Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (2000). Dual language instruction: A handbook for enriched education. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Coleman, J.  A. (2006). English-medium teaching in European higher education. Language Teaching, 39, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144480600320X Costa, F., & Coleman, J. A. (2013). A survey of English-medium instruction in Italian higher education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16, 3–19. https://doi. org/10.1080/13670050.2012.676621 Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: Toward a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 543–562. Cummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In B.  Street & N.  H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and Education 2 (2nd ed., pp. 487–499). Berlin, Germany: Springer. Dafouz, E., Hüttner, J., & Smit, U. (2018). New contexts, new challenges for TESOL: Understanding disciplinary reasoning in oral interactions in English-medium instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 52, 540–563. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.459 Dafouz, E., & Smit, U. (2016). Towards a dynamic conceptual framework for English-medium education in multilingual university settings. Applied Linguistics, 37, 397–415. https://doi. org/10.1093/applin/amu034 Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U. (2013). Content and language integrated learning: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 46, 545–559. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444813000256 Dearden, J. (2014). English as a medium of instruction: A growing global phenomenon. London, UK: British Council. Dimova, S., & Kling, J. (2018). Assessing English-medium instruction lecturer language proficiency across disciplines. TESOL Quarterly, 52, 634–656. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.454 Duibhir, P. Ó. (2011). “I thought that we had good Irish”: Irish immersion students’ insights into their target language use. In D. J. Tedick, D. Christian, & T. W. Fortune (Eds.), Immersion education: Practices, policies, possibilities (Bilingual Education & Bilingualism 83, pp. 145–165). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Echevarría, J., & Graves, A.  W. (1998). Sheltered content instruction: Teaching students with diverse abilities. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Echevarría, J., & Graves, A. W. (2011). Sheltered content instruction: Teaching English language learners with diverse abilities (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

English Medium Instruction: Disintegrating Language and Content?

35

EF Education First. (2016). EF English proficiency index – A comprehensive ranking of countries by English skills. Retrieved from http://www.ef.edu/epi/ Enright, D. S., & McCloskey, M. L. (1988). Integrating English: Developing English language and literacy in the multilingual classroom. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Eurydice. (2006). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. Brussels, Belgium: Eurydice. Evans, S., & Morrison, B. (2011). Meeting the challenges of English-medium higher education: The first-year experience in Hong Kong. English for Specific Purposes, 30, 198–208. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.01.001 Hellekjær, G.  O. (2010). Lecture comprehension in English-medium higher education. Hermes Journal of Language and Communication Studies, 45, 11–34. Hoare, P. (2011). Contexts and constraints: Immersion in Hong Kong and mainland China. In D. J. Tedick, D. Christian, & T. W. Fortune (Eds.), Immersion education: Practices, policies, possibilities (Bilingual Education & Bilingualism 83, pp. 211–230). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Im, J., & Kim, J. (2015). Use of blended learning for effective implementation of English-medium instruction in a non-English higher education context. International Education Studies, 8, 1. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v8n11p1 Kling, J. (2017). English medium instruction and the international classroom. In A. M. Snow & D. M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Lambert, W. E., & Tucker, G. R. (1972). Bilingual education of children: The St. Lambert experiment. New York, NY: Newbury House Publishers. Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal, 64, 367–375. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccp082 Li, M., & Wu, T. (2017). Creating an EMI program in international finance and business management. In W. Tsou & S.-M. Kao (Eds.), English as a medium of instruction in higher education: Implementations and classroom practices in Taiwan. Springer: Singapore, Singapore. Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam, The Netherlands/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Pub. Lyster, R., & Ballinger, S. (2011). Content-based language teaching: Convergent concerns across divergent contexts. Language Teaching Research, 15, 279–288. https://doi. org/10.1177/1362168811401150 Macaro, E. (2018). English medium instruction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J., & Dearden, J. (2018). A systematic review of English medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching, 51, 36–76. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0261444817000350 Maricic, I., Pecorari, D., & Hommerberg, C. (2017). Weighing English in the balance: University teachers’ perspectives on teaching through a second language. In S. Bendegard, U. M. Marttala, & M. Westman (Eds.), Language and norms (pp. 78–86). Uppsala, Sweden: ASLA. Olsson, E. (2016). On the impact of extramural English and CLIL on productive vocabulary. Göteborg, Sweden: Acta universitatis Gothoburgensis. Pally, M., & Bailey, N. (Eds.). (2000). Sustained content teaching in academic ESL/EFL: A practical approach. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Paulsrud, B. Y. (2014). English-medium instruction in Sweden: Perspectives and practices in two upper-secondary schools. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm University. Pecorari, D., & Malmström, H. (2018). At the crossroads of TESOL and English medium instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 52, 497–515. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.470 Pecorari, D., Shaw, P., Irvine, A., & Malmström, H. (2011). English for academic purposes at Swedish universities: Teachers’ objectives and practices. Iberica, 22, 55–78. Pecorari, D., Shaw, P., Malmström, H., & Irvine, A. (2011). English textbooks in parallel-language tertiary Education. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 313–333. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.247709

36

D. Pecorari

Short, D. J., Echevarría, J., & Richards-Tutor, C. (2011). Research on academic literacy development in sheltered instruction classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 15, 363–380. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1362168811401155 Smit, U., & Dafouz, E. (2012). Integrating content and language in higher education: An introduction to English-medium policies, conceptual issues and research practices across Europe. AILA Review, 25, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.25.01smi Stoller, F. L. (2008). Content-based instruction. In N. Van Deusen-Scholl & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and Education (pp. 1163–1174). Boston, MA: Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_89 Swain, M., & Johnson, R. K. (1997). Immersion education: A category within bilingual education. In Immersion education: International perspectives (pp. 1–16). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2005). The evolving sociopolitical context of immersion education in Canada: Some implications for program development. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15, 169–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2005.00086.x Swedish Higher Education Authority. (2016). Higher education in Sweden. Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish Higher Education Authority. Tsou, W., & Kao, S. (2017). Overview of EMI development. In W.  Tsou & S.-M.  Kao (Eds.), English as a medium of instruction in higher education: Implementations and classroom practices in Taiwan (pp. 3–18). Singapore, Singapore: Springer Nature. Wächter, B., & Maiworm, F. (2014). English-taught programmes in European higher education: The state of play in 2014. Bonn, Germany: Lemmens Medien GmbH. Walkinshaw, I., Fenton-Smith, B., & Humphreys, P. (2017). EMI issues and challenges in Asia-­ Pacific higher education: An introduction. In B. Fenton-Smith, P. Humphreys, & I. Walkinshaw (Eds.), English medium instruction in higher education in Asia-Pacific (pp.  1–18). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51976-0_1 Wilson, W. H., & Kamana, K. (2011). Insights from indigenous language immersion in Hawai’i. In D. J. Tedick, D. Christian, & T. William Fortune (Eds.), Immersion education: Practices, policies, possibilities (Bilingual Education & Bilingualism 83, pp.  36–57). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Integrating Content and Language: The Role of Other Languages Than English in an International University Anne Holmen

Abstract  The article presents a study of a five-year strategic project carried out at the University of Copenhagen from 2013 to 2018, with a focus on the role of languages in educational programs across the university. The project was based on needs analyses with students and program directors, and its main output was the development of diverse, locally appropriate models for integrating content and language. Whereas the university’s language policy of parallel language use prioritizes the use of English and Danish for academic purposes, the study underlines the need to include not only these two languages but also to build on other languages for subject specific purposes. The use of languages such as German, French, Latin, Arabic, and Chinese in study programs are motivated by traditional practices as well as by new orientations in the academic labor market. Their value is grounded in disciplinary logic, and they are further developed through bottom-up initiatives. However, the study shows that the formal inclusion of these languages in a university language policy also requires an explicit support from university management. Keywords  Language policy and planning · Parallel language use · Multilingualism · LOTE · Needs analysis · Disciplinary differences

1  Introduction Language policies at many Nordic universities are guided by a principle of parallel language use, which aims at a reasonable balance between the use of English and the use of the local language for teaching, research, administration, and public

A. Holmen (*) Centre for Internationalisation and Parallel Language Use, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 S. Dimova, J. Kling (eds.), Integrating Content and Language in Multilingual Universities, Educational Linguistics 44, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46947-4_3

37

38

A. Holmen

outreach (Holmen, 2018). However, there is a growing concern that the language policy downplays the role of other languages, in spite of a long tradition for teaching a number of modern and classical languages at the same universities and in spite of recent policy papers stressing a need for diversified language proficiency at the academic labor market. At the University of Copenhagen (UCPH), a five-year strategic project studied the role of English and LOTE (Languages Other than English) through needs analyses carried out across the university and through development of new models for combining language proficiency with content learning. This chapter will first introduce the concept of parallel language use and the linguistic profile of UCPH in order to provide the reader with contextual information for the key part of the chapter, which reports on aims and results of the five-year strategy. The discussion focuses on the role of English vis-à-vis Danish and other languages, which is seen as potential institutional change.

2  H  istorical Overview: Parallel Language Use at the University of Copenhagen The university sector in non-Anglophone Europe is increasingly concerned with language issues as a response to internationalization of higher education and academia (see e.g., CRUE, 2017; Gregersen et  al., 2018; HRK, 2012). Universities develop new language policies and practices based on the growing need for English in teaching and research on the one hand and by a concern for the role of the national languages in academic domains on the other hand. The need to find a reasonable balance between the use of English to be part of the global exchange of higher education and research and the continued development of the national language to support major institutions and knowledge flows within the nation-state is strongly voiced in smaller countries at the European margins. According to Cots, Llurda, and Garret (2014), the term “European margins” refers to regions where the local language is not one of the major languages of Europe and where the use of English as a lingua franca for research is an obvious alternative. Denmark and the other four Nordic countries (Iceland, Sweden, Norway, and Finland) fit this description, and in addition, the motivation to switch into English in their higher education is supported by a comparatively high level of English competence in the general population (European Commission, 2012). Furthermore, Nordic universities have been very open towards implementing the Bologna Treaty with its focus on European mobility and international cooperation. Thus, the Nordic countries are now among the European leaders in providing English-taught programs to international as well as domestic students (Wächter & Maiworm, 2014). At the same time, and possibly as a consequence of the Englishization of higher education, national language debates in the Nordic region have often focused on the risk of academic domain loss for the national language (Jónsson, Laurén, Myking, & Picht, 2013) and on the need for national legislation to regulate language policies and practices. One key argument for supporting the use of the national language is the role universities play in

Integrating Content and Language: The Role of Other Languages Than English…

39

maintaining and developing local institutions and civil society. Not only do they educate professionals and other graduates for the local labor market, their staff also carry a key role in producing and disseminating knowledge and taking part in public debate. For the past 15  years, the balance between English and the local language in Nordic higher education has often been discussed under the heading of parallel language use (Holmen, 2015) or parallellingualism (Hultgren, 2014). Parallel language use was coined around the turn of the millennium and was first introduced in a formal document in the Nordic Declaration of Language Policy in 2006 referring to “the concurrent use of several languages within one or more areas” (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2006, p.  93). The Nordic committee who drafted the Declaration was keen to underline that parallel language use is not a general language switch since “none of the languages abolish or replace each other” (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2006, p. 93). As it appears from the definition as well as the extensive literature on parallel language use at Nordic universities (see list of references in Gregersen et al., 2018), the term is both descriptive and normative. On the one hand, it refers to an empirical fact, i.e., the already established everyday practice of parallel language use at Nordic universities where “two or more languages are being used by the same people for research, teaching, communication, and administration” (Gregersen, 2014, p. 20). On the other hand, it refers to the idea that it is possible to influence how both languages are used through “intelligent language strategies” (Gregersen, 2014, p.  20) and how both languages are maintained for academic purposes through support measures. Using parallel language use as the cover term for university language policies has been criticized from many perspectives. The term is vague and imprecise; it builds on a vision of equality between two languages which is unrealistic in a hierarchical academic context; and it tends to ignore the complexity of conflicting interests, e.g., between university management and ministries or between management and staff (Bolton & Kuteeva, 2012; Hultgren, 2014; Preisler, 2009; Tange, 2012). There is also a concern that the focus on striking a reasonable balance between English and the national language will lead to the downgrading of other languages (Haberland & Preisler, 2014; Risager, 2012), and that this will affect the position of other foreign languages in higher education (Daryai-Hansen & Kirilova, 2019) as well as the general perspective on heritage and minority languages in the Nordic region (Ekberg, 2015; Holmen, 2012). The University of Copenhagen (UCPH) included the term parallel language use in its strategic papers as early as 2007 (UCPH, 2007a). That year, the University Board approved a four-year strategy for the development of UCPH called Destination 2012 with the following guiding principle concerning languages: The basis for the language policy is the principle of parallel language use. English will be used to an increasing extent as the medium of instruction and of textbooks, and as the emerging lingua franca of research. It is also important that Danish is maintained as a complete, functional language within higher education and when communicating research (UCPH, 2007b, p. 25, my translation).

The principle of parallel language use was repeated in the next UCPH strategy that covered the period of 2012–2018 (dated in 2012), and it is also referred to in the

40

A. Holmen

new UCPH strategy (from 2019). To support the implementation of the principle, several actions were taken. In 2008, the Centre for Internationalisation and Parallel Language Use (CIP) was established as a research-based language center providing language courses for staff and students in addition to consultancy services for faculties, departments, and central management. In 2013, a committee report analyzed the role of languages for all levels of university administration and governance. The report introduced a distinction for production of webpages and internal communication between complete parallel language use (with full texts in two languages) and targeted parallel language use (with a shorter version of the text in one of the languages). It also underlined the need for inclusive language policies at departmental level to improve communication between international and domestic staff. In 2014, the Board adopted a language policy for the university administration, which stated that because Danish was the legally binding language and the medium of communication with ministries and within UCPH central boards and committees, it was also the preferred language for administration. English may be used when appropriate in specific situations. To sum up, the University Board’s choice of parallel language use as guiding principle in 2007 and the ensuing initiatives taken to implement it across UCPH predominantly focus on the balance between English and Danish, based on the acknowledgement that both languages are important means of communication within the university as well as externally and that language courses are important to secure efficiency of communication in administration, teaching, and research. However, language practices and resources at the university are far more diversified than what the simple model of parallel language use reflects.

3  C  urrent Considerations: UCPH as a Multilingual University? The focus on parallel language in the 2008 strategy was followed by a short paragraph on other languages: UCPH shall profit from the special opportunity of already carrying out research and teaching in a number of languages. Students must be given easily available opportunities to acquire competence in another foreign language and another culture than the Anglosaxon (2007b, p. 25, my translation).

This led to the introduction of the five-year project, More Languages for More Students, which makes up the core of this chapter. However, before turning to this project, it is worth noting that the strategic argument for mentioning multilingualism in the strategy was a general acknowledgement of values connected to the LOTE-languages that are already part of the university’s research and teaching programs. But, which languages are we talking about in this case? In the strategy, they are merely identified as not Anglosaxon, and there are no lists of language resources at UCPH available. However, one method to identify the languages is by looking at

Integrating Content and Language: The Role of Other Languages Than English…

41

the various instructional languages. In 2008, over 40 languages appeared in study programs, either as full bachelor or Master’s programs or as language elements in programs like Theology, African Studies, or Linguistics. The 40+ languages included modern as well as classical languages. Although the Western-European languages that have traditionally been taught in modern language departments in Northern Europe were dominant, some Slavic, Asian, and Middle Eastern languages, as well as Greenlandic and Kiswahili were also offered. Since 2008, the selection of languages offered has been reduced to around 30, and a number of language programs have been merged into area studies with a smaller language component. Nevertheless, UCPH still offers more language studies than any other Danish university, and as implied in the quote above, the languages taught are also supported by research and by the language proficiency of lecturers. In addition to the languages taught, other languages are brought into research through researchers’ field work outside Denmark, their use of source material in different languages, or their personal background. An increasing share of researchers (and students) at UCPH have a non-Danish background. By 2009, around 12% of all newly recruited researchers/lecturers had international backgrounds (Hultgren, 2014) and by 2017, about one third of the 5,400 researchers employed across the university did not have a Danish passport (Danish Agency for Modernisation, 2017). The share is substantially higher in temporary junior positions (PhD students and postdocs) than in tenured senior positions (full or associate professors), and therefore, it is quite difficult to judge if the development towards a more internationalized faculty will continue. Nevertheless, it seems fair to assume than there is a considerable multilingual repertoire among employees at UCPH, among whom there are relatively few native speakers of English. Only 15% of the 1807 international researchers employed at UCPH in 2017 are citizens of a traditionally Anglophone country. In an earlier study on language use among 150 international researchers at UCPH, Jürna (2014) found a similar modest percentage (17%) of native speakers of English and identified 34 different first languages.

4  More Languages for More Students After the UCPH Board decided in 2008 to supplement the main principle of parallel language use in English and Danish with a focus on other languages than the Anglosaxon, this principle was given very little attention across the university during the next 4 years. There was no action plan, no committee set up, and no indication of organizational responsibility for this part of the strategy. Even the language departments hosting the potentially relevant languages seemed to ignore the principle although some of them were very active in establishing the CIP as a follow up to the first part of the strategy. But in 2012, the university rector approached the Faculty of Humanities and asked for an open meeting with heads of language departments, directors of language programs, and experts in language teaching and learning. Based on recommendations from this meeting, a cross-faculty committee

42

A. Holmen

was set up, which included representatives from all six faculties and the central management. The committee identified a number of diversified language needs among students and recommended that UCPH fund a five-year research-supported project on languages for students outside foreign language programs (see also Larsen & Jensen, chapter “Acknowledging the Role of Language in English Medium Instruction: Experiences from a Pilot Project Intervention at University of Copenhagen”, in this volume). The overall aim was to improve language skills across the university in multiple languages with a specific goal to provide a more detailed picture of language needs among students through surveys, interviews, and meetings. Another goal was to develop new tailor-made language activities to meet these needs and to design sustainable models for giving students “easily available opportunities to acquire competence in another foreign language and another culture than the Anglosaxon” (UCPH, 2007b). A project team with research and administrative expertise on languages-in-education was set up with a cross-faculty steering committee. Between 2013 and 2018, the project team was in contact with more than 6,000 bachelor and Master’s students, 800 lecturers, and 1,200 PhD students through surveys. The team also held close to 60 meetings with study board representatives, directors of study programs, faculty representatives, international office representatives, and student counselors. Based on surveys and meetings, and in close collaboration with the content teachers involved, the project team developed and carried out 36 pilot projects that targeted more than 4,400 students. All six faculties (Science, Health, Social Sciences, Theology, Law, and Humanities) took part in one or more pilot projects. From an organizational point of view, it seems fair to conclude that the five-year project managed to involve a wide spectrum of study programs, identify diversified language needs, and develop and carry out new teaching initiatives tailored to meet specific needs, rather than general language courses. The success of the project relied on the ability of the project team to pick up local needs and design either stand-alone language courses that addressed students’ language needs in specific domains or integrated language support in content classes. The major obstacle was a widespread skepticism towards prioritizing language and, in particular, towards using ECTS-points (academic credit) on language related activities, a skepticism most clearly voiced among content lecturers and program directors. They often took on a gate-keeping role and only seemed to allow language issues into their programs if the language needs were expressed by student representatives in their own study boards. From other universities in Northern Europe (e.g., Hult & Källkvist, 2016; Saarinen, 2012), we know that language initiatives are often seen as nice-to-have rather than need-to-have, and that they remain a concern for language experts only and not for education in general. In the UCPH case, the backup from central management and the funding for pilot projects were crucial in the process of uncovering language needs and identifying relevant courses. Another important aspect was to find local burning souls among content teachers who were willing to experiment with the integration of languages into content teaching (on the role of stakeholders and burning souls, see Holmen, 2018). So far, we have looked into the strategy of More Languages for More Students from an organizational point of view. Now we shall turn to the knowledge gained

Integrating Content and Language: The Role of Other Languages Than English…

43

through the needs analyses and pilot projects (for details on each survey see https:// cip.ku.dk/english/strategicinitiatives/languagestrategy/needs-analysis/). Firstly, a substantial share of students across UCPH report experiencing study difficulties related to their foreign language proficiency. The percentage of students experiencing such difficulties ranges from 22% among medical students, 30% at the in Law, Social Sciences, and Humanities, to 52% among students in Theology. When asked to identify the languages in which they experienced study difficulties, English came up as the main language across all faculties, but Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish also appeared (with approximately 10% of students mentioning these languages). With all other languages, there seemed to be disciplinary differences related to the priorities: about 30% in Theology, Social Sciences, Law, and Humanities mentioned German, and about 25% of students in Social Sciences, Law, and Humanities included French. These languages were only mentioned with low frequency in Science and Health. Medical students and students of Philosophy often included Latin and Classical Greek. The study difficulties related to foreign languages that students reported included core study skills such as reading textbooks and research articles in English. One student of Economics gave the following description of his language problems in the survey (translated from Danish): I have HUGE problems with the many academic texts in English at Social Science. There is a lot I don’t understand and I simply don’t get. First of all, since the admission requirement is B level math [and not languages], then there is NO connection between admission requirements and what is expected. The texts should therefore be in Danish. Otherwise, perhaps students should be required to spend some time abroad or complete a qualifying language test before embarking on their studies.

Reading academic English to access subject matter was a concern across all faculties and reported by students, lecturers, and study boards. Apparently, the relatively high level of English among the Danish population (European Commission, 2012) does not suffice for a smooth entry into study programs where reading comprehension in English is taken for granted. Most likely, this is not a matter of level of general proficiency, but rather an unfamiliarity with the academic discourse with its genres, vocabulary, and possibly also with reading strategies and other study skills. In study programs where English is the medium of instruction and assessment, there was a similar concern for the students’ written proficiency in English. In addition, many lecturers experienced a lowered level of student participation in classroom activities (see Henriksen, Holmen, & Kling, 2019). Across the surveys, there was also a consistent pattern of problems with students’ writing skills in Danish, and this did not only apply to students who do not have Danish as their first language. Such academic difficulties were frequently mentioned by both students with Danish L1 and students with Danish L2, and by students with a Danish medium secondary education as well as by international students. In the original mandate for the strategy More Languages for More Students, Danish was not included. However, problems related to Danish appeared so often in surveys and meetings across the university that it seemed fair to mention this as a parallel to English. Lecturer after lecturer in surveys and meetings mentioned

44

A. Holmen

students’ language problems as part of their own personal experience and not as a general pattern. In these comments, they challenged the widespread impression in Danish higher education that students have the necessary and relevant language proficiency in Danish as well as English when they enter university. In general, there is little concern for learning outcome and study quality related to language issues and for diversity among students in this respect (Lueg & Lueg, 2015; Nissen & Ulriksen, 2016). As for the other languages that the students reported as relevant, the reasons mentioned were disciplinary in nature. One important reason was the availability of relevant source literature in languages other than Danish and English. This concern was mentioned very often in connection with German, French, Italian, Latin, and Classical Greek. One student of Theology gave the following example: I think you should expect of the students’ German language skills to be at a much higher level from the beginning, so that texts by Nietzsche and Luther are not handed out in English. As a Danish Lutheran theologian, it is my opinion that it’s a great loss not to have access to the German academic tradition.

Some students also seemed aware of the role of languages for their access to the global labor market, international fieldwork, and internships. The mentioned languages did not only include English, but Chinese, French, German, Greenlandic, Japanese, Portuguese, and Spanish. Prior to travel abroad, many students take language courses on-line, in private language schools, or at the university. However, as a student of Political Science pointed out, the university could do more to prepare students for the international experience that is strongly encouraged: My limited French was a problem while I was on exchange. Both academically and socially. It is problematic that the university seems to think that language competencies include English only. No one is impressed by the fact that a graduate student speaks English – we’re expected to. Foreign languages today go beyond Danish and English.

A student of Law who went on exchange to Scotland might have made a different choice if appropriate language courses had been available: If it had been possible to take a Spanish course, I might have applied for a stay in South America.

In general, the students’ responses in the survey showed an awareness of the role of languages in their future career opportunities, either because they targeted a specific region, e.g., through an international organization or company, or because they saw languages as a way of giving their degree an individual profile. This picture is supported by other Nordic studies (Andersen & Verstraete-Hansen, 2013; Bojesen, 2018; Hellekjær, 2007), by studies of economy related to language issues (Grin, 2012), and by a Danish government policy paper (Danish Government, 2013). If we turn to the pilot projects that were developed by the project team on the basis of the needs analyses and other contact with study programs, similar patterns appear. In total, 36 pilot projects were developed and carried out across UCPH (Larsen & Holmen, 2017). The projects were either extra-curricular or integrated into the content course. Thus they were non-credit bearing and varied in course length. The selection of languages was based on local needs. Thus, 18 projects focused on

Integrating Content and Language: The Role of Other Languages Than English…

45

Academic English and 18 projects on other languages: Arabic, Chinese, Classical Greek, Danish as a second language, German, French, Italian, Latin, and Spanish. Two of these were developed to support students’ fieldwork: one on Arabic for students of Anthropology who were interested in doing ethnographic studies in Metropolitan Copenhagen and one on Spanish for students interested in similar studies in Latin America. The project on Chinese was developed to prepare students of IT and Health for cooperation with a Chinese university. A number of projects focused on providing students with language resources to support their study skills in English and Danish but also in reading within their discipline in German, French, Italian, and classical languages. Presumably, students improved their language proficiency during the pilot projects. However, since they were all developed to support a content area or a field study, their value was connected to quality and efficiency in the core study program and not in languages per se. Therefore, the students’ language proficiency was not assessed, and the projects developed did not really fulfil the criteria of content and language integrated learning (CLIL) courses since language learning was not part of the learning objectives (Dalton-Puffer, 2011). The projects dealing with academic English (and Danish as a second language for students with first languages other than Danish) provided the best opportunities for developing CLIL-like teaching at UCPH.  For the other languages, the language need was restricted to specific skills (e.g., reading, writing, or speaking), and its relevance was clearly subordinate to the content area. Therefore, the insights gained from the five-year strategy must be embedded in different models depending on the function of different languages and the needs expressed within the core studies.

5  Reflections and Future Directions When the five-year project started in 2013, the initiative was given the title More Languages for More Students. At the time, the aspiration of the project team was a plurilingual approach for a broad range of students and thus as a normative end-­ point for the project period. We were aware that colleagues outside language departments might not share the basic premise that more students at UCPH need language proficiency in a wide selection of languages. During the project period, with the many needs analyses and frequent contacts with study programs across all faculties, we realized that we were partly right. UCPH students indeed need training in a number of foreign languages. However, there is a widespread skepticism towards using ECTS-points for language related activities within the curriculum. In general, the students are more positive about integrating content and language than the representatives of content teachers on study boards and in management. But for the students, it is also important that language components solve a problem for them either through supporting their study skills, adding to their individual profile, or giving them access to an international labor market. Therefore, the project team has been very keen on developing a more precise terminology on diversified skills, levels of language proficiency, and motivational factors that are more adequate to

46

A. Holmen

communicate with non-language experts across UCPH. These modes of discussing language are very different from the ways in which languages are discussed within language departments at the same university. This points to a weakness in the implementation of the strategy from 2008. Only to a very limited extent is the project based on what the action plan specified as “the special opportunity of already carrying out research and teaching in a number of languages” (UCPH, 2007b), i.e., on the availability of experts in different languages. Identifying language teachers for specific needs was difficult in the project. In the evaluations, lecturers from language departments underlined that they were not trained to teach academic language proficiency but rather linguistics, literary history, or anthropology (for a parallel challenge within foreign language departments in the United States, see Kramsch, 2014). Therefore, the project relied on the familiarity with applied linguistics, needs analysis, and diversified language instruction at the CIP and with the conceptual framework on teaching and learning languages set up there. Another lesson learned was not to ignore the need for academic English and Danish and thus for a further development of students’ academic language competence after their entry into higher education. Several LOTE also came up as relevant for a variety of reasons depending on disciplinary differences as well as students’ career orientations. To provide these courses with more stability than possible with ad-hoc initiatives, the university needs a diversified and multilingual language policy (Daryai-Hansen & Kirilova, 2019). University language policies are often embedded in wider organizational changes and discourses. Thus, the introduction of parallel language use as the guiding principle in 2008 was an acknowledgement that UCPH may no longer be viewed as a traditional monolingual university, in which it is taken for granted that the medium of instruction is also the first language of the students who have had the same medium of instruction before university and who target a labor market dominated by this language (following van Leeuwen’s definition from 2004). Of course, when looking into the demography of staff and students and their everyday language practices, UCPH has never been monolingual. Nevertheless, until around the turn of the millennium the philosophy of education at UCPH was dominated by Danish. Parallel language use was then introduced to promote English, but at the same time to curb the forces of internationalization in order to protect the national language, Danish. In order to strike the balance between what may appear as the competing discourses related to English and Danish (Hultgren, 2014), other languages were often ignored. However, the language policy from 2008 also seemed to have sparked an interest – however modest – in the role of languages in general for the quality of teaching, for lecturers’ and researchers’ professional identity and cooperation, and for the university as a workplace and an organization contributing to the knowledge economy. Because of the Rector’s initiative in 2013, this language interest was developed into a strategic initiative with the purpose of unfolding the potentials of More Languages for More Students (including other languages than English and Danish). The project drew on students’ and lecturers’ everyday experiences with teaching and learning, as well as their research, communication, and international networking. Thus, the project’s main quality was its groundedness in the practices of academia, and its innovative strengths depend very much on individual burning

Integrating Content and Language: The Role of Other Languages Than English…

47

souls supported by language expertise (Holmen, 2018). However, the project has also been challenged by a well-known tendency for language issues to fall into the “nice-to-have category” rather than the “need-to-have category” (see e.g., Saarinen, 2012). In that respect, the last decade has shown that the support from the Rector’s office and the University Board at UCPH has been highly influential in promoting new language initiatives beyond the local, grassroots level. In addition, the project has brought evidence that teaching in higher education institutions forms specific types of sociolinguistic situations that are regulated from above and challenged and inspired from below (Spolsky, 2004). Where are we going from here? Recently, the Danish government has launched a new National Centre for Foreign Languages with a mandate to support foreign languages throughout the educational system (Danish Government, 2017). One of its tasks within higher education is to develop ways of integrating language with content areas to develop candidates with a double or supplementary competence. This may be a way to follow up on the insights gained through needs analyses and pilot projects at UCPH in More Languages for More Students and extend the initiative to a majority of Danish universities and maybe also to a wider range of languages. It may also challenge current models for integrating content and language in higher education, e.g., by developing new educational practices in which knowledge is transferred from language to the other. This may take place within variants of the traditional Nordic simultaneous parallel code use (Arnbjörnsdóttir & Ingvarsdóttir, 2017; see also Arnbjörnsdóttir, this volume) where one language is used for curriculum input and another language for production and dialogue. It may also take place through lecturers’ deliberate use of translanguaging or other translational methodologies, and through teaching practices that encourage students to draw on their multilingual semiotic resources (Canagarajah, 2011). Nevertheless, regardless of how effective such measures may be in providing students with supplementary language skills within their content area, we must not ignore that they also require the involvement of specific language expertise. These measures build on high-level language proficiency within the relevant academic field but also provide insights into the role of multimodal literacies, genres, and vocabularies for learning in higher education, and on insights into intercultural competence and appropriate teaching methodologies (Kramsch, 2014). Thus, the success of content and language integrated programs depends not only on an awareness of the role of languages in learning environments, but also on the availability of graduates from quality foreign language programs (Andersen & Verstraete-Hansen, 2013).

References Andersen, M. S., & Verstraete-Hansen, L. (2013). Hvad gør vi med sprog? Behov for og holdninger til fremmedsprog i den danske centraladministration i et uddannelsespolitisk perspektiv [What do we do with languages? Need for and attitudes to foreign languages in the Danish central administration in an educational policy perspective]. Copenhagen, Denmark: Copenhagen Business School.

48

A. Holmen

Arnbjörnsdóttir, B., & Ingvarsdóttir, H. (Eds.). (2017). Language development across the life span. English in Iceland: From input to output. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Bojesen, H. (Ed.) (2018). Hvis du ikke kan sproget… Om flersprogethed og læring på RUCs sprogprofiler [If you can’t speak the language… About multilingualism and learning in RUC’s language profiles]. Roskilde, Denmark: Samfundslitteratur. Bolton, K., & Kuteeva, M. (2012). English as an academic language at a Swedish university: Parallel language use and the ‘threat’ of English. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33(5), 429–447. Canagarajah, S. (2011). Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for research and pedagogy. Applied Linguistics Review, 2, 1–28. Cots, J. M., Llurda, E., & Garrett, P. (2014). Language policies and practices in the internationalisation of higher education on the European margins: An introduction. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35(4), 311–317. CRUE. (2017). Linguistic policy for the internationalisation of the Spanish university system: A framework document. Executive summary. Crue Universidades Españolas. Retrieved January 14, 2019, from http://www.crue.org/Documentos%20compartidos/Sectoriales/ Internacionalizaci%C3%B3n%20y%20Coorperaci%C3%B3n/Politica_Executive%20summary_Version%20Final%20Reducido.pdf Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0267190511000092 Danish Agency for Modernisation. (2017). ISOLA-Data. Unpublished internal document. Danish Government. (2013). Øget indsigt gennem globalt udsyn. Flere studerende på studieophold I udlandet, styrkede internationale læringsmiljøer og bedre fremmedsprogskompetencer [Increased insight through global outlook. Several students on study abroad, strengthened international learning environments and better foreign language competencies]. Retrieved January 14, 2019, from https://ufm.dk/publikationer/2013/oget-indsigt-gennem-globalt-udsyn#cookieoptin Danish Government. (2017). Strategi for styrkelse af fremmedsprog i uddannelsessystemet [Strategy for strengthening foreign languages in the education system]. Retrieved January 14, 2019, from https://ufm.dk/publikationer/2017/strategi-for-styrkelse-af-fremmedsprog-iuddannelsessystemet Daryai-Hansen, P., & Kirilova, M. (2019). Signs of plurilingualism: Current plurilingual countermoves in Danish higher education. International Journal of Bias, Identity and Diversities in Education, 4(2), 43–58. Ekberg, L. (2015). Flerspråkigheten och den nordiska språkgemenskapen [Multilingualism and the Nordic language community]. Sprog i Norden, 2015, 9–22. Retrieved January 14, 2019, from http://ojs.statsbiblioteket.dk/index.php/sin/issue/archive European Commission. (2012). Europeans and their languages. Special Eurobarometer 386. Retrieved January 14, 2019, from http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ ebs/ebs_386_en.pdf Gregersen, F. (Ed.). (2014). Hvor parallelt: Om parallellspråkighet på Nordens universitet [How parallel: On parallel language use at Nordic universities]. Copenhagen, Denmark: Nordic Council of Ministers. Gregersen, F., Josephson, O., Huss, L., Holmen, A., Kristoffersen, G., Kristiansen, M., … Bernharðsson, H. (2018). More parallel, please! Sprogbrug i internationaliseringsprocesser. Nordisk Gruppe for Parallelsprogligheds afsluttende rapport med 11 anbefalinger til universiteterne om mønsterpraksis for brug af internationale og lokale sprog. Afgivet til Nordisk Ministerråd, oktober 2017. [Language use in processes of internationalisation. Final report of the Nordic group of parallel language use with 11 recommendations for universities about best practice for use of international and local languages]. Copenhagen, Denmark: Nordic Ministry. https://doi.org/10.6027/TN2018-523 Grin, F. (2012). The economics of the multilingual workplace (Routledge studies in sociolinguistics). New York, NY: Routledge.

Integrating Content and Language: The Role of Other Languages Than English…

49

Haberland, H., & Preisler, B. (2014). The position of Danish, English and other languages at Danish Universities in the context of Danish society. In X. Vila & V. Brexta (Eds.), Language policy in higher education. The case of medium-sized languages (pp.  15–42). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Hellekjær, G. O. (2007). Fremmedspråk i norsk næringsliv – engelsk er ikke nok! [Foreign language in Norwegian business  – English is not enough!]. Fremmedspråkscentret. Fokus på språk 3. Retrieved January 14, 2019, from https://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/147924/Fokusnr3.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Henriksen, B., Holman, A., & Kling, J. (2019). English medium instruction in multilingual and multicultural universities. Academics’ voices from the northern European context. Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge. Hochschulrektorenkonferenz (HRK). (2012). Die deutschen Hochschulen internationalisieren! Beiträge zur Hochschulpolitik 2011 [Language policy at German universities 2011] (pp.  51–67). Bonn, Germany: HRK.  Retrieved January 14, 2019, from https://www.hrk.de/ fileadmin/_migrated/content_uploads/Empfehlung_Sprachenpolitik_MV_22112011.pdf Holmen, A. (2012). Efterord: Parallelsproglighed og flersprogethed på nordiske universiteter [Postscript: Parallel language use and multilingualism at Nordic universities.]. Nordand, 7(2), 161–169. Holmen, A. (2015). Parallel language strategy. In N. van Deusen-Scholl & S.  May (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education. Second and foreign language education (3rd ed., pp. 301–311). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Holmen, A. (2018). Shaping a multilingual language policy. Gatekeepers and drivers of change. In M. Siiner, F. Hult, & T. Kupisch (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on language acquisition planning (pp. 137–154). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Hult, F. M., & Källkvist, M. (2016). Global flows in local language planning: Articulating parallel language use in Swedish university policies. Current Issues in Language Planning, 17(1), 56–71. Hultgren, A. K. (2014). Whose parallellingualism? Overt and covert ideologies in Danish university language policies. Multilingua, 33(1–2), 61–87. Jónsson, S., Laurén, C., Myking, J., & Picht, H. (2013). Parallelspråk og domene. Nordisk språkplanlegging på 2000-tallet med særlig vekt på forsknings- og utdanningssektoren. Olso, Norway: Novus Forlag. Jürna, M. (2014). Linguistic realities at the University of Copenhagen. In A.  K. Hultgren, F. Gregersen, & J. Thøgersen (Eds.), English in Nordic universities: Ideologies and practices (pp. 225–249). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. Kramsch, C. (2014). Teaching foreign languages in an era of globalization: Introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 98, 296–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2014.12057 Larsen, S., & Holmen, A. (2017). Towards more languages for more students at the University of Copenhagen: The interplay between local and global drivers of change. CASALC Review, 2, 132–144. Lueg, K., & Lueg, R. (2015). Why do students choose English as a medium of instruction? A Bourdieusian perspective on the study strategies of non-native English speakers. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14(1), 5–30. Nissen, C. F. R., & Ulriksen, L. (2016). Sker der noget med læringsudbyttet, når undervisningssproget skiftes? [Do the learning outcomes change when the language of instruction changes?]. Dansk Universitetspædagogisk Tidsskrift, 11(20), 14–103. Nordic Council of Ministers. (2006). Declaration of Nordic language policy 2006. Copenhagen, Denmark. Retrieved from http://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:700895/ FULLTEXT01.pdf Preisler, B. (2009). Complementary languages: The national language and English as working languages in European universities. Angles on the English-Speaking World, 9(Special Issue), 10–28.

50

A. Holmen

Risager, K. (2012). Language hierarchies at the international university. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 216, 111–130. Saarinen, T. (2012). Internationalization of Finnish higher education  – Is language an issue? International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 216, 157–173. Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Tange, H. (2012). Organising language at the international university: Three principles of linguistic organisation. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 33(3), 287–300. https:// doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2012.661735 UCPH (University of Copenhagen). (2007a). Destination 2012: Strategy for the University of Copenhagen. Retrieved June 4, 2019, http://www.e-pages.dk/ku/236/ UCPH (University of Copenhagen). (2007b). Destination 2012: Action plan. Appendix to University Board Meeting 23. UCPH (University of Copenhagen). (2019). Talent and collaboration – Strategy 2023. Retrieved June 4, 2019, https://about.ku.dk/strategy2023/download-pdf/strategy_2023_UK_print.pdf Van Leeuwen, C. (2004). Multilingual universities in Europe. Models and realities. In B. Wilkinson (Ed.), Integrating content and language. Meeting the challenges of a multilingual higher education (pp. 576–584). Maastricht, The Netherlands: Universitaire Pers Maastricht. Wächter, B., & Maiworm, F. (2014). English-taught programmes in European higher education: The state of play in 2014. Bonn, Germany: Lemmens Medien GmbH.

Part II

Integrating Content and Language Across Contexts

Internationalizing Japan’s Undergraduate Education Through English Medium Instruction Annette Bradford

Abstract  Over the last decade, Japanese universities have increasingly integrated content and language as part of their efforts to internationalize. For Japan, integrated content and language endeavors are primarily focused on English medium instruction (EMI) set in motion by government initiatives to increase the numbers of international students in the country and educate Japanese students to become globally competitive. As EMI is becoming more widespread, it is finding ways to accommodate both international and domestic students. Program implementers are overcoming initial concerns, and EMI is finding its footing within the higher education system. However, some questions regarding its role still remain. This chapter outlines government policies that have promoted EMI growth and gives insights into how history and policy have affected patterns of EMI implementation. It describes some of the issues that undergraduate EMI programs are dealing with in their effort to internationalize higher education and reflects on the future directions for EMI in Japan. Keywords  Japan · English medium instruction · Internationalization of higher education · Undergraduate degree programs

1  Introduction The monolingual nature of Japanese university campuses is regularly highlighted as a problem that holds Japanese institutions back in international rankings, isolates them from the global academic community, and prevents their students from being ready to enter the global workforce (e.g., Sawa, 2017). This is somewhat ironic A. Bradford (*) Oxford EMI, Tokyo, Japan e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 S. Dimova, J. Kling (eds.), Integrating Content and Language in Multilingual Universities, Educational Linguistics 44, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46947-4_4

53

54

A. Bradford

considering that Japanese universities were born as multilingual institutions established to import Western knowledge in the late 1800s. In the push for modernization at that time, many students received foreign language training so that they could access the predominant scientific work of a particular discipline. Thus, English, French, and German became the primary languages of university instruction. The majority of academics were foreign and taught in their own languages. However, practical concerns about managing this linguistic diversity and tensions between a desire for foreign knowledge and avoidance of foreign influence soon led to the Japanese language becoming the medium of instruction. That degree of multilingualism has not since been seen in Japanese higher education. Today, Japan’s universities are internationalizing and are once again employing more languages as a medium of instruction. They are encouraged by a government that views language as a key tool for global competitiveness (MEXT, 2012a). However, although the concept of internationalization might evoke ideas of multilingualism or parallel language use within a university, in Japan neither of these is the case. English is the dominant language for internationalization and international programs in other languages are rare. Moreover, while English may operate as a lingua franca within certain international programs, the Englishization of communication has not become prevalent within universities and Japanese remains the working language within higher education. For Japan, integrated content and language (ICL) endeavors are primarily focused on EMI programs and courses, many of which are simply added on to existing Japanese-medium programs (Ota & Horiuchi, 2018a) with little thought to their actual goals or the pedagogical processes of ICL. Those involved in Japan’s higher education EMI implementation are currently seeking an appropriate model and role for EMI in its institutions so that EMI can fulfill its potential as a driving force for enhanced learning and increased internationalization (Bradford & Brown, 2018a; Kuwamura, 2018). EMI can help to enhance the higher education system and institutional prestige, strengthen the quality and accessibility of Japanese research, attract international students, and help domestic students to develop international and intercultural skills. Japanese government policy has promoted this growth through its initiatives to support EMI initially for international students, and then for domestic students. Since 2009, the government has directed large-scale funds towards establishing EMI in certain institutions. Currently, undergraduates can study academic content in English in just over 40% of Japan’s approximately 780 universities and can complete a full degree program taught in English in at least 73 faculties across 40 universities (MEXT, 2017). In this chapter, such degree programs comprised completely of EMI courses are termed English-taught programs (ETPs). Beginning with a historical overview of EMI in Japan, this chapter summarizes government policies that have both directly and indirectly promoted its expansion and gives insights into how history and polices have affected the patterns and processes of EMI implementation. It describes some of the issues that undergraduate EMI programs are dealing with in their efforts to internationalize undergraduate higher education and reflects on the future directions for EMI in Japan.

Internationalizing Japan’s Undergraduate Education Through English Medium Instruction

55

2  Historical Overview of EMI in Japan 2.1  Policies Promoting EMI EMI in Japan has a long but unsettled history, which has had effects on its current implementation. As Mulvey (2018) discusses, EMI used to be a cornerstone of Japanese education, but it has been beleaguered by practical and nationalistic concerns, which have, so far, hindered its sustainability. It has roots in the early Meiji Period (1868–1893), when Japan began to import Western knowledge and ideas by inviting foreign faculty, instructors, and engineers to Japan and sending Japanese bureaucrats, academics, and students to Europe and North America. As the government-­sponsored students returned to Japan, they replaced the foreign faculty and, by government ordinance, in 1893 Japanese became the medium of instruction (Hall, 1998; Nakayama, 1989). Instead of being considered as a tool for learning, English became an academic subject to be learned (Smith & Motomichi, 2003). It was not until the 1980s that discussion of EMI resurfaced in Japan. During the period of Japan’s rapid economic expansion, the country needed more bilingual, interculturally literate staff. It also needed to improve its relationships with its Asia-­ Pacific neighbors and its political presence in the region. Consequently, Japan started a full-scale discussion about how it could internationalize education (Ishikawa, 2011, pp. 207–208; McConnell, 2000; Yonezawa, 2014, p. 40). At this time, internationalization efforts included (1) government guidelines for encouraging schools and universities to accommodate returnees (children with Japanese citizenship who have received the majority of their K-12 education outside of Japan), (2) a plan to accept 100,000 international students by the end of 2000, and (3) the establishment of the Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET) Program, a scheme which invites young people from English-speaking countries to Japan to foster international perspectives, promote international exchange, and strengthen language education (McConnell, 2000, p. 1). The government also began to allow non-­ Japanese faculty members to gain tenure at national universities. These faculty members (gaikokujin kyoushi) were to teach their specialties in English (Mulvey, 2018). However, as both Hall (1998) and Mulvey (2018) discuss, these tenured positions did not materialize as originally intended, and many foreign professors were soon relegated to teaching English language classes on short-term contracts. One of the policies implemented during this period was the 100,000 International Students Plan (Ryugakusei Ukeire J u man-nin Keikaku) of 1983 that focused on increasing the number of international students in Japanese higher education. This plan, along with 2008s 300,000 International Students Plan (Ryūgakusei Sanjūman-­ nin Keikaku), is often credited with driving Japan’s current wave of EMI.  The 100,000 International Students Plan had a goal of accepting 100,000 international students by the year 2000. It was supported by the expansion of Overseas Development Assistance (ODA), which gave scholarships to international students, and it was accompanied by an easing of regulations to allow international students

56

A. Bradford

to work part-time in Japan. As a result, many international students arrived from Japan’s regional neighbors. The 100,000 International Students Plan had initially not included provision for the development of EMI. In fact, it specifically stated that Japanese language courses and Japanese language teacher training should be strengthened in order to receive international students. However, interim government evaluation of the policy’s progress and recommendations from the 1993 United States-Japan Conference on Cultural and Educational Interchange (CULCON) prompted a focus on developing EMI programs for short-term visiting students from Europe and the United States (Kamibeppu, 2012; Ota, 2003). The Ministry of Education’s Advisory Committee on the Promotion of Short-Term Student Exchange Programs thus advocated “shifting the concept of study abroad from studying Japan and Japanese to studying your academic field in Japan [emphasis added]” (Ota, 2003, p. 40). Consequently, the number of EMI programs at major national universities began to increase. The 100,000 international student target was met in 2003 (MEXT, 2004), and Japan entered into a phase of higher education internationalization which Ninomiya, Knight, and Watanabe (2009) describe as a phase when the quality, in addition to the quantity, of international students became a focal point. Whereas changes to student visa rules made by the Ministry of Justice in the 1980s and again in the early 2000s enabled the 100,000 international student target to be reached, they also raised concerns over increases in overstays, illegal labor, and the quality of students admitted to Japan (Breaden, 2013; Kamibeppu, 2012). Therefore, under the guidance of a report prepared by the Central Council for Education in 2003, a review of the criteria and methods for selecting students for Japanese government scholarship programs and entrance into universities was undertaken (MEXT, 2004; Ninomiya et al., 2009). This focus on quality marks a shift in the 2000s in the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology’s (MEXT) rationale for its international student policy – moving from international understanding and foreign aid to a more strategic emphasis on recruiting high-quality international students who could contribute to the research agendas and overall competitiveness of Japanese universities and the Japanese economy (Ishikawa, 2011; Kamibeppu, 2012; Ninomiya et  al., 2009). New government initiatives were not specifically aimed at expanding EMI at this time. However, several EMI activities were supported by programs such as the twenty-first Century Center of Excellence (COE) Program (2003), the Distinctive University Education Support (Good Practice) Programs (2003), and the Global COE Program (2007). These programs were implemented to enhance the research functions and quality of education in universities. In the late 2000s, policy focus related to EMI transitioned from small-scale exchange programs to the introduction of ETPs. In 2008, the Prime Minister announced that an increase in foreign nationals in Japan would enhance the nation’s global competitiveness, and so the 300,000 International Students Plan (Ryūgakusei Sanjūman-nin Keikaku) was launched. The government aims to have 300,000 international students studying in Japan by 2020. When the plan was announced, there

Internationalizing Japan’s Undergraduate Education Through English Medium Instruction

57

were 123,829 international students in Japanese tertiary education; by May 2018, this number had risen to 208,9011 (JASSO, 2008, 2019). ETPs were established to cater to these students. A central plank of the 300,000 International Students Plan is a funding project called the Project for Establishing University Network for Internationalization (Global 30). This funding project (commonly known as the G30 Project) supported 13 Japanese universities in implementing both graduate and undergraduate ETPs between 2009 and 2014. In 2009, the G30 universities together committed to launching at least 33 new undergraduate and 124 new graduate ETPs by 2014 (MEXT, 2009a). This goal was surpassed in the academic year 2013–2014, the final year of the G30 funding cycle. At this time, the G30 universities offered 33 new undergraduate and 153 new graduate ETPs as reported by MEXT (2012b). Yet, many of the new ETPs were small. Only five universities reported student intakes greater than 20 in any one of their new undergraduate programs in the final year of the project, and many universities reported intakes of only “few,” “limited,” or “a select number” of undergraduate students (MEXT, 2012b).2 Still, the G30 Project and the competitive nature of the Japanese higher education market have catalyzed universities across Japan that did not receive G30 funding to also expand their EMI courses and ETPs (Kuwamura, 2009; Yaguchi & Seaton, 2014). As the G30 ETPs were under development, the Japanese government, with its 2010 New Growth Strategy, shifted its focus away from inbound international students and started to place more emphasis on fostering the international skills of Japanese students, nurturing what they call Global Human Resources (global jinzai). Newer initiatives and funding have concentrated on encouraging students to study abroad: for example, the Go Global Japan Project (2012) focuses on developing programs to send Japanese students overseas, the Tobitate! (Leap for Tomorrow) Study Abroad Initiative (2013) provides scholarships and other aid with the help of private-sector contributions. In recent years, there have been increases in government loans for study abroad. To support these initiatives, there has been a growth in classes taught in English to help prepare students for overseas study and more generally, developing their international skills. EMI now has a dual role in Japan, serving both international and domestic students. Policies have cumulated in the most recent large government funding scheme, the Top Global University Project, which essentially draws together past project goals. The Top Global University Project selected 37 universities in 2014 to receive support for comprehensive internationalization and university reform (MEXT, 2014). This includes increasing the numbers of joint degree programs, partnerships with overseas institutions, and students who have earned credits at foreign universities. Under this project, universities are improving the ratios of foreign faculty and international students; reforming management systems to promote transparency;

1  This number does not include the 90,079 international students enrolled in language schools teaching Japanese. 2  See Ota and Horiuchi (2018b) for discussion of admission quotas.

58

A. Bradford

and expanding EMI (MEXT, n.d.). Significantly, under this project, universities are expected to implement activities that play to their strengths, and they are encouraged to further develop their current international endeavors. This mandate is promising for the future sustainability of EMI, as it makes it less likely that previously established EMI programs will lose their momentum. In addition, the activities that the Top Global University Project promotes are likely to encourage increasingly more English use in Japanese universities (Rose & McKinley, 2018).

2.2  English Medium Instruction in Practice MEXT defines EMI courses as courses conducted entirely in English, excluding those whose primary purpose is language education (MEXT, 2015). This definition is clear in that classes must be entirely English medium; however, the phrase “primary purpose” allows for some variation in interpretation. Depending on how this is understood by universities (or, in many cases, the individual tasked with filling in survey documents), some courses which fall into the content and language integrated learning (CLIL) category or even those that earn some language credits may be counted in these figures. Despite this ambiguity, researchers in Japan have a reasonably good idea of the number of institutions with EMI classes. MEXT has collected data to track the number of EMI courses and programs in Japan since 2005, and the 2015 MEXT survey achieved a 99% response rate (MEXT, 2017). As Table 1 shows, MEXT data highlight a rapid increase in the number of universities

Table 1  Japanese universities offering undergraduate EMI courses by year

Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

# of schools 176 185 194 190 194 –a 222 241 262 274 305

Note. aData were not collected for 2010 due to the Great East Japan Earthquake Source: MEXT (2009b, 2013, 2017)

Internationalizing Japan’s Undergraduate Education Through English Medium Instruction

59

offering EMI in Japan, particularly since 2010 after government funding began to directly encourage EMI development. There is a great deal of variation in the ways that different higher education institutions are implementing EMI in undergraduate education, not least because of the dual role that EMI holds. In her research, Shimauchi (2016, 2018) categorized ETPs into three types based on their curriculum structure and the types of students enrolled. Shimauchi’s models are: (1) the Dejima model, in which students (primarily international and Japanese returnee) study isolated from mainstream campus life, perhaps even on a separate campus; (2) the Crossroad model, in which both domestic and international students study together; and (3) the Global Citizen model, in which EMI is, for the most part, used to cultivate international awareness and skills among Japanese students who have graduated from domestic high schools. These categories can be applied to EMI more generally, not only to ETPs. The Dejima model received its name because of the isolation implied by the term Dejima, the island in Nagasaki harbor that for 200 hundred years was the only place in Japan open to foreign trade. These EMI programs are likely focused towards students who have completed high school outside of Japan. They are often well structured, with a sequence of courses that build specific knowledge. However, it may be difficult for students to take classes from other areas of the university outside of this structure. The faculty members teaching in these programs, both international and Japanese, are likely to have completed their degrees outside of Japan and have work experience abroad. They have often been hired specifically to teach in the program (Bradford, 2015). The second type of EMI programs is the Crossroad model. In this model, international and domestic students earn the same degree, but there may be different requirements regarding the number of credits to be taken in English, depending on whether the students entered the program via an international (e.g., using Test of English as a Foreign Language [TOEFL]/International English Language Testing System [IELTS] scores and interviews) or domestic (e.g., using Japanese domestic entrance exam results) route. It is likely that students will study some of their classes with short-term exchange students in this type of program. In fact, some of the classes may have been specifically designed for short-term students (with limited numbers of classes taught in English, some universities cross-list courses in multiple programs). The classroom could consist of students from diverse cultural and academic backgrounds with a variety of motives for enrolling in EMI. Mirroring the diversity of courses often on offer in this type of program, faculty teaching in Crossroad programs could be either full- or part-time, foreign or Japanese. Smaller universities, in their efforts to provide sufficient EMI courses, may have greater numbers of faculty members teaching out-of-field. The third model, the Global Citizen model, is the most common EMI program type in Japan, partly because it lends itself more readily to an EMI, rather than ETP, model. In Global Citizen model programs, students usually study a limited number of EMI classes as part of, or as a supplement to, their mainstream Japanese medium program. Some programs may be structured as a sequence of classes, others may consist of ad hoc elective classes with or without a target number of EMI credits to

60

A. Bradford

be earned. Foreign students present in the classroom will most likely be those enrolled in the standard Japanese medium four-year degree program, but short-term exchange students may also be present. Because of their focus on Japanese students, these programs may be more likely to have faculty members teaching academic content courses who have formal training in English as a foreign language and applied linguistics. As EMI develops, the boundaries between the three EMI program models are becoming increasingly blurred. For example, programs once classified as Dejima are opening to students from across campus. In some cases, this is at the request of international student enrollees who desire greater contact with domestic Japanese students; in other cases, it occurs as universities want to provide more internationalized learning experiences to their domestic students (Bradford, 2015). In other instances, some newer Global Citizen programs are becoming more Dejima-like in their structure, with domestic students enrolled in programs designed to enhance their global competitiveness in departments or faculties established specifically for these programs. Shimauchi (2016, 2018) found Crossroad programs to be rare. Given that international student numbers remain relatively low in Japan (2.4% of bachelor level students are international, compared to an OECD average of 4.2% (OECD, 2017), it is unlikely that the number of Crossroad programs that serve “a balance [emphasis added] of domestic and international students” (Shimauchi, 2018, p. 182) will rise substantially in the near future. EMI programs are likely to retain a primary focus towards either international or domestic students, which reflects the policy era in which the program was conceived. That said, as EMI is becoming more established and widespread, programs are, in the spirit of comprehensive internationalization and the Top Global University Project, tending to find ways to accommodate both international and domestic students.

3  Current Issues Facing EMI in Japan In my previous research, I identified four types of challenge that affect Japanese universities implementing ETPs: linguistic, cultural, administrative, and institutional (Bradford, 2015, 2016). In the following section, I draw upon the data and organizing framework from this research, along with more recent academic research, to discuss some of the current concerns regarding EMI in Japan.

Internationalizing Japan’s Undergraduate Education Through English Medium Instruction

61

3.1  Language Issues 3.1.1  Language Proficiency The linguistic debates surrounding EMI in Japan are much the same as in other non-­ Anglophone nations. Concerns about adequate student and faculty member English language proficiency, lack of student confidence in their non-native English-­ speaking lecturers, and weak content learning outcomes, all similar to those discussed by Macaro, Curle, Pun, An, and Dearden (2018) in their multi-country EMI review, are also seen in the Japanese context. Unfortunately, early research about EMI and much media discussion about English in Japan tend to cast a shadow on English-based education (e.g., Burgess, Gibson, Klaphake, & Selzer, 2010; Miller, 2014; Stewart, 2016; Toh, 2016). These narratives approach the topics from a deficit model perspective, without thoroughly examining actual EMI practices. They assume that Japanese students cannot complete EMI programs successfully; Japanese instructors cannot provide quality EMI instruction; and that difficulties with English will create a widening gap between those who can perform well in English and those who cannot (Yamamoto & Ishikura, 2018). Seargeant (2009), in his analysis of English in Japan, describes contentions surrounding English language teaching in Japan as emphasizing “a ‘problem’ within the current system” which “becomes in effect, the default position from which all arguments are built” (p. 47). This has implications for the way EMI is viewed, especially by those not directly connected with EMI programs. While language proficiency is undoubtedly a factor which must be addressed carefully when designing and implementing EMI programs, the deficit model overlooks the many examples of successful EMI currently taking place in Japan. Researchers have written about the value of collaboration between content and language teaching faculty for supporting the linguistic needs of Japanese students in Global Citizen type courses at their university (Brown, 2017; Fujimoto-Adamson & Adamson, 2018; Iyobe & Li, 2018). At their particular institution, English for academic purposes classes have been tailored to support students who will move into EMI bridge classes, team-taught by a content and language specialist, before enrolling in upper level EMI content classes in their final 2 years of study. Iyobe and Li (2018) describe this sequence as falling on the CLIL continuum because the second-­ year bridge classes strike a balance between language and content learning goals. In addition to supporting students, this stepwise style of program has the added benefit of also supporting faculty members. Interdisciplinary information sharing about EMI pedagogies and linguistic dilemmas has positive effects on classroom practice and faculty cohesion (Bradford, 2015; Dearden & Akincioglu, 2016). The students in the program described above are fairly typical of students at non-­ elite institutions: predominantly Japanese and graduates of local high schools. However, this program is rather atypical of EMI programs in Japan, in that it is well-­coordinated with clear program level leadership. That said, it exemplifies a growing trend for language and content faculty collaboration and CLIL teaching.

62

A. Bradford

Universities that 4 or 5 years ago may have taken an ad hoc approach to EMI, in their rush to spend government funds or simply get on the EMI “train” (Macaro, 2015, p. 7), are now reassessing and restructuring their programs towards greater collaboration between language and content classes and more coherence in the content curriculum. 3.1.2  EMI or Language Learning? Despite the trend towards curriculum coordination and collaboration among content and language teaching faculty, one enduring issue for EMI in Japan is the confounding of English language teaching and learning and EMI. Hashimoto (2018) points out that at the national level, EMI is seen to be a key component of fostering globally proficient young people (global jinzai). However, she notes that even though the Japanese government regards EMI as a means for acquiring academic content, and despite the fact that the official definition of global jinzai includes such qualities as self-direction, a spirit for challenge, and an understanding of other cultures, there is disproportionate national emphasis on English language proficiency. In practice, with the ever-increasing need for measurable outcomes, global jinzai are widely understood to be young people with high scores on standardized English examinations such as the Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) or the TOEFL. The confounding of EMI with English language teaching and learning also happens at the institutional and research levels. Chapple (2015) reports a tendency among many universities in Japan to assume that simply teaching in English will automatically raise the English proficiency of students without pedagogical intervention. Challenging this assumption, he finds that nearly half of the 76 students in his study, many of whom enrolled in EMI classes expressly for the purpose of improving their English, self-reported no improvement in their English skills over a semester of EMI tuition. Many Japanese universities regularly measure their EMI students’ English proficiency via external tests such as the TOEFL.  However, as undergraduate students are almost always taking contemporaneous English language classes, the resultant test scores cannot be attributed to EMI classes. In published research, we regularly see arguments based on an assumption that the only purpose of EMI is as a tool for improving English skills and producing “linguistic resources” (e.g., Kedzierski, 2016, p. 375), or that it is a “methodology for classroom ELT [English language teaching]” (e.g., Saito, 2018, p. 182). The confounding of EMI and English in all of these spheres has arguably affected the delivery of individual EMI and English language courses. It is increasingly common for instructors in Japan to believe they are teaching “on-trend” EMI classes when they are in fact using content unrelated to the students’ course of study to focus on language acquisition.

Internationalizing Japan’s Undergraduate Education Through English Medium Instruction

63

3.2  Culture Issues 3.2.1  The Classroom Climate Questions about the most effective ways to provide a meaningful EMI learning environment are still under discussion in Japan (Ishikura, 2015). EMI classes have been described as following an American standard, with professors adopting westernized teaching techniques, and transparency and accountability practices (Tsuneyoshi, 2005). These classes stand in opposition to traditional Japanese academic culture, where, based on Confucian ideology, classrooms generally emphasize the acquisition of knowledge as a process of transmission from teachers to learners, rather than as a process of learner-centered creation. Furthermore, Japanese academics are known to generally favor research over teaching, and administrative duties occupy a large part of their time (Fukudome, 2015). Consequently, the lecture still plays a major role in undergraduate classroom practice. University courses are often relaxed and unstructured, with opaque course descriptions and evaluation methods. Ishikura (2015) observes that often, in addition to learning content, Japanese students in EMI classes are also learning how to learn in a very new environment. Across Japan, EMI courses are in fact being delivered in a variety of ways. In some EMI programs, especially those designed for short-term visiting exchange students, or those created to initially attract international students under the G30 program, a westernized approach may prevail. Faculty members who have graduated from English-speaking universities in the West may model their own educational experiences in the classroom, and programs that require earned credits to be internationally transferable may favor strict accountability measures. However, other faculty members teach their EMI classes using a more traditional Japanese pedagogic approach. And, as Crossroad and, in particular, Global-Citizen type programs are very likely to follow well-established Japanese frameworks regarding the number of classroom hours per semester and credits earned per course, they will not usually have the heavier reading and assessment workloads often associated with western-style course structures. Brown and Adamson have written about blended academic norms that are emerging in Japanese EMI (Brown & Adamson, 2012; Brown, 2017). They point out that faculty and student expectations in an EMI course offered on a Japanese campus by Japanese faculty for Japanese students will likely arise from local academic culture, yet they caution that it would be an oversimplification to assume that an EMI program, course, or individual class will be based on either Japanese or western norms. Brown (2017) argues that in contemporary EMI “notions of western pedagogy are layered on a base of Japanese academic norms” (p. 154), noting that Japanese norms are themselves changing to increasingly focus on student learning outcomes, in part due to greater competition for students. A constant struggle for those teaching in EMI programs is obtaining a balance between a learning environment that accommodates and benefits the diverse students enrolled and also fulfills the program

64

A. Bradford

aims, which, following MEXT’s mandate, likely requires the program to nurture internationally competent individuals (Ishikura, 2015). 3.2.2  Domain Loss and the Malfunction of Research Some Japanese educators have spoken out against EMI, claiming that it is weakening the Japanese education system (e.g., Saito, 2018; Terashima in Terashima & Suzuki, 2014; Tsuda, 2010). They situate EMI, English language teaching, and internationalization in the context of Anglicization, British imperialism, and American dominance. They argue that these contexts lead to a loss of domain for the first language (L1) and therefore a “malfunction of higher education and academic research” (Saito, 2018, p. 186). They assert that with increased use of English, certain intellectual activities would only be understood by an English-speaking elite and Japanese students would be denied the opportunity for deep learning in their own language. Representing this thinking, Saito, a professor of education working in the University of Tokyo’s flagship EMI program, stated that the “current trend towards EMI, CLIL, and other English-focused styles of teaching” is a “regressive move back to the early Meiji period and mentality of self-colonization” (Saito, 2018, p. 186) wherein English is glorified as a key to development, and Japanese language and culture are regarded as inferior. These concerns are an extension of the long-running English language teaching debate in Japan (as discussed by Aspinall, 2003). Nationalists are worried that the spread of English threatens Japanese identity and language. This may appear bordering on the xenophobic to those who view English as globalized, ideology-free lingua franca. However, as both Kuwamura (2018) and Mulvey (2018) have also noted, these concerns have been raised by prominent academics in Japan, many of whom are English language educators. These concerns should be addressed carefully if EMI is to find a stable place in Japanese higher education.

3.3  Administrative Issues 3.3.1  H  iring Practices and the Professionalization of International Education EMI programs operate within large administrative bureaucracies at Japanese universities, and their bureaucratic practices often impede the implementation of EMI. One such obstacle is the way in which hiring practices hinder the professionalization of international education, and thus destabilize the long-term success of EMI programs. Administrative staff hired to support EMI programs, especially programs established under large fixed-term funding schemes, are often employed on limited-term contracts. When the funding for the project expires, the university risks losing staff members who have amassed program knowledge and expertise. Japan’s

Internationalizing Japan’s Undergraduate Education Through English Medium Instruction

65

dual employment system, career-track versus contract-track, prevents these staff members from switching tracks into permanent positions (Poole, 2018). Many of these limited-term employees are bilingual Japanese returnees with overseas experience. Lamentably, their non-traditional education often prevents them from securing permanent employment via the usual graduate job search, as this begins during the third year of students’ undergraduate studies when many non-traditional students are overseas. Permanent career-track administrative staff members who work with international programs may lack the language and intercultural skills needed to fully support their programs and students (Poole, 2018). These staff are hired as generalists and rotate between different administrative offices within the university. This results in a body of staff familiar with many administrative functions and creates strong interpersonal networks across campus. However, staff are not necessarily working in areas best suited to their skills and interests and do not gain deep knowledge of any one area. Hiring practices within this system are unlikely to change quickly. However, despite this major stumbling block, the field of international education is beginning to professionalize. As internationalization efforts are becoming more mainstream in Japanese universities, institutions are beginning to provide staff development programs focusing on intercultural and English language learning, and administrative support units for international programs are gaining legitimacy as stand-alone offices embedded within the organizational structure of individual higher education institutions (Watabe, 2010). Top Global University funding is a major driver of this in the project’s recipient universities (Bradford, 2017). 3.3.2  Branding, Marketing and Recruiting for International Students The University of Tokyo made headlines in 2015 when it was reported that almost 70 percent of foreign students accepted into its undergraduate ETPs decided to go elsewhere for the 2014 school year (“University of Tokyo failing”, 2015). The fact that this made the mainstream news highlights some of the issues with EMI program branding, marketing, and student recruitment that Japanese universities are now encountering. Despite Japan’s high tertiary education enrollment rate (80% in 2016 [MEXT, 2016]), there is overcapacity in the sector. Japan’s shrinking cohort of 18-year-olds and its high number of institutions of higher education has in recent years created competition among universities and spurred them into creating innovative programs and concentrating on learning outcomes to attract students (Brown, 2017). However, top-tier institutions have remained oversubscribed because of the prestige, social networks, and job opportunities that such universities provide. Furthermore, students in this type of university are not very likely to demand new, innovative products or programs from their university as they perceive the value of graduating from that particular institution as the final product (Birchley, 2018). Put simply, elite institutions like the University of Tokyo are not used to actively recruiting students, hence the surprise when so many international students, after

66

A. Bradford

examining all of their global options, declined places at the nation’s top university. These students were making decisions based on a student-as-consumer approach oriented towards their educational needs rather than domestic Japanese prestige. Japanese higher education institutions are therefore now learning how to best brand and market their EMI programs to attract their desired share of the global student market. The government’s numerical targets to recruit more international students and increase Japanese student mobility has resulted in the perception of an EMI program as the end product for many universities. These institutions may not have thoroughly considered how to brand and market the knowledge, skills, and added-value that their EMI program provides into a coherent package capable of attracting and retaining students. Birchley (2018) notes a sameness in the way that many Japanese higher education institutions promote EMI programs and ETPs to international students via their websites, making it difficult for potential students to ascertain program quality and fit. EMI program implementers are simultaneously challenged to make their programs stand out from others in Japan and to encourage students to study in English in Japan rather than in an Anglophone country (Bradford, 2015). In their marketing, many universities default to content related to Japanese studies and promotional images of Mt. Fuji to convey the uniqueness of studying in Japan. However, a focus on Japanese culture, both in program content and in marketing, is of limited appeal in the context of the world’s 4.6 million globally mobile students. The important tasks of branding, marketing, and recruiting for EMI programs are often the responsibility of program directors, classroom instructors, and limited-­ term contract university administrators who have no formal training in these areas, especially in newly forming programs. These staff members may also be responsible for carrying out credential evaluation for EMI program applicants (Bradford, 2015). In addition, administrators and faculty members make recruiting trips to international education fairs. These trips are valuable, but faculty absences may place a strain on EMI programs that need to balance the recruiting needs of the program with the needs of current students. As EMI programs are becoming more established, universities are improving this situation. Japanese universities, unlike those in the United States, for example, tend not to have dedicated public relations offices (Birchley, 2018), but at many Top Global University universities, funds are now being used for public relations and enrollment management (Bradford, 2017). However, Ota and Horiuchi (2018b) point out that for top-tier universities, operating EMI programs and ETPs aimed at international students is not particularly cost-­ effective, considering the additional recruitment and admissions efforts required for these students and in light of the deep pool of academically-able domestic students seeking places at these institutions. As such, these types of programs, at least for the time being, remain small-scale and somewhat limited in their ability to contribute to the internationalization of Japanese universities.

Internationalizing Japan’s Undergraduate Education Through English Medium Instruction

67

3.4  Institutional Issues 3.4.1  Administrators and Institutional Identity EMI programs are facing difficulties in becoming established as core curricula elements in Japanese higher education, not only because of the concerns about domain loss, Englishization, and international student recruitment discussed earlier, but also because they are perceived by some as running counter to the identity of the university. Toh and Poole, academics working within Japanese EMI programs and EMI program administration, have both recently discussed a dissonance between macro, national-level policies surrounding EMI and the micro, institutional-level practices of the university administration (Poole, 2016, 2018; Toh, 2014, 2016). They describe the dominance of university administrators and highlight divergent agendas involving some administrators and those supporting internationalization efforts. Through vignettes from their own professional lives, Toh and Poole both illustrate how such things as university entrance examinations, admissions, and enrollment procedures, as well as the visa status of EMI students, have created difficulties for the establishment of interdisciplinary, forward-thinking EMI programs. For example, Poole (2018) describes how the practice of a guaranteed university seat to recommended students from designated high schools can result in the admission of students unsuited to studying in English. Issues such as this could be resolved with simple changes to administrative rules in the university. However, the permanently-­ employed administrators, perhaps in an attempt to avoid the unfamiliar, often adhere to the status quo instead of working towards reform and internationalization (Toh, 2014). The non-permanent staff members, who are likely better versed in international initiatives, have no official decision-making power. Universities worldwide are notorious for their inertia, reliance on existing structures, and resistance to innovation (Brewer & Tierney, 2012). However, in Japan, university administrators are often very quick to explain that something is “the university position” or point out to (often non-Japanese) faculty members attempting to introduce change that “this is Japan” in order to maintain the status quo and preserve the identity of their institution as Japanese vis-à-vis international (Poole, 2018; Toh, 2014). This has many worried about the sustainability of new programs in Japanese higher education institutions. In Bradford and Brown (2018a, 2018b), the implementation of EMI is compared to the introduction of information technology (IT) to Japanese higher education in the 1990s. The authors note how both EMI and IT have been fighting against “a prevailing social structure, educational traditions and institutional identities” (Bradford & Brown, 2018a, p. 286). Educational technology and IT still remain peripheral in higher education, and they have yet to produce the young graduates who would take Japan into a new era of entrepreneurship as originally envisioned by government IT initiatives (Bachnik, 2003). Currently, it appears that EMI could be on a similar path. However, while the program Toh describes failed in part because of what he describes as administrators working “backhandedly behind the scenes” (Toh, 2016, p.  20) to make sure that

68

A. Bradford

EMI would not jeopardize existing Japanese structures; the program Poole writes about is flourishing despite administrative impediments. 3.4.2  Memory of Previous EMI Experience Memory of past EMI policy incarnations and failures has been haunting rhetoric about the current rise in EMI and higher education internationalization, tarnishing the prospects for full acceptance of EMI. Researchers refer to the use of EMI for obtaining knowledge during the Meiji period and the push for internationalization (kokusaika) in the 1980s as efforts towards reinforcing Japanese nationalism and perceptions of Japanese uniqueness (e.g., Friedman, 2016; Goodman, 2007). Faculty members recall the political debates surrounding tenure and relegation to contract English-teaching positions of gaikokujin kyoushi in the 1980s (see Hall, 1998; Mulvey, 2018). Rappleye and Vickers (2015) articulate these academics’ fears when discussing the possibility of Japanese universities becoming truly global, stating that “previous experience leads many to suppose that this time, too, the tide of ‘internationalisation’ will once again ebb away, leaving the academic environment fundamentally unchanged” (para. 7). Rappleye and Vickers (2015) believe that the likely outcome of the Top Global University Project is a Dejima Option, wherein foreign faculty will teach in EMI programs that remain distinct from the Japanese core of the university. This echoes previous commentary which criticized programs established with G30 funding for catering solely to international students and creating groups of English-speaking international and Japanese returnee students isolated from their peers on campus (see e.g., Burgess et al., 2010; Hansen, 2016). While this may have been a valid observation for some programs (the G30 mandate was, after all, to attract international students), research conducted within G30 ETPs has found that those implementing the programs are committed to increasing the competitiveness of Japanese higher education for the benefit of domestic students and to helping these students succeed in EMI (Bradford, 2015). Moreover, criticisms over the Dejima-ization of G30 programs appear to overlook the fact that the majority of Japan’s international students hail from Japan’s regional neighbors (see JASSO, 2019). These students are not necessarily better equipped to study via EMI than Japanese students, and so assumptions that EMI classes will be out of reach for Japanese students, both linguistically and academically, are not universally sound.

4  Reflections and Future Directions There is reason to believe that EMI will increasingly integrate international and domestic students and will remain a part of Japanese higher education long-term. Since the introduction of the G30 Project, the policy climate surrounding EMI has become more inclusive of domestic students, a step that is welcome to those

Internationalizing Japan’s Undergraduate Education Through English Medium Instruction

69

working with Japanese students within EMI programs. The effects of this can be seen in the growing number of EMI programs that provide support to domestic students. Universities are now less likely to rush to establish new EMI programs without giving thought to the language and academic skills support needed for student success. For example, although still relatively nascent, CLIL as a method of English language teaching is gaining momentum in Japanese higher education (Tsuchiya & Pérez Murillo, 2015) and is increasingly used as a bridge towards EMI.3 This attention to language support will help lead to more sustainable programs for domestic students. Furthermore, even though only a small number of Japanese universities are direct recipients of the internationalization funding initiated by government policy, the high-profile nature of the projects impacts the whole higher education system and propels similar program implementation at other universities. And, as Mulvey (2018) details, MEXT currently has more control over university accreditation, curriculum reform, and hiring decisions at all universities than it did in the 1980s. This enables the government’s vision of an internationally competitive higher education system to take a firmer hold than in the past. A recent survey of 173 higher education institutions nationwide showed that leaders responsible for internationalization at their institutions prioritize the academic outcomes of higher education internationalization. They emphasize students’ and staff’s increased international awareness as important, with 95.9% and 90.8% of respondents citing those indicators as benefits of internationalization (Huang & Daizen, 2018). These leaders recognize that internationalization can potentially create divisions between universities within the country (selected by 38.7% of respondents), and they note an overemphasis on the acceptance of international students (28.7%) as a risk of internationalization. The results help to demonstrate that Japan may be at an inflection point in higher education internationalization, and they give indications of the future direction that EMI is likely to take. EMI is no longer about learning from the West, nor is it about providing aid to overseas students, or showcasing Japan to the world. Japan’s higher education internationalization policy is increasingly oriented toward educating Japanese students to be competitive in a global world. It is likely that internationalization initiatives will continue to focus on domestic students, with EMI being a key feature of programming designed to enable students to study abroad and become globally proficient. Higher education leaders’ recognition of the risks associated with focusing on international students and the emergence of elitism in internationalization is promising for the further integration of EMI into Japan’s academic environment. The leaders’ understandings of internationalization initiatives as beneficial for increasing university staff members’ international awareness is also encouraging. As international awareness grows among staff at universities, issues of institutional identity and resistance to change may be resolved. However, as the discussion in this chapter has shown, questions remain as

3  See program descriptions in Bradford and Brown (2018a, pp. 225–262) for more detail about the types of support provided.

70

A. Bradford

to the extent to which EMI will or even should become embedded into the core of Japanese institutions. EMI will not grow unchecked and become a central feature of the Japanese university. Indeed, one big worry for universities serving provincial communities cited by Huang and Daizen (2018) is the overuse of English as a teaching language. These universities have a central mission to educate Japanese students from their local area, many of whom are not globally, or even nationally mobile. If EMI is to remain a part of Japanese higher education long-term, it needs to be integrated into institutions, but not part of the core. Japanese higher education institutions appear to be on a positive track toward campuses that are less monolingual and where greater use of English plays an important part in enabling greater connectivity with the global academic community, but where Japanese retains its centrality.

References Aspinall, R.  W. (2003). Japanese nationalism and the reform of English language teaching. In R.  Goodman & D.  Phillips (Eds.), Can the Japanese change their education system? (pp. 103–117). Oxford, UK: Symposium Books. Bachnik, J. (Ed.). (2003). Roadblocks on the information highway: The IT revolution in Japanese education. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Birchley, S.  L. (2018). A marketing perspective on English-medium instruction at universities in Japan. In A. Bradford & H. Brown (Eds.), English-medium instruction in Japanese higher education: Policy, challenges and outcomes (pp. 130–146). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Bradford, A. (2015). Internationalization policy at the Genba: Exploring the implementation of social science English-taught undergraduate degree programs (Doctoral dissertation). The George Washington University, Washington DC, USA.  Retrieved from PQDT Open. (UMI Number: 3687531). Bradford, A. (2016). Toward a typology of implementation challenges facing English-medium instruction in higher education: Evidence from Japan. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20(4), 339–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315316647165 Bradford, A. (2017, May). Global internationalization initiatives on Japanese campuses. Poster session presented at the NAFSA (Association of International Educators) Annual Conference and Expo, Los Angeles, USA. Bradford, A., & Brown, H. (2018a). Final thoughts: Have we seen this before? The information technology parallel. In A.  Bradford & H.  Brown (Eds.), English-medium instruction in Japanese higher education: Policy, challenges and outcomes (pp.  283–288). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Bradford, A., & Brown, H. (2018b). English-medium instruction and the IT parallel in Japan. International Higher Education, 92(Winter), 24–25. Breaden, J. (2013). The organizational dynamics of university reform in Japan: International inside out. Oxon, UK: Routledge. Brewer, D.  J., & Tierney, W.  G. (2012). Barriers to innovation in U.S. higher education. In B. Wildavsky, A. P. Kelly, & K. Carey (Eds.), Reinventing higher education: The promise of innovation (pp. 11–40). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Brown, H. (2017). Cooperation and collaboration in undergraduate EMI: Adapting EAP to the emergence of blended academic norms and practices in a Japanese university. In J. Valcke & R. Wilkinson (Eds.), Integrating content and language in higher education: Perspectives on professional practice (pp. 151–166). Frankfurt Am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.

Internationalizing Japan’s Undergraduate Education Through English Medium Instruction

71

Brown, H., & Adamson, J. (2012). Localizing EAP in light of the rise of English-medium instruction at Japanese universities. OnCue Journal, 6(3), 5–20. Burgess, C., Gibson, I., Klaphake, J., & Selzer, M. (2010). The “Global 30” project and Japanese higher education reform: An example of a ‘closing in’ or an ‘opening up’? Globalisation, Societies and Education, 8(4), 461–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2010.537931 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 Dearden, J., & Akincioglu, M. (2016). EMI in Turkish universities: Collaborative planning and student voices. Report. Oxford University Press. Available from https://elt.oup.com/elt/catalogue/pdf/emi_research_report.pdf Friedman, J. (2016). English education in the era of Meiji Japan. World Englishes, 35(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12169 Fujimoto-Adamson, N., & Adamson, J. (2018). From EFL to EMI: Hybrid practices in English as a medium of instruction in Japanese tertiary contexts. In Y. Kırkgöz & K. Dikilitaş (Eds.), Key issues in English for specific purposes in higher education (pp. 201–221). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Fukudome, H. (2015). Teaching and research in the academic profession: Nexus and conflict. In A. Arimoto, W. K. Cummings, F. Huang, & J. C. Shin (Eds.), The changing academic profession in Japan (pp. 169–183). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Goodman, R. (2007). The concept of kokusaika and Japanese educational reform. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 5(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767720601133413 Hall, I. (1998). Cartels of the mind: Japan’s intellectual closed shop. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company. Hansen, P. S. (2016). Betwixt and between JA: Japan, Jamaica, agriculture, education and the will to employment. In J. Mock, H. Kawamura, & N. Naganuma (Eds.), The impact of internationalization on Japanese higher education: Is Japanese education really changing? (pp. 159–175). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense. Hashimoto, H. (2018). Government policy driving English-medium instruction at Japanese universities: Responding to a competitiveness crisis in a globalizing world. In A.  Bradford & H. Brown (Eds.), English-medium instruction in Japanese higher education: Policy, challenges and outcomes (pp. 14–31). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Huang, F., & Daizen, T. (2018, May 11). The benefits and risks of HE internationalization. University World News, Issue No. 505. Retrieved from https://www.universityworldnews.com/ post.php?story=20180508094144222 Ishikawa, M. (2011). Redefining internationalization in higher education: Global 30 and the making of global universities in Japan. In D. B. Willis & J. Rappleye (Eds.), Reimagining Japanese education (pp. 193–223). Oxford, UK: Symposium Books. 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. Iyobe, B.  M., & Li, J. (2018). Factors for success and sustainability of an elective English-­ medium instruction program. In A. Bradford & H. Brown (Eds.), English-medium instruction in Japanese higher education: Policy, challenges and outcomes (pp. 225–237). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. JASSO. (2008). International Students in Japan 2008. Survey data. Retrieved March 8, 2018, from http://www.jasso.go.jp/en/about/statistics/intl_student_e/2008/index.html JASSO. (2019). Result of an annual survey of international students in Japan 2018. Survey data. Retrieved March 31, 2019, from http://www.jasso.go.jp/en/about/statistics/intl_student_e/2018/ index.html Kamibeppu, T. (2012). Internationalisation of higher education in Japan. In M.  Magnan, M.  Söderqvist, H.  G. van Liempd, & F.  Wittman (Eds.), Internationalisation of European higher education: An EAIE handbook (pp. A 3.2–A 3.3). DUZ Academic Publishers. Available from http://www.handbook-internationalisation.com

72

A. Bradford

Kedzierski, M. (2016). English as a medium of instruction in East Asia’s higher education sector: A critical realist cultural political economy analysis of underlying logics. Comparative Education, 52(3), 375–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2016.1185269 Kuwamura, A. (2009). The challenges of increasing capacity and diversity in Japanese higher education through proactive recruitment strategies. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(2), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315308331102 Kuwamura, A. (2018). The future of English-medium instruction in Japan. In A.  Bradford & H. Brown (Eds.), English-medium instruction in Japanese higher education: Policy, challenges and outcomes (pp. 265–282). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Macaro, E. (2015). English medium instruction: Time to start asking some difficult questions. Modern English Teacher, 24(2), 4–7. 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. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0261444817000350 McConnell, D.  L. (2000). Importing diversity: Inside Japan’s JET program. Berkley, MI: University of California Press. MEXT. (2004). Outline of the student exchange system in Japan. Tokyo, Japan: MEXT. Resource document. Retrieved March 8, 2018, from http://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2009/11/04/1222424_16_001.pdf MEXT. (2009a). Prioritized financial assistance for the internationalization of universities launching the Project for Establishing Core Universities for Internationalization (Global 30) [Press release]. Tokyo, Japan: MEXT.  Resource document. Retrieved March 9, 2018, from http:// www.jsps.go.jp/english/e-kokusaika/data/00_mext2009.pdf MEXT. (2009b). Daigaku ni okeru kyōiku naiyō-tō no kaikaku jōkyō ni tsuite [Status of the reform of university educational content]. Tokyo, Japan: MEXT.  Resource document. Retrieved January 4, 2018, from http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/21/03/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2009/05/08/1259150_1_1.pdf MEXT. (2012a). Higher Education in Japan. Tokyo, Japan: Higher Education Bureau, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Japan. Resource Document. Retrieved January 4, 2018, from http://www.mext.go.jp/en/policy/education/highered/title03/ detail03/1374111.htm MEXT. (2012b). Course list. Tokyo, Japan: MEXT. Resource document. Retrieved November 20, 2012, from http://www.uni.international.mext.go.jp/documents/20121127corse_list_A4.pdf MEXT. (2013). Daigaku ni okeru kyōiku naiyō-tō no kaikaku jōkyō (Heisei 23 nen ban) [Regarding the current situation of educational contents at universities (as of 2011)]. Tokyo, Japan: MEXT.  Resource document. Retrieved May 18, 2014, from http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/ koutou/daigaku/04052801/1341433.htm MEXT. (2014). Selection for the FY 2014 top global university project. Tokyo: MEXT. Resource document. Retrieved March 9, 2018, 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 naiyoutou no kaikaku joukyou ni tsuite [About the state of affairs regarding university reforms to education in 2013]. Tokyo, Japan: MEXT. Resource document. Retrieved March 5, 2018, from http://www.mext.go.jp/a_ menu/koutou/daigaku/04052801/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2015/09/10/1361916_1.pdf MEXT. (2016). Announcement on FY2016 School Basic Survey (Confirmed values). Tokyo, Japan: MEXT. Resource document. Retrieved January 8, 2018, from http://www.mext.go.jp/en/news/ topics/detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2017/10/13/1397166_001_1.pdf MEXT. (2017). Heisei 27 nendo no daigaku ni okeru kyōiku naiyō-tō no kaikaku jōkyō ni tsuite (gaiyō) [About the state of affairs regarding university reforms to education in 2015]. Tokyo, Japan: MEXT.  Resource document. Retrieved December 28, 2018, from http://www.mext. go.jp/a_menu/koutou/daigaku/04052801/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2017/12/13/1398426_1.pdf MEXT. (n.d.) Top global university project. Retrieved December 28, 2018, from http://tgu.mext. go.jp/en

Internationalizing Japan’s Undergraduate Education Through English Medium Instruction

73

Miller, K.  K. (2014, October 7). What’s wrong with English education in Japan? Pull up a chair. Japan Today. Retrieved from https://japantoday.com/category/features/lifestyle/ whats-wrong-with-english-education-in-japan-pull-up-a-chair Mulvey, B. (2018). Recent government policy and its impact on English-medium instruction in Japan: Why this time may be different. In A. Bradford & H. Brown (Eds.), English-medium instruction in Japanese higher education: Policy, challenges and outcomes (pp.  32–47). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Nakayama, S. (1989). Independence and choice: Western impacts on Japanese higher education. Higher Education, 18(1), 31–48. Ninomiya, A., Knight, J., & Watanabe, A. (2009). The past, present, and future of internationalization in Japan. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(2), 117–124. https://doi. org/10.1177/1028315308331095 OECD. (2017). Education at a Glance 2017: OECD Indicators. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Retrieved July 2, 2018, from https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2017-en Ota, H. (2003). The international student 100,000 plan: Policy studies. Hitotsubashi University International Student Center Bulletin, 6, 27–51. Ota, H., & Horiuchi, K. (2018a). Internationalization through English-medium instruction in Japan: Challenging a contemporary Dejima. In D. Proctor & L. E. Rumbley (Eds.), The future agenda for internationalization in higher education: Next generation insights into research, policy, and practice (pp. 15–27). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Ota, H., & Horiuchi, K. (2018b). How accessible are English-taught programs? Exploring international admissions procedures. In A. Bradford & H. Brown (Eds.), English-medium instruction in Japanese higher education: Policy, challenges and outcomes (pp. 108–129). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Poole, G. (2018). Administrative impediments: How bureaucratic practices obstruct the implementation of English-taught programs in Japan. In A. Bradford & H. Brown (Eds.), English-medium instruction in Japanese higher education: Policy, challenges and outcomes (pp.  91–107). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Poole, G. S. (2016). Administrative practices as institutional identity: Bureaucratic impediments to HE ‘internationalisation’ policy in Japan. Comparative Education, 52(1), 62–77. https://doi. org/10.1080/03050068.2015.1125615 Rappleye, J., & Vickers, E. (2015, November 6). Can Japanese universities really become Super Global? University World News, Issue No. 390. Retrieved from https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20151103154757426 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 Saito, Y. (2018). Globalization or anglicization? A dilemma of English-language teaching in Japan. In R.  Tsuneyoshi (Ed.), Globalization and Japanese “exceptionalism” in education (pp. 178–189). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Sawa, T. (2017, December 24). Why Japan’s universities continue to fall in global rankings. The Japan Times. Retrieved from https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2017/12/24/commentary/ japan-commentary/japans-universities-continue-fall-global-rankings/#.XO5p_4gzZaQ Seargeant, P. (2009). The idea of English in Japan: Ideology and the evolution of a global language. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Shimauchi, S. (2016). Higashi Ajia niokeru Ryugakusei Idou no Paradaimu Shifuto  – Daigaku Kokusaika to Eigo Puroguramu no Nikkan Hikaku [Paradigm Shift in International Student Mobility in East Asia: Internationalization of higher education and comparative analysis of English-medium degree programs in Japan and Korea]. Tokyo, Japan: Toshindo. Shimauchi, S. (2018). Gender in English-medium instruction programs: Differences in international awareness? In A. Bradford & H. Brown (Eds.), English-medium instruction in Japanese higher education: Policy, challenges and outcomes (pp. 180–194). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

74

A. Bradford

Smith, R. C., & Motomichi, I. (2003). Harold E palmer: 1877-1949. In H. Cortazzi (Ed.), Britain & Japan: Biographical portraits 4 (pp. 233–245). London, UK: Japan Library. Stewart, D. (2016, October 31). Japan gets schooled: Why the country’s universities are failing. Foreign Affairs. Available from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/japan/2016-10-31/ japan-gets-schooled Terashima, T., & Suzuki, N. (2014, July 3). Daigakusei wa eigo de manabe [University students should learn in English]. The Asahi Shimbun, p. 13. Toh, G. (2014). English for content instruction in a Japanese higher education setting: Examining challenge, contradictions and anomalies. Language and Education, 28(4), 299–318. https:// doi.org/10.1080/095000782.2013.857348 Toh, G. (2016). English as medium of instruction in Japanese higher education: Presumption, mirage or bluff? London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Tsuchiya, K., & Pérez Murillo, M. D. (2015). Comparing the language policies and the students’ perceptions of CLIL in tertiary education in Spain and Japan. LACLIL, 8(1), 25–35. https://doi. org/10.5294/laclil.2014.8.1.3 Tsuda, Y. (2010). Speaking against the hegemony of English: Problems, ideologies, and solutions. In T. K. Nakayama & R. T. Halualani (Eds.), The handbook of critical intercultural communication (pp. 248–269). Chichester, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Tsuneyoshi, R. (2005). Internationalization strategies in Japan: The dilemmas and possibilities of study abroad programs using English. Journal of Research in International Education, 4(1), 65–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475240905050291 University of Tokyo failing non-Japanese students. (2015, April 11). The Japan Times. Retrieved from https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2015/04/11/editorials/university-tokyo-failingnon-japanese-students/#.XO5kx4gzZaR Watabe, Y., (2010). Japanese approaches to organizational internationalization of universities: A case study of three national university corporations (Doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, USA. Yaguchi, Y., & P.  Seaton. (2014, November). Undergraduate education in English at Japanese universities. Symposium on postdoctoral career development in Japanese studies and undergraduate education in English at Japanese universities conducted at the meeting of the British Association for Japanese Studies. Tokyo, Japan: The University of Tokyo. Yamamoto, B. A., & Ishikura, Y. (2018). A pebble that creates great waves? Global 30 classes and internationalization of the student body. In A. Bradford & H. Brown (Eds.), English-medium instruction in Japanese higher education: Policy, challenges and outcomes (pp.71–87). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Yonezawa, A. (2014). Japan’s challenge of fostering ‘global human resources’: Policy debates and practices. Japan Labour Review, 11(2), 37–52.

The Benefits, Challenges and Prospects of EMI in Croatia: An Integrated Perspective Branka Drljača Margić and Irena Vodopija-Krstanović

Abstract  In this chapter, we discuss developments in internationalization and English medium instruction (EMI) in Croatian higher education (HE) and provide a comprehensive overview of University of Rijeka teachers’: (1) attitudes towards EMI, (2) experiences with EMI, (3) considerations regarding EMI and language policy, and (4) perspectives on a language development program for EMI (LD for EMI). Drawing on previous studies, we present the benefits of EMI and its challenges as seen through the lens of the teachers involved in EMI and those who are not. By comparing teaching through English and Croatian, we analyze how the language of instruction affects the teaching–learning process and teacher self-esteem. Teachers’ reflections on LD for EMI offer insight into their learning and concerns and show that they are fully aware of the need for language support. Similarly, they highlight the program’s benefits and identify areas for improvement. The teachers’ views on the use of English and their native language in the classroom, language proficiency requirements, and the effect of English on Croatian suggest the need for a language-­ in-­education policy. By bringing together teachers’ views, experiences, needs, and expectations, the findings illuminate key steps and measures for addressing EMI challenges and capitalizing on its potential. Keywords  English medium instruction · Content teachers · Croatia · University of Rijeka

B. Drljača Margić (*) · I. Vodopija-Krstanović Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 S. Dimova, J. Kling (eds.), Integrating Content and Language in Multilingual Universities, Educational Linguistics 44, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46947-4_5

75

76

B. Drljača Margić and I. Vodopija-Krstanović

1  I ntroduction: Internationalization in Croatian Higher Education Today internationalization is undoubtedly a key buzzword in modern universities and in the discourse on the quality of higher education (HE). From the perspective of economic competition among universities, internationalization is seen as a way to boost university rankings, gain a competitive edge on the global market, and generate income (Bolsmann & Miller, 2008; Lasagabaster, Cots, & Mancho-Barés, 2013). On an academic level, internationalization creates synergy, enhances educational quality, and thus has favorable repercussions on “human knowledge and intercultural understanding” (Lasagabaster et al., 2013, p. 751). If we take a closer look at the concept of modern academic internationalization, it is clear that it is dependent on the outcome of the use of English as a medium of instruction (EMI) and communication. For these reasons, EMI and internationalization are tightly intertwined in the fabric of modern-day universities. As a result, the move towards EMI in the European HE area is inevitable (Macaro, Curle, Pun, An, & Dearden, 2018) and has accelerated over the last 20 years with 239% growth between 2007 and 2014, which has resulted in over 8000 programs (Wächter & Maiworm, 2014). In line with this trend, internationalization is also gaining traction among universities in Croatia, which have realized how important it is to be attuned and responsive to the changes affecting HE. Being aware of the pressing need to enhance their relevance, modernize academia, increase rankings and revenues, and attract students, Croatian universities have started taking action to become a part of the international academic community. While it is difficult to determine when precisely the discourse of internationalization became widespread at institutions across the country, it is possible to ascertain which educational reforms and policy documents have paved the way for its introduction. Traditionally, education in Croatia was a national domain that catered primarily to the needs and interests of domestic students. Considerable changes took place only after Croatia signed the Bologna Declaration in 2001, which laid the foundation for the first steps towards internationalization of HE in the country (Šćukanec, 2013). In the same year, academic institutions articulated in their mission statements and strategic plans that internationalization was vital for quality improvement and global recognition (Vizek Vidović & Ružička, 2007). Paradoxically, while the “international orientation [was] seen as a major vehicle for the achievement of a higher quality of higher education,” it was equally feared that it would lead to “brain drain of the more educated workforce” and to “the opening of foreign programs offered by foreign education institutions” in Croatia (Vizek Vidović  & Ružička, 2007, p. 125). After the alignment of study programs at universities in the country with the Bologna structure in 2005 and the introduction of a system of quality assurance in 2009, cooperation within the European HE area gained a new momentum. However, at that time, there was no explicit internationalization policy, and the process was viewed in terms of the number of bilateral agreements (Vizek Vidović & Ružička,

The Benefits, Challenges and Prospects of EMI in Croatia: An Integrated Perspective

77

2007). Internationalization was also promoted by the Croatian Institute for the Development of Education, which, in 2005, set up a Euro–Croatian information center to provide information on study opportunities in Croatia and abroad (Šćukanec, 2008). Although the Bologna Process established a favorable framework for Croatia to participate in pan-European cooperation and engage in student and staff mobility, the actual turning point was the signing of the Erasmus Charter for Higher Education by the leading public universities in Croatia in 2009–2010. A range of activities were undertaken to create a platform for Croatia’s participation in the Erasmus program by the Enhancing Mobility of the Croatian Academic Community (MOBIL) Tempus project in 2006. Another important milestone that marked a transition away from the local towards the European was the development of the national Strategy for Education, Science and Technology, a policy document that set a high-level agenda for universities across the country. The document stipulated that HE in Croatia should be aligned with European trends and identified modernization and internationalization as key strategic goals (Strategy for Education, Science and Technology, 2014). It was believed that internationalization and the integration of Croatian universities into the borderless European HE space was not only a means for improving the quality of education in the country but also a way to increase the competitiveness of universities and the Croatian economy. In the process, it became evident that only through a common language of instruction would it be possible to open up universities to the global market and realize the goals set by the Bologna Process.

1.1  Higher Education in Croatia: Current State of Affairs Overall, there are 131 HE institutions in Croatia. The pillars of HE in the country are the eight public universities, of which the four largest are: the University of Zagreb, the University of Split, the University of Rijeka, and the University of Osijek. The eight public universities comprise 83 constituent institutions (62 faculties, 13 university departments, six academies, one school, and one university center). In addition, the public HE sector includes 11 polytechnics and three colleges. Although 26 private HE institutions have emerged in the last decades, with two universities, six polytechnics, and 18 colleges, this sector is still markedly smaller and lags seriously behind the public one. As a result, 69% of the student population in Croatia is enrolled in university study programs, the overwhelming majority (99%) of whom is in public HE institutions. As for the organization of the HE institutions, there appears to be resistance from the largest universities’ constituent institutions against the move to unite them into an integrated entity with the university as the apex. Therefore, none of the four largest universities are fully integrated, and they comprise independent constituent institutions, which are legal entities with their own administration.

78

B. Drljača Margić and I. Vodopija-Krstanović

In 2018, 1,358 study programs were offered by public HE institutions, while 117 were available in private ones (Agency for Science and Higher Education, 2018). Public education is subsidized by the Ministry of Science and Education, and each university can set quotas for tuition-free enrollment in full-time bachelor and Master’s study programs. Students pay no tuition during their first year of studies, but, depending on performance and merit criteria, they can be charged tuition fees in the subsequent years. It should be noted here that EMI programs, while promoted, are not subsidized by the Ministry. Being outside the tuition-free quotas, they do not contribute to an equitable tertiary education as access is largely dependent on students’ financial means. Regarding the state of affairs on EMI in Croatia, in December 2018, there were 1,784 accredited study programs in the country, 56 of which listed English as the language of instruction (Ministry of Science and Education, 2018). Forty-five were in the public sector: the University of Zagreb (28), the University of Rijeka (7), the University of Split (6), the University of Pula (2), the University of Osijek (1), and the University of Zadar (1), and 11 in private institutions. The decision to offer a program is at the discretion of each institution. There is no national language and education policy regarding integrated content and language (ICL) education in Croatia, and each university and its constituents can design and accredit identical programs in Croatian and English, as long as 50% of the staff working on the program are tenured. As there are no differences in educational objectives, teaching methods and assessment criteria, the accreditation process and requirements for EMI programs and programs taught in the national language are identical. In EMI, as in Croatian-taught curricula and course syllabi, the focus is on content learning outcomes. No reference is made to the language beyond the fact that the programs are taught in English, and no actual proof is required that the course instructors have the adequate language skills for teaching in English. However, several HE institutions have recently established language proficiency requirements for enrollment in a doctoral program in English. Teacher language development programs are rare, often carried out by English for Specific Purposes (ESP) course instructors as short training sessions. Regarding teacher pedagogical competence, it is usually not given special attention, and EMI is largely perceived as merely a change of the language of instruction, with no mention made of changes in methodology (cf. O’Dowd, 2018; Wilkinson, 2018). The reasons for this rather laissez-faire attitude towards ICL in Croatia include: (a) Croatia’s falling birth rate resulting in a shortfall of students and a severe drop in college enrollment, (b) the need to attract international students, (c) the funding from tuition fees in EMI programs, (d) internationalization as a key strategic goal of HE, (e) the additional financing available through Program Contracts with the Ministry of Science and Education (for increased incoming mobility), (f) the overall lack of attention given to the training of university teachers to teach content in their L1, let alone in English, (g) the fact that teaching is considered less important than research and science, and (h) the limited impact that the quality of teaching has on teachers’ career advancement.

The Benefits, Challenges and Prospects of EMI in Croatia: An Integrated Perspective

79

Although EMI is gradually being introduced at institutions throughout the country, systematic research has only been undertaken at the University of Rijeka (UNIRI). For this reason, in this chapter, we analyze the state of affairs of EMI at UNIRI, describe national and international projects, present key issues and findings from the studies conducted at UNIRI, and offer insights into the activities carried out at this particular institution. In the following sections, we focus on UNIRI, the third largest university in Croatia with approximately 17,000 students and 1000 members of academic staff in order to take a closer look at the internationalization process and examine the precursors to the development of study programs in English.

2  H  istorical Overview of the Context: Steps and Actions in the Internationalization of UNIRI Among the first efforts to introduce mobility and international cooperation at UNIRI was the Central European Exchange Program for University Studies (CEEPUS) in 1999. Staff mobility was also realized through the Fulbright Program, the United States Information Agency (USIA) English Language Fellow Program, and UNIRI bilateral agreements. Despite an increase in initiatives, none involved a larger number of UNIRI academic community members or study programs. At the time, other HE institutions across Croatia also had a “limited number of study programs […] in foreign languages,” marginal internationalization activity, and insignificant mobility with only 0.02% students with a study abroad experience and 0.3% in mobility programs (Bečić, 2007, p. 82). While modest, these activities were forerunners of the Erasmus program. Greater efforts were made in 2008 when the UNIRI pilot (outgoing) mobility project was launched to lay the foundations for the signing of the Erasmus Charter a year later. Since then, the Erasmus program has promoted and supported student and staff mobility at UNIRI and created a need for courses in English. At present, it has expanded to include 468 partner institutions, and 1,200 outgoing and 900 incoming students. Looking at policy documents, explicit discussion about EMI at UNIRI was initiated in the Strategy of the University of Rijeka 2007–2013, which states that, by 2013, “the number of study programs taught in a world language should be increased to ten” (Strategy of the University of Rijeka 2007–2013, 2007, p. 42). At the time, a new language center was also planned at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences to provide support to teachers and administration. Although the ten EMI programs have not been launched, nor has a language center been established, in the current Strategy of the University of Rijeka 2014–2020, the number of programs in a foreign language has been doubled to 20 (Strategy of the University of Rijeka 2014–2020, 2013).

80

B. Drljača Margić and I. Vodopija-Krstanović

While internationalization received more critical attention, for several years the majority of activities undertaken at UNIRI revolved around the Erasmus program and setting up new agreements. In the meantime, in the wider (academic) context, the discourse on internationalization became more widespread, which sparked awareness among management and teachers that it was high time to take action to increase the international presence of UNIRI through three areas: attracting international students, increasing the visibility and leverage of the University, and offering courses and programs in English. For this reason, UNIRI supported several strategic projects that would promote its international dimension and increase the number of EMI programs.

2.1  EMI Projects at UNIRI The first research-based activities on EMI began in 2013 with the three-year Development of Study Programs in English project. The aims of the project were to: (1) promote and support internationalization at the University, (2) examine and identify strategies that would increase the number of programs in English, and (3) support EMI and improve its quality. Initially deemed a B priority, it was later upgraded to the A priority Internationalisation of Study Programs project. At this point, the project activities became more specific and directed at examining: (1) trends, challenges, and best practices in European HE, (2) students’ and teachers’ attitudes towards implementing EMI, (3) perceptions of students and teachers involved in EMI, and (4) EMI practices. These activities were followed by a series of workshops that looked into the benefits and challenges of EMI and identified preventive measures to mitigate the problems. The project also launched the Language Support for Teachers in EMI lifelong learning program (LD for EMI). Through two modules, Speaking Competences for EMI and Writing Competences for EMI, LD for EMI aimed to improve teachers’ language skills and competences, and increase their effectiveness in teaching. Overall, it was well received and generated considerable interest among academic staff and UNIRI administration. More importantly, it contributed to an institution-wide awareness of the importance of teacher development for EMI. Next, a follow-up project, entitled Investigating the Prerequisites for EMI, was set up at UNIRI to examine the factors that should be taken into account when introducing EMI. These factors were divided into three groups: (1) logistic, financial, and language support, (2) teachers’ attitudes, motivation, and readiness to teach through English, and (3) teachers’ perceptions of their language competences and their willingness to develop them. The project also analyzed LD for EMI, and the findings were used to improve the program and help introduce EMI programs at UNIRI. More recently, the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences in Rijeka became a partner in the Transnational Alignment of English Competences for University Lecturers (TAEC) Erasmus+ project. The project, coordinated by the University of

The Benefits, Challenges and Prospects of EMI in Croatia: An Integrated Perspective

81

Copenhagen, includes three additional partner institutions: the University of Lleida, Maastricht University, and the University of Turin. The aim of the project is to develop a common framework for quality assurance in EMI, which would serve as a benchmark for training teachers and aligning language assessment instruments for EMI lecturer certification. It is expected to contribute “to improv[ing] transparency in assessing lecturers’ language competences and teaching qualifications in order to establish their transnational recognition” (Centre for Internationalisation and Parallel Language Use, 2018). An important project outcome is a handbook for EMI teachers covering three areas related to instructional quality: language competences, pedagogy and teaching, and intercultural communication. Finally, one of the most significant national initiatives to increase the number of EMI programs, joint programs, and English-taught courses at UNIRI was the 2018 Strategic Internationalisation of Graduate Studies in Mathematics and Biotechnology project funded by the European Structural and Investment Funds. This project scheme was open only to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programs because in Croatia the number of students in the social sciences and humanities relative to those in STEM fields is much higher than the European Union (EU) average. One of the project’s components is the development of EMI teachers’ and program administrators’ English language skills and international students’ Croatian language skills.

2.2  EMI Study Programs at UNIRI To date, at UNIRI, there are 61 accredited bachelor and 69 Master’s programs (five are integrated undergraduate and graduate programs), 18 PhD programs, and 41 Master’s specialist programs. Currently, only four (2.55%) programs are offered in English, namely bachelor and Master’s in International Business at the Faculty of Economics, integrated bachelor and Master’s Medical Studies in English at the Faculty of Medicine, and Doctoral Study in Physics at the University Physics Department. Unlike Croatian-taught bachelor and Master’s programs, which are subsidized by the Ministry, the above-mentioned four programs are self-funded, and tuition fees are set by individual institutions and approved by the UNIRI Senate. The first EMI bachelor and Master’s programs at UNIRI, International Business, were launched in 2011 and 2014 respectively, on the initiative of the Faculty of Economics, after a sufficient number of local tenured academic staff, external staff from universities in the country and abroad, and visiting scholars had been recruited. The EMI programs, based on and offered in parallel with the Croatian ones, are open to domestic and international students, the majority of whom are in the Erasmus program. There are no minimum proficiency requirements for students or teachers, so all staff members are eligible to teach in English, as long as they are willing to do so. When the program was established, no institutional language support was available. However, as of 2017, language support has been provided by the Faculty, and five

82

B. Drljača Margić and I. Vodopija-Krstanović

teachers have also participated in LD for EMI. Students in the bachelor program take a core English for Specific Purposes (ESP) course and an elective English language course. Although the enrollment numbers are set at 60 in the bachelor and 30 in the Master’s program, only 37 Croatian students have enrolled in the bachelor program, and six (five from Croatia) in the Master’s program. The second EMI program, the six-year integrated bachelor and Master’s university study program Medical Studies in English, was established by the Faculty of Medicine in 2017. Both programs, the EMI and Croatian medium, follow the same curriculum with the majority of courses taught by the Faculty academic staff in collaboration with staff from the Clinical Hospital Center and other institutions in the country. The Faculty set an admission quota of 50 students for the English-taught program. Unlike at the Faculty of Economics, where the majority of the students are domestic, in this program there are only eight Croatian students. As in the above-mentioned EMI programs, students and teachers are not tested for language proficiency, and there are no language requirements for either of them. Assessment of the ability to teach effectively in English is left to the discretion of the teacher. As regards teacher language support, in the first year of the program, the Faculty organized a short language training session largely modelled on LD for EMI. The students are required to take two Medical English courses. Currently, the only PhD program in English at UNIRI was founded in 2017 by the University Physics Department on the recommendation of the re-accreditation expert panel and the Agency for Science and Higher Education Accreditation Council. Analogous to other EMI programs, the English language has not received any critical attention, there is no formal language policy, and language assessment procedures have not been established. Unlike in the case of the Faculty of Economics and Faculty of Medicine, it is assumed that language will not be an obstacle to English medium teaching and learning, and the teachers feel highly confident about their own and their students’ proficiency. The teachers in the program comprise mainly academic staff from the University Physics Department and include teachers from other Croatian institutions as well as some international staff from universities abroad. Ten domestic students have enrolled in the PhD program. Apart from the courses in these four EMI programs, a relatively small number of EMI courses are offered, primarily for Erasmus students. Core courses are available both in English and Croatian, while elective courses can be taught only in English, provided that a pool of courses in Croatian is available to domestic students.

3  C  urrent Considerations in the Context: Exploring Content Teachers’ Voices Here we present content teachers’ attitudes, perceptions, expectations, and experiences regarding EMI from studies conducted in 2013 and 2015. Drawing on several studies conducted at UNIRI, we focus on the voices of: (1) content teachers from

The Benefits, Challenges and Prospects of EMI in Croatia: An Integrated Perspective

83

different UNIRI constituent institutions who are not yet engaged in EMI (Drljača Margić & Tulić, 2018; Drljača Margić & Velčić Janjetić, forthcoming; Drljača Margić & Vodopija-Krstanović, 2015, 2017), (2) content teachers who are involved in EMI (Drljača Margić & Vodopija-Krstanović, 2017), and (3) content teachers who have participated in LD for EMI, most of whom have not yet undertaken EMI (Drljača Margić, 2018; Drljača Margić & Vodopija-Krstanović, 2018, 2019).

3.1  Benefits of EMI: Perceptions and Experiences The following section outlines what the teachers who were not involved in EMI perceived to be the benefits of this educational initiative. This is followed by the advantages of EMI as experienced by those who were involved in EMI. Results from a university-wide survey from 2013 suggest that the majority of teachers would be willing to engage in EMI in spite of the fact that only half considered themselves competent enough in English. They maintained that EMI should be introduced at the University, but only if certain preconditions, such as language support and a critical mass of international students, were met. Their openness towards EMI could be closely connected with the anticipated personal and institutional benefits. They believed that EMI would increase the institution’s international visibility and mobility and boost institutional co-operation and competitiveness. The teachers, on their part, expected to improve their (academic) English language skills, gain access to a wider range of teaching materials, and have better job opportunities (Drljača Margić & Vodopija-Krstanović, 2015). The 2015 study suggests that the teachers involved in EMI were enthusiastic about teaching in English and willing to continue to do so. Their main external reasons for partaking in EMI were international co-operation and competitiveness, institutional eligibility for accreditation, higher institutional ranking, greater mobility, and the use of professional literature in English. The internal reasons for volunteering or agreeing to take part in EMI included improved English language proficiency, professional advancement, and increased self-esteem. They also mentioned that EMI offered new challenges and developed a sense of belonging to a wider HE context. The teachers who did not teach in EMI had the same expectations as those who did. However, it should be said that the teachers involved in EMI were more cautious about mentioning increased international collaboration, visibility, and better university rating, indicating that it takes time and resources before institutions and teachers can enjoy these benefits, which are perceived to be more readily attainable through EMI than is actually the case (Drljača Margić & VodopijaKrstanović, 2017).

84

B. Drljača Margić and I. Vodopija-Krstanović

3.2  C  hallenges in EMI: The Intersection of Language, Content, and Teaching To offer a balanced perspective on EMI, this section focuses on its challenges, both those anticipated and those actually encountered by the teachers who participated in the studies from 2013 and 2015 (Drljača Margić & Vodopija-Krstanović, 2015, 2017). The teachers identified their language proficiency as one of the greatest challenges of EMI. They believed a lack of language proficiency would prevent them from presenting complex content clearly, giving quality feedback to students, and encouraging classroom interaction. This would lead to teacher-fronted classes and impede student participation in discussions. What they also indicated was that the teacher’s poor language skills could hinder students’ acquisition of new knowledge. Furthermore, they pointed out that teachers who were less proficient had to concentrate on the language and pay close attention to how they interacted, which could dampen spontaneity in the classroom and affect their rapport with students. Other challenges highlighted by the teachers in the survey were limited funding for language testing, for training and support, and for hiring content teachers proficient in English. The teachers also indicated concern about the lack of support programs and increased class preparation time, which could be spent on research instead. They also complained about not being well-informed about the availability of English-taught programs. Furthermore, some teachers thought that domestic students would be reluctant to undertake studies in English because of the extra time and effort they would have to invest in their courses. They also considered that the small number of international students was insufficient to warrant the adoption of EMI. Some also feared that EMI would lead to graduates leaving the country and to foreign faculty taking jobs away from the local one. In addition, it was believed that the spread of EMI would jeopardize the use of Croatian as an academic language and would bring into question its prestige, its status, and its further development. The teachers also feared that both teachers and students could become reluctant or incompetent to analyze and discuss their field of study in their first language (L1) (Drljača Margić & Vodopija-Krstanović, 2015). When asked whether they were satisfied with their language proficiency, the majority of EMI teachers said that they were, although they did mention that a limited vocabulary range, flawed pronunciation, grammatical errors, and inadequate fluency were serious obstacles to classroom instruction and management. The inability to express themselves was also perceived to be face-threatening. Therefore, the large majority highlighted the need for language support. The teachers also mentioned a lack of literature in English that was aligned with the literature in Croatian. Besides, involvement in EMI was considered to be rather time-­consuming, primarily in the beginning, and could bring about anxiety, exhaustion, and stress (see also del Campo, Chapter “English Medium Instruction Through the Lens of a Content Teacher: Challenges, Adjustments, and Opportunities” in this volume). Overall, the teachers complained that engagement in EMI was not properly acknowledged.

The Benefits, Challenges and Prospects of EMI in Croatia: An Integrated Perspective

85

A number of teachers admitted that, irrespective of their language proficiency, teaching in English remained a burden and caused slight discomfort. Almost all reported to be more exhausted after teaching in English because EMI required greater concentration and cognitive demand. EMI insiders and outsiders had different viewpoints on the advantages and challenges of EMI.  The insiders experienced difficulties obtaining, developing, and adapting current course materials for EMI, while the outsiders thought that EMI would provide access to a larger pool of international literature. Another difference was related to student engagement. Those engaged in EMI reported higher motivation among students in EMI programs and similar academic performance in English and Croatian-taught programs, while those not yet involved in EMI anticipated the opposite (Drljača Margić & Vodopija-Krstanović, 2017).

3.3  C  lasses in English and Croatian: EMI Teachers’ Experiences Following the presentation of EMI benefits and challenges, as perceived by the teachers, here we reveal the teachers’ comparative reflection on their teaching practices in Croatian and in English to see to what extent teaching practices in English compare with those in Croatian (Drljača Margić & Vodopija-Krstanović, 2017). The majority of the teachers in the survey reported no substantial variation in content coverage in the courses in the two languages. Some teachers did mention different course literature and examples in Croatian and English medium classes, as well as occasional reduction of content in English. Some, however, explained that the abundance of professional literature in English allowed a wider coverage of topics. Some teachers also claimed that effective learning took place in both programs, with no major differences in learning outcomes. However, the smaller classes in the English-taught program were reported to be more conducive to collaborative learning and student interaction. In these classes, students were described as more motivated and engaged in the lessons and seemed inclined to learn the material better. Other teachers said that the quality of discussions was better in the Croatian classes because there was a larger number of students and because they all interacted in their L1. As regards student engagement and commitment, the majority of the teachers reported it to be higher in EMI. In both programs, the teaching and assessment methods, as well as test format and criteria, were reported to be identical, and student grades similar. As for the quality of the two programs, EMI was praised for the smaller groups and interactive teaching environment. Discussions about quality in the Croatian medium program referred only to the ability to use the Croatian language as a medium for (spontaneous) discussion and comprehension.

86

B. Drljača Margić and I. Vodopija-Krstanović

According to the teachers, all didactic activities were more easily carried out in Croatian. These included conducting lectures, communicating with students via email and during office hours, conducting continuous assessment, giving feedback on student work, answering student questions, preparing tests, being spontaneous/ natural in class, motivating students to participate in class, preparing lessons, and ensuring student comprehension. The following were emphasized as much more difficult to tackle in English: clarifying content material, discussing in class, holding seminars or exercises, and, particularly, improvising in class.

3.4  P  olicy and Practice: Deliberations on Language Issues in EMI To delve deeper into the teachers’ reasoning on language policy and practice, this part presents their views on the reference to English in the classroom, the introduction of new EMI programs, the required language level for undertaking EMI, and code switching practices (Drljača Margić & Vodopija-Krstanović, 2017). As expected, the content teachers did not feel competent to deal with the language, nor did they feel responsible for developing students’ language proficiency. English was not in the focus of their interest, and they hardly ever corrected student language errors. Besides, they thought that corrective feedback would undermine students’ self-esteem, interrupt their presentations, and disrupt the natural flow of the class. The teachers supported the further development of study programs in English but did not believe that all students and teachers should be involved in EMI or that Croatian-taught programs should be replaced with English counterparts. The majority of the teachers also upheld the introduction of a mandatory (academic) Croatian language course for both domestic and international EMI students. According to the teachers, courses in English should not be imposed on students, but rather they should have the freedom of choice and should be able to make informed decisions. Likewise, they were opposed to the idea of teaching in English becoming a career requirement; they would rather consider it as an offer and an opportunity, although many did realize that it was not actually a matter of free choice. Given today’s status of English as the academic lingua franca and the pressure imposed on HE institutions to become internationally competitive, it would be difficult for teachers to oppose such a trend. What EMI teachers firmly believed was that a high level of English proficiency should be required from teachers in EMI. According to them, this level should be stipulated by the University or Ministry, and EMI teachers should be required to take a language test before being allowed to teach in English. It was also proposed that teachers should attend tailored language development programs, such as LD for EMI. What the teachers needed to operate efficiently in the EMI classroom were well-developed academic language skills and classroom language. The teachers

The Benefits, Challenges and Prospects of EMI in Croatia: An Integrated Perspective

87

also thought that students should attend an ESP course, and that advanced language skills should be an admission requirement. 3.4.1  Code Switching in the EMI Classroom: Help or Hindrance? Based on results from surveys conducted in 2015 and 2017, this section probes into the issue of code switching in EMI, which entails alternating between English, as the medium of instruction, and Croatian, as the national language and the first language of the majority of teachers and students in EMI at UNIRI (Drljača Margić, 2018; Drljača Margić & Vodopija-Krstanović, 2017). The teachers who were not engaged in EMI were more open to occasional code switching in class, which they saw as the only way to acquaint domestic students with Croatian terminology that they would need to function in the Croatian labor market. Code switching was also considered to be an effective compensation strategy for elaborating on certain points or complex content. It was deemed to be particularly useful when teachers were limited by their vocabulary range, needed longer response time, and were unable to express themselves clearly. It was regarded equally useful to teachers who had difficulties explaining, illustrating, improvising, and relating anecdotes, which they could not prepare in advance. Furthermore, the teachers explained that occasional switching to Croatian to present content in both languages could promote comprehension and learning and help students better understand local examples. It was also considered justifiable to provide additional explanation in Croatian if the students asked for it. As for student language use, the teachers held that the occasional use of Croatian would encourage them to participate in class more actively, ask questions, and express their opinions. The teachers who did not approve of code switching, the majority of whom were engaged in EMI, stated that it excluded students who did not understand Croatian from classroom interaction. Another factor mentioned in favor of using English was that switching to Croatian ran the risk of teachers and students overly relying on the native language and not putting in substantial effort to use English to explain and analyze content. The teachers pointed out that the exclusive use of English helped improve their language skills. They also thought that teachers should not be discouraged by the difficulties they encountered and the language mistakes they made, but rather this should motivate them to continue working on their English skills and reflect on the process of teaching in English. Finally, the teachers observed that EMI programs generated certain expectations among stakeholders, the main being extensive student exposure to and regular use of English, which would help develop their language proficiency. As for their views on a language-in-education policy, the teachers expected UNIRI to develop a policy that would stipulate the minimum language requirements for teachers, rather than introduce an English-only policy in the classroom. The great majority held that the use of Croatian should be kept to a minimum and left to the discretion of the teacher. They felt that if code switching were entirely discouraged, it would negatively affect teacher spontaneity, flexibility, and creativity in

88

B. Drljača Margić and I. Vodopija-Krstanović

class. Others, however, maintained that the exclusive use of English should be prescribed. Some even believed that a rulebook should be drawn up outlining when and how Croatian should be used in English-taught programs.

3.5  LD for EMI: Experiences, Observations, and Learning This section presents the results from a longitudinal study conducted from 2014–2016 regarding the teachers’ observations and experiences related to LD for EMI that they attended. The teachers, both those who were involved in EMI and those who were not, welcomed LD for EMI and were eager to improve their language proficiency. What they regarded as particularly useful were the microteaching sessions during which they practiced and reflected on the use of English for teaching purposes and received comprehensive and non-judgmental corrective feedback from the course instructors. Specifically, the teachers appreciated the opportunity to use English in the classroom, create and deliver a coherent presentation in front of peers and language specialists, and give and receive feedback. Participation in the program also lifted their self-esteem, while realization of the fact that others would also have to teach in a foreign language and face similar challenges provided teachers with a sense of comfort. Furthermore, in the writing module, the teachers recognized the value of process writing and the effects of multiple revisions and feedback on the development of academic discourse, coherence and cohesion, vocabulary, language accuracy, and the overall quality of their work. By using only editing symbols, the teachers were not offered correct forms but were supported to develop language awareness and self-correct. They were also satisfied with the nature of the program and its design, which had been adapted to the needs of teachers in EMI. The fact that the program simulated real-world classroom situations and that the learning outcomes were achieved through a wide range of authentic experiences also received praise. Finally, although the program did not explicitly deal with pedagogical aspects, the teachers acknowledged that they had benefited from the innovative student-centered teaching approaches and collaborative hands-on learning activities. In the dual teacher–student role they were able to experience and use student-­ centered and problem-based approaches, different teaching strategies, various materials, interactive lectures, and collaborative tasks, and thus better understand their benefit for student motivation, interest, and learning. As mentioned earlier, the teachers realized that pertinent feedback provided by the instructors was helpful for correcting and avoiding errors and improving both their language and teaching. They considered it to be a beneficial learning experience, which raised their language awareness. The feedback urged them to critically examine their use of English and to find alternative, more suitable ways of explaining material and expressing themselves. In other words, English here was not a mere medium of instruction, and the teachers were guided to notice, analyze, and examine language use and patterns, and identify areas that needed to be worked on.

The Benefits, Challenges and Prospects of EMI in Croatia: An Integrated Perspective

89

As regards the teachers’ suggestions for improvement, they proposed grouping the participants according to their level of proficiency, which would create small homogeneous groups that could be easily supported and would have greater gains. At the same time, however, some teachers recognized the benefits of working in mixed-ability classes, as it helped them develop awareness of their own language abilities and needs and allowed the weaker teachers to learn from more proficient peers. During the presentations, the teachers also experienced what it was like to be taught by a teacher who was not sufficiently proficient or prepared to teach in English and how it affected teaching and learning in the EMI classroom. The teachers also suggested that the program should be spread out over a longer period, include more contact hours, and have a more advanced follow-up course. Finally, they believed that it was necessary to ensure that continuing language development was a professional requisite and that proficient teachers were also provided opportunities for ongoing training in areas specific to classroom discourse and teaching in English. The (weaker) teachers stated that the program reminded them how important language proficiency was for quality teaching and how teachers could be misled by their performance in rehearsed presentations, which were very different from real class situations requiring quick responses, improvisation, elaboration, and creative off-the-cuff interaction. EMI outsiders were apprehensive whether their English skills would adversely affect clarity in communication, delivery of content, spontaneity in student–teacher interaction, and the coverage of course material. They were also worried whether insufficient language skills could affect their authority and self-esteem. If language became a stumbling block, it would be hard to demonstrate expertise in a particular area and create a successful learning environment. Although the teachers were aware of the international dimension of English, characterized by foreign accents, syntactic and lexical inaccuracies, simplification, and deviation from native-like proficiency, they were equally conscious that, to communicate effectively on a specific topic, teachers should be able to speak at length with relative ease and accuracy. EMI insiders pointed out that they did not feel comfortable when they had to use distracting fillers and pauses because they had difficulties producing stretches of language or transitioning from rehearsed to spontaneous interaction. They also bemoaned that they had to pay simultaneous attention to the content and language and needed to keep in mind that lexis, syntax, and pronunciation should not interfere with student understanding. As expected, in Croatian medium classes they did not need to worry about the language and dared to engage in deeper discussion, give detailed feedback, provide real-life examples, and elaborate on a topic. The studies have shown that EMI teachers can feel particularly uneasy when using English in classroom activities that require on-the-spot reaction, such as handling student questions and responses and clarifying ambiguities. As much as quality performance hinges on thorough teacher preparation, teaching and learning are organic processes that cannot be fully anticipated and planned in advance. Since extensive preparation and topic familiarity cannot compensate for a lack of proficiency, to deal with these situations, teachers need good language skills and

90

B. Drljača Margić and I. Vodopija-Krstanović

experience. What is more, the teachers are aware that elaborate preparation and memorization of the material often lead to formal and staged lectures (Drljača Margić & Vodopija-Krstanović, 2018, 2019).

4  R  eflections and Future Directions: Recommendations for a More Effective EMI The following reflections and guidelines are predominantly derived from the teachers’ reported and observed needs, views, experiences, and expectations. Given the effect that inadequate language skills can have on teaching and learning (Coleman, 2006; Hahl, Järvinen, & Juuti, 2016; Mauranen, Hynninen, & Ranta, 2010), EMI teachers should be required to undergo language assessment to determine whether they are eligible to teach in English and what level of language support they need. This would ensure consistency across different contexts as it is questionable whether teachers can critically reflect on their proficiency and accurately assess their own language level. A language assessment instrument that could be used for this purpose is the Test of Oral English Proficiency for Academic Staff (TOEPAS) (Dimova, 2017). An equally important measure for quality assurance is the provision of language support, which can take the form of a tailored language training program, primarily focused on oral skills development. Content teachers could also keep a language portfolio of their progress that could be reviewed by a language specialist (Haines & Ashworth, 2008). The language specialist could also analyze recordings of teaching (Airey, 2015) and help organize supporting activities for novice and experienced EMI teachers, such as knowledge-sharing sessions, seminars, and academic peer meetings (Duong & Chua, 2016). It would also be useful if teachers had more opportunities to teach, study, and spend time abroad as the quality of teaching in English should be comparable to teaching in L1. Teachers could also hold a trial lecture in English, and factors such as language comprehensibility, interaction, and clarification could be taken into account in assessing their ability to teach. Language support should include ongoing triangular collaboration between content teachers, language specialists, and students. A good example is the one organized at the City University of Hong Kong, where students have their assignments reviewed by a language tutor before submitting them to the content teacher (Mahboob, 2014). In view of the fact that there are no specific quality assurance policies and procedures for EMI in Croatia, classroom observation and peer feedback could be organized to improve instruction and raise teachers’ awareness of the benefit of such methods for teaching in a foreign language. Needless to say, these measures should also be taken for engagement in L1-taught programs, where linguistic and pedagogical competences are often taken for granted. What the research conducted so far at UNIRI has shown is that only proficient teachers are open to peer review and are willing to open their classes for observation by a language expert (Drljača Margić & Vodopija-Krstanović, 2017). Moreover, in

The Benefits, Challenges and Prospects of EMI in Croatia: An Integrated Perspective

91

an effort to leave a good impression, managements are also inclined to grant access only to proficient teachers’ classes, which does not allow for identifying potential problems and working towards realistic and viable solutions. Development programs should be institutionally organized to support teachers who might otherwise be unwilling or unable to find time to work on their language skills or to self-fund their training. The experience gained in Rijeka shows that such programs should receive adequate funding to ensure that they include a larger number of contact hours, are readily available, and are feasible and cost-effective for small homogeneous groups of participants. As the training here is organized for only 20 teachers per year, with equal representation from each university constituent institution, the groups tend to be heterogeneous. A major weakness of this selection process is that it does not discriminate between teachers who have no desire or intention of engaging in EMI and those who plan on taking part or have already become involved in English-taught classes and can thus apply the acquired knowledge immediately. Preference should be given to the latter group. Because teachers’ proficiency is taken for granted by students, they tend to feel shocked when they realize that their teachers do not feel comfortable teaching in English and are unable to communicate spontaneously or speak at length with effortless flow (Drljača Margić & Vodopija-Krstanović, 2017; Tatzl, 2011). Even when the teachers’ language-related difficulties do not have negative implications for student motivation and achievement, they inevitably have an adverse effect on classroom interaction and atmosphere and the teachers’ and institution’s reputation. This is particularly evident in seminar classes that involve a great deal of interaction, explanation, feedback, and discussion, where it is very inconvenient if students hesitate to engage in discussion and ask questions because of the teachers’ limited language abilities (Drljača Margić & Vodopija-Krstanović, 2017). That is why the great majority of the teachers in the UNIRI studies would welcome some form of support, such as language training or a certificate course and language expert assistance (cf. Costa & Coleman, 2013; Werther, Denver, Jensen, & Mees, 2014 for other contexts). Since EMI requires the use of general English and academic language skills, even the proficient teachers feel they could benefit from language preparatory courses. Teachers in technical sciences, who often hold that teaching in English would not pose a difficulty as it mainly involves solving equations, drawing diagrams and figures, and using professional vocabulary, basic verb tenses, and plain language (Drljača Margić & Velčić Janjetić, forthcoming), also need support to develop their general and academic literacy and integrate the technical language into teaching. Another advantage of language support programs is that they give teachers reassurance and bolster their self-esteem (Drljača Margić & Tulić, 2018). Although overall good language performance is important for effective classroom performance, fluency in speaking, clarity of expression, and contextual appropriacy are what teachers should primarily strive for and what students expect from their teachers. This means that deviations from the native-speaker benchmark and occasional grammatical and pronunciation errors that do not interfere with clear and effective communication are acceptable.

92

B. Drljača Margić and I. Vodopija-Krstanović

As the quality of EMI also depends on student language proficiency, their linguistic readiness for academic studies in a foreign language should be considered before enrollment. This can be achieved by assessing student proficiency, setting a minimum English language level requirement, offering preparatory language training programs, and/or providing language support. Regardless of students’ overall language proficiency, they often lack specific language and academic literacy skills for reading and writing, presenting, and discussing. As regards code switching in class, if it is to be used, it should be purposeful and limited to support student understanding. Otherwise, the use of Croatian could interfere with international students’ learning as they may not get an opportunity to develop specific terminology in their L1, receive further explanations in their native language, and engage in the same experiences that require active participation in the learning process. For these reasons, continuous quality assurance in EMI is necessary to counteract taking language proficiency for granted or turning a blind eye to its potential barriers to learning (cf. Bamond Lozano & Strotmann, 2015). What teachers could do is meet regularly (with the management) to discuss problems, share best practices, and exchange advice. Student evaluations of teaching should be adapted to meet the specific needs of English-taught programs. Although it might be questionable whether students are able to realistically evaluate the teachers’ language skills, their feedback could prompt teachers to reflect on their competences and practices and provide valuable insights for management to examine and monitor teacher performance. What could also enhance the quality of EMI classes are the small groups, which allow teachers to take a more individualized approach to students, who in turn can take more responsibility for their learning. Financial support is also essential for language assistance, increase in teaching staff, remuneration for greater workload, new teaching resources, and translation of all pertinent documents, resources, tools, and websites into English. Teachers at UNIRI feel overloaded; hence, some proportion of tuition revenue should be allocated to support teachers and reduce teaching loads. Another way to secure the necessary funding is to apply for projects and grants. At UNIRI, for instance, the language support program was financed for several years through the Croatian Ministry of Science and Education and UNIRI’s Internationalisation of Study Programs project. The introduction of EMI and language support at the University Departments of Biotechnology and Mathematics are funded through the European Structural and Investment Funds’ Strategic Internationalisation of Graduate Studies in Mathematics and Biotechnology project. What is also important to keep in mind is that EMI programs are not mere translations of the existing programs in Croatian. The fact that some teachers teach in English but use Croatian professional literature or slides comprising translated extracts from the Croatian literature results in disparities between expectations and outcomes and sparks complaints among students (Drljača Margić & Vodopija-­ Krstanović, 2017). When undertaking EMI, content and teaching methods should be reconsidered and revised as instruction in English often entails teaching an international student body. For example, it involves using more international examples

The Benefits, Challenges and Prospects of EMI in Croatia: An Integrated Perspective

93

to illustrate certain aspects and adjusting to an intercultural classroom and a diversity of values, expectations, and needs (Byun et al., 2011). It also implies upgrading the program to meet international trends and current practices. Furthermore, teaching in English should include the use of certain pedagogical strategies and scaffolding techniques to facilitate students’ learning in a foreign language, such as paraphrasing, emphasizing, asking comprehension questions, providing students with opportunities to ask for clarification, and using signposting. Teachers should also know how to assess student needs, set group tasks, and provide feedback. However, teachers are often not aware how to provide ongoing support and manage classroom interaction, enhance student understanding and engagement, and generate motivation. In order to be able to do that, teachers need to “feel confident in their capabilities”, both linguistic and pedagogical (Bamond Lozano & Strotmann, 2015, p. 854). On the other hand, care should be taken that the introduction of EMI is responsive not only to international trends but also to the potential and constraints of the local context. In other words, universities in our country should not set up unreasonable expectations and pay lip service to fulfilling the prerequisites for EMI implementation, but rather should put effort into ensuring financial support, offering language development programs, recruiting additional teachers, and determining the teaching workload. The success of the EMI initiative also relies upon inter-institutional and intra-­ institutional communication; the first implies learning from the positive and negative experiences gained at other institutions and adopting their best practices, and the second involves regular communication between management, language and content teachers, and teacher trainers during the idea development process, the implementation, and the realization stages. In order to familiarize teachers at UNIRI with the advantages and challenges of EMI and provide information on different kinds of assistance, several seminars were organized as part of the Internationalisation of Study Programs project, which were very well received by the teachers. As for the protection and further development of the Croatian language, although today’s spread of English in academia inevitably leads to other languages being marginalized and losing ground (Coleman, 2006; Wilkinson, 2013), certain measures could and should be taken to maintain their status and ensure that professionals are able to talk and write about their expertise in languages other than English. For this reason, UNIRI needs to develop an explicit language and education policy (cf. Cots, Lasagabaster, & Garrett, 2012; Holmen, 2016 for other contexts), stipulating Croatian language proficiency levels and promoting academic Croatian language training both for domestic and international students in EMI. Based upon what has been gleaned from the studies presented here, it seems fair to state that Croatia would benefit from a clear set of ICLHE standards for teaching through English and more discussions on approaches to quality assurance in EMI. At the national level, policies and action lines need to be developed to improve and support teaching and learning in EMI programs, and develop strategies for meeting EMI standards. These, among other, should include policy guidelines and the promotion of a quality culture which takes into account the institutional realities

94

B. Drljača Margić and I. Vodopija-Krstanović

and specific challenges of EMI, and addresses them in formal quality assurance processes. This also entails undertaking a thorough self-study of EMI programs and settings, rearticulating the programs’ goals and standards, and defining what EMI programs hope to achieve. At the course level, education objectives should not be confined to the content and disregard the fact that English is intertwined into the very process and product of EMI, as well as into the learning outcomes of integrated content and language classes. These issues should not be taken lightly, and we need to be ready for EMI before we take a further step.

References Agency for Science and Higher Education. (2018). Higher education: Types of study programmes in the Republic of Croatia. Retrieved November 15, 2018, from https://www.azvo.hr/en/ Airey, J. (2015). From stimulated recall to disciplinary literacy: Summarizing ten years of research into teaching and learning in English. In S.  Dimova, A.  K. Hultgren, & C.  Jensen (Eds.), English-medium instruction in European higher education (pp. 157–176). Berlin, Germany/ Boston, MA: Walter de Gruyter. Bamond Lozano, V. M., & Strotmann, B. (2015). Internationalizing higher education: Language matters. TESOL Quarterly, 49(4), 847–857. Bečić, E. (2007). Achieving equality in and through tertiary education. In OECD thematic review of tertiary education: Country background report for Croatia (pp. 70–82). Retrieved October 10, 2018, from http://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-school/38802218.pdf Bolsmann, H. C., & Miller, H. (2008). International student recruitment to universities in England: Discourse, rationales and globalisation. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 6, 75–88. Byun, K., Chu, H., Kim, M., Park, I., Kim, S., & Jung, J. (2011). English-medium teaching in Korean higher education: Policy debates and reality. Higher Education, 62(4), 431–449. Centre for Internationalisation and Parallel Language Use. (2018). Transnational alignment of English competences for university lecturers. Retrieved November 1, 2018, from https://cip. ku.dk/english/projects/taec/ Coleman, J.  A. (2006). English-medium teaching in European higher education. Language Teaching, 39(1), 1–14. Costa, F., & Coleman, J. A. (2013). A survey of English-medium instruction in Italian higher education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(1), 3–19. Cots, J. M., Lasagabaster, D., & Garrett, P. (2012). Multilingual policies and practices of universities in three bilingual regions in Europe. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 216, 7–32. Dimova, S. (2017). Life after oral English certification: The consequences of the test of oral English proficiency for academic staff for EMI lecturers. English for Specific Purposes, 46, 45–58. Drljača Margić, B. (2018). Prebacivanje jezičnih kodova u visokoškolskoj nastavi: Stavovi i iskustva sveučilišnih nastavnika [Switching language codes in higher education: Attitudes and experience of university teachers]. In D.  Stolac (Ed.), Od fonologije do leksikologije: Zbornik u čast Mariji Turk [From phonology to lexicology: Proceedings in honor of Mary Turk] (pp. 73–87). Rijeka, Croatia: Biblioteka časopisa Fluminensia. Drljača Margić, B., & Tulić, I. (2018). Teaching staff’s critical perspectives on English-medium instruction: The case of a Croatian higher education context. In M.  Brala-Vukanović & A.  Memišević (Eds.), Language in research and teaching (pp.  73–84). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.

The Benefits, Challenges and Prospects of EMI in Croatia: An Integrated Perspective

95

Drljača Margić, B., & Velčić Janjetić, E. (forthcoming). What it takes to successfully implement English-medium instruction: A case study. In M. Matešić & A. Memišević (Eds.), Meaning in language: From individual to collective. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang. Drljača Margić, B., & Vodopija-Krstanović, I. (2015). Introducing EMI at a Croatian university: Can we bridge the gap between global emerging trends and local challenges? In S. Dimova, A. K. Hultgren, & C. Jensen (Eds.), English-medium instruction in European higher education (pp. 43–63). Berlin, Germany/Boston, MA: Walter de Gruyter. Drljača Margić, B., & Vodopija-Krstanović, I. (2017). Uncovering English-medium instruction: Glocal issues in higher education. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang. Drljača Margić, B., & Vodopija-Krstanović, I. (2018). Language-development for English-medium instruction: Teachers’ perceptions, reflections and learning. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 35, 31–41. Drljača Margić, B., & Vodopija-Krstanović, I. (2019). (Micro)teaching through the medium of English: University content teachers’ practice and learning. In M.  Brala-Vukanović & A. Memišević (Eds.), Language and its effects. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang. Duong, V. A., & Chua, C. S. K. (2016). English as a symbol of internationalization in higher education: A case study of Vietnam. Higher Education Research and Development, 35, 669–683. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1137876 Hahl, K., Järvinen, H., & Juuti, K. (2016). Accommodating to English-medium instruction in teacher education in Finland. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 291–310. Haines, K., & Ashworth, A. (2008). A reflective approach to HE language provision: Integrating context and language through semi-structured reflection. In R. Wilkinson & V. Zegers (Eds.), Realizing content and language integration in higher education (pp. 201–211). Maastricht, The Netherlands: Maastricht University. Holmen, A. (2016). Parallel language strategy. In N. Van Deusen-Scholl & S. May (Eds.), Second and foreign language education (pp. 301–311). New York, NY: Springer. Lasagabaster, D., Cots, J.  M., & Mancho-Barés, G. (2013). Teaching staff’s views about the internationalisation of higher education: The case of two bilingual communities in Spain. Multilingua, 32, 751–778. 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. Mahboob, A. (2014). Meeting the challenges of English-medium higher education in Hong Kong. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 52(2), 183–203. Mauranen, A., Hynninen, N., & Ranta, E. (2010). English as an academic lingua franca: The ELFA project. English for Specific Purposes, 29(3), 183–190. Ministry of Science and Education. (2018). Akreditirani studijski programi. Retrieved December 2, 2018, from http://mzos.hr/dbApp/pregled.aspx?appName=StudProgrami O’Dowd, R. (2018). The training and accreditation of teachers for English medium instruction: An overview of practice in European universities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(5), 553–563. Šćukanec, N. (2008). Enhancing academic mobility in Croatia: Croatia’s entry into Erasmus. Retrieved on June 1, 2018, from http://en.iro.hr/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/MOBIL_publikacija_ENG.pdf Šćukanec, N. (2013). Overview of higher education and research systems in the Western Balkans. Country report: Croatia. Retrieved May 14, 2016, from http://www.herdata.org/public/HE_ and_Research_in_Croatia_FINAL.pdf Strategy for Education, Science and Technology. (2014). Retrieved October 10, 2016, from http:// novebojeznanja.hr/strategija/visoko-obrazovanje/12 Strategy of the University of Rijeka 2007–2013. (2007). Retrieved November 15, 2012, from http://www.apuri.hr/propisi/kvaliteta/SVURI01-01Strategija.pdf Strategy of the University of Rijeka 2014–2020. (2013). Retrieved December 1, 2015, from http:// www.biotech.uniri.hr/files/Dokumenti/Strategija_UNIRI_2014_2020_HR.pdf

96

B. Drljača Margić and I. Vodopija-Krstanović

Tatzl, D. (2011). English-medium masters’ programmes at an Austrian university of applied sciences: Attitudes, experiences and challenges. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10, 252–270. Vizek Vidović, V., & Ružička, A. (2007). Internationalization and globalization of the tertiary education system. In OECD thematic review of tertiary education: Country background report for Croatia (pp.  124–132). Retrieved July 10, 2018, from http://www.oecd.org/education/skillsbeyond-school/38802218.pdf Wächter, B., & Maiworm, F. (2014). English-taught programmes in European higher education. The state of play in 2014. Bonn, Germany: Lemmens. Werther, C., Denver, L., Jensen, C., & Mees, I. M. (2014). Using English as a medium of instruction at university level in Denmark: The lecturer’s perspective. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35(5), 443–462. Wilkinson, R. (2013). English-medium instruction at a Dutch university: Challenges and pitfalls. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster, & J. M. Sierra (Eds.), English-medium instruction at universities: Global challenges (pp.  3–24). Bristol, UK/Buffalo, NY/Toronto, Canada: Multilingual Matters. Wilkinson, R. (2018). Content and language integration at universities? Collaborative reflections. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(5), 607–615.

Transitioning EAL Students from EFL Classes to EMI Programs at the University of Iceland Birna Arnbjörnsdóttir

Abstract  The growth in English medium instruction (EMI) programs in Nordic higher education has exposed the limitations of traditional English as a foreign language (EFL) pedagogies in preparing students for studying in programs that require academic English (Arnbjörnsdóttir and Ingvarsdóttir, Language development across the life span: the impact of English on education and work in Iceland. Springer, Amsterdam, 2018b). This chapter describes a project that mapped the characteristics of English education at secondary level in Iceland and measured the findings against the expected functions of English at university. It outlines the divergence between the official status of EFL and the actual use of English as an additional language in Iceland. The findings are supported by results of a survey of almost 1100 university students about their use of English, two thirds of whom report difficulty in working with English at university. Many students claimed that instruction in secondary school did not prepare them for academic study in English. Finally, the chapter outlines a genre-based instructional approach that addresses identified challenges in writing English at university. The approach draws from a range of pedagogical traditions to operationalize a set of core competencies to improve writing in a single semester. Comparison between pre- and post-intervention surveys of over 800 participants from different language backgrounds and disciplines revealed improved perceptions of writing skills. Keywords  English medium instruction · Academic writing · Instructional practice

B. Arnbjörnsdóttir (*) Vigdís Finnbogadóttir Institute, Department of Languages and Cultures, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 S. Dimova, J. Kling (eds.), Integrating Content and Language in Multilingual Universities, Educational Linguistics 44, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46947-4_6

97

98

B. Arnbjörnsdóttir

1  Introduction Internationalization of universities in the Nordic countries has resulted in a proliferation of English medium instruction (EMI) courses and study programs (Wächter & Maiworm, 2014). Nordic and university language policies presuppose that students are prepared to study in English, and many Nordic universities have stated goals to increase programs taught in English (Hultgren, Gregersen, & Thøgersen, 2014). This development intensifies a traditional reliance on foreign language texts in the Nordic countries where publishing tertiary-level books in the local language is usually financially prohibitive. Nordic university students are thus expected to read English academic texts and increasingly pursue education in English at their local universities despite having had their previous education and academic training in their first language (L1). This trend is in line with a prevailing ideology that Nordic people speak English well. A common policy, referred to as parallel language use, which assumes that Nordic people are able to use English alongside their first language especially in business, education, and scientific pursuits (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2006). However, some studies on the effect of the use of EMI on academic study in the Nordic countries conclude that a substantial number of university students are not adequately prepared to pursue tertiary education in English (Arnbjörnsdóttir & Ingvarsdóttir, 2018a; Arnbjörnsdóttir & Prinz, 2014; Dimova, Hultgren, & Jensen, 2015; Hellekjær, 2005, 2008, 2009; Pecorari, Shaw, Irvine, & Malmström, 2011). Although English has an official status as a foreign language in the Icelandic education system, it has a wide range of functions in Icelandic higher education and in society in general (Arnbjörnsdóttir & Ingvarsdóttir, 2018a). This disparity is the focus of this chapter, which examines how the outcomes of extramural learning and formal EFL instruction serves Icelandic students at university, where English has increasingly become a medium of instruction (Arnbjörnsdóttir & Ingvarsdóttir, 2010, 2018a, 2018b). The chapter begins with a short overview of Icelandic language and educational policies that affect instructional practice and outcomes. It then reports on surveys and interviews with students that explore how their previous English education serves them in their university studies. The bulk of the chapter is devoted to outlining measures taken by the Department of English at the University of Iceland, (1) to meet the changing needs of students from different disciplines who were increasingly and inappropriately signing up for traditional English composition courses to improve their academic English skills, and (2) to adopt more discipline-­oriented writing courses for bachelor students majoring in English literature and English linguistics. A novel intensive approach to teaching writing is described below. The approach focuses on a few core competencies and guides instruction in two new programs created to address the different populations of students’ English academic needs. The first measure consists of a new academic English program open to students from all disciplines who wish to improve their English skills. The other measure, presented here, involved reorganizing the previously generic bachelor courses in English composition into a discipline-oriented series of courses for writing about literature, on the one hand, and writing about

Transitioning EAL Students from EFL Classes to EMI Programs at the University…

99

linguistics, on the other hand. The series begins with an intensive gateway course aimed at enhancing students’ genre awareness and basic expository writing skills in a semester. The course focuses on a few core competencies and two of the five most common university groups of genres identified by Nesi and Gardner (2012), case studies and essays. The goal is to provide students with a base or gateway prior to being introduced to specific discipline-related genres in subsequent courses. The chapter concludes with a short report on ongoing studies of the efficacy of the new approach as it is manifested in the initial intensive gateway course for literature and linguistics majors.

2  Historical Overview 2.1  T  eaching English as a Foreign Language: Language and Educational Policies Icelandic is the national language of Iceland and is used in government and education (Málstefna Stjórnarráðsins, Art.8, 2012). With the exception of Icelandic Sign Language, there is no reference to other languages in policy documents. The single mention of the official role of the English language in Iceland appears in National Curriculum Guides (NCGs) for the primary and secondary levels where English is grouped with other foreign languages, such as Danish, French, and German (Mennta-og menningamálaráðuneytið, 2011a, b, 2013). The NCGs for foreign language education focus on teaching the four skills (reading, writing, listening, and speaking), and they highlight the reading of literature at the advanced level. Grouping English with other languages, such as French or Japanese, contrasts sharply with the linguistic reality in Iceland, where English is omnipresent whereas the other languages are rarely heard. Iceland is traditionally considered a monolingual country. However, despite the island’s geographic isolation, language contact in Iceland is not a new phenomenon, and Iceland has a strong tradition of foreign language education. Danish was a second language in Iceland for over 500  years while Iceland was a Danish colony (Hauksdóttir, 2013). Up until the 1990s, Danish had a continuous presence in Iceland and was the first foreign language taught in Icelandic schools. The presence of English is more recent and increased exponentially during WWII when thousands of English-speaking soldiers became part of everyday life in Iceland. English contact intensified in the latter part of the twentieth century with the spread of English worldwide. Today, English is present in the life of most Icelanders, over 80% of whom hear English every day (Arnbjörnsdóttir & Ingvarsdóttir, 2018a). Youth culture in Iceland reflects cultural references, translanguaging, and a general preference for, and familiarity with, Anglo-Saxon norms, values, and behaviors. The sustained and intense presence of English over the last decades is reflected in Icelanders’ and other Nordic peoples’ confidence in their English skills. The robust confidence, however, is not supported by research. Nor is the positive view of

100

B. Arnbjörnsdóttir

multilingualism that appears in common Nordic declarations about parallel language use reflected in individual countries’ language and educational policies (Hultgren et al., 2014). This is especially true for Iceland, a country of less than 350,000 inhabitants with a long history of policies and practices aimed at preserving the national language, but where officials and the school system have been slow to respond to the omnipresence of English (Arnbjörnsdóttir & Ingvarsdóttir, 2018a). The Icelandic education system is three tiered. Compulsory or primary education begins at age six. Before primary school, most children have up to four years of pre-­ school. Compulsory education ends in the tenth grade when students are 16 years old. Most students move on to a four-year secondary education (Statistics Iceland, 2018). English instruction begins officially in the fourth grade, but most schools offer English instruction earlier. Even preschools offer English classes, often due to pressure from parents. Thus, before entering the tertiary level, the average Icelandic student would have studied English for at least seven years in primary school (Grades 1–10) and another one and a half to four years in secondary school (Grades 11–14), depending on the field of study. NCGs for the primary level reflect the status of EFL. The NCG from 2011 is based on general benchmarks for proficiency for all foreign languages that follows the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) (Mennta-og menningarmálaráðuneytið, 2011a, 2013). The competencies apply to the two foreign languages taught at this level, English and Danish, and reflect general traditional foreign language and culture competencies. The NCG makes no mention of the vastly different linguistic contexts in which children learn these two languages. The introduction to the NCG, includes a short paragraph about the importance of English as the key language in higher education and science (Mennta-og menningarmálaráðuneytið, 2013, p. 129). However, there is no reflection of this statement in the benchmarks themselves, nor is there an acknowledgement of the rich English input Icelandic children receive from media from infancy. There is no special emphasis on academic English in the NCG (Guðmundsdóttir & Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2014). On the contrary, about three times more space is devoted to the importance of learning Danish or other Nordic languages than to the study of English. English proficiency benchmarks at the end of the primary level are vague. The NCGs state that in order to continue their English studies at the secondary level without remediation, students should have reached level 3 in the NCG, or B1 on the Common European Framework of Reference (p. 127). The current NCG thus provides a description of a learner’s proficiency rather than a target benchmark of mastery (Mennta-og menningarmálaráðuneytið, 2013, p.  138). In 2014, over 60% of Icelandic students in the tenth grade reached level 2 (B1/B2) in English upon completion of their compulsory education (Gestsson & Skúlason, 2015). Numerous studies suggest that rather than reaching the broad general proficiency described in the NCG, Icelandic children’s English proficiency is limited to skills in receptive conversational English which are largely acquired outside of school (Jeeves, 2013; Jóhannsdóttir, 2010; Lefever, 2010). Lefever (2010) and Jóhannsdóttir (2010) concluded that students’ English had exceeded the 1999 Curriculum goals for the fourth grade. In spoken conversational English, the fourth grade children with the highest proficiency had acquired A1/A2 proficiency on the CEFR. However,

Transitioning EAL Students from EFL Classes to EMI Programs at the University…

101

studies of English proficiency at the end of primary school, after six years of English instruction, are not as encouraging. Findings suggest that there is continued emphasis on conversational English in the instruction in the upper grades as students in the tenth grade do not have a large enough vocabulary to support effective reading comprehension of academic texts (Egilsdóttir, 2012; Fleckenstein, 2016; Ingvarsdóttir & Jóhannsdóttir, 2018). The overall conclusion that may be gleaned from these findings is that students prior to the onset of instruction may already have acquired some English receptive skills, but at the end of primary school, they lack the required English academic skills to continue with academic work in English at the secondary level. The NCG for the secondary level includes guidelines that apply to all foreign languages taught in secondary school: English, Danish, French, German, Spanish, Russian, Japanese, and Chinese. The description of knowledge and skills at different proficiency levels pertains to an individual student’s proficiency in any foreign language they study (Mennta-og menningarmálaráðuneytið, 2011b). There has been criticism of this grouping as the status of English vis-à-vis the other languages is vastly different (Guðmundsdóttir & Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2014). The 2011 secondary school NCG is broad and open to interpretation, especially the highest, third level that emphasizes general skills, including reading and writing. There is no reference to different registers and genres. There is no recommendation as to what proficiency level and what type of proficiency should be targeted at the end of the secondary level. There is no acknowledgement nor reflection in the NCG of the fact that students will need English for higher education and general professional advancement once they leave secondary school (Arnbjörnsdóttir & Ingvarsdóttir, 2018a; Jeeves, 2013). All secondary school students take three semesters of EFL, regardless of which program of study they choose. Students pursuing a program with a focus on languages or humanities take more English courses than other students, both compulsory and optional English courses. However, as English is defined as a foreign language in the NCG, it encourages a general emphasis on the four skills, with a heavy emphasis on literary genres. Ingvarsdóttir (2010) reports that instruction in secondary schools is largely teacher-centered and that very little effort is made to connect secondary school English instruction to students’ reality. She identified a lack of awareness among teachers that extramural English could be an important source to build on in the classroom. English courses at the most advanced levels do not seem to emphasize genre awareness nor academic discourse to prepare students for the next education level. As the NCG is vague and open to interpretation at the upper proficiency levels, it is unclear whether students are improving their proficiency when taking additional optional courses, which mostly seem to be parallel in terms of proficiency level (Arnbjörnsdóttir & Ingvarsdóttir, 2010; Guðmundsdóttir & Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2014). An examination of curricula from four secondary schools based on the general NCG from 2011 revealed that upper level courses had an overrepresentation of literature content at the expense of other genres (Guðmundsdóttir, 2015; Guðmundsdóttir & Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2014). There is extensive use of literary texts at both educational levels representing, on average, 61% of all reading materials assigned in the EFL

102

B. Arnbjörnsdóttir

courses. Input of other genres is minimal. Guðmundsdóttir (2015) found that the type of literature assigned, and the amount of reading varied immensely from course to course even at the same proficiency level. Jeeves (2013) reports that while her young Icelandic adult respondents enjoyed reading literature, the consensus was that secondary school English studies did not add much to what they had already learned outside of school, and the emphasis was on receptive skills. Studies by Pétursdóttir (2013) and Edgarsson (2018) that measured levels of vocabulary at the end of secondary school support this view. Icelandic secondary school teachers acknowledge the increased importance of English, but educational responses to the new linguistic context has been slow to emerge (Ingvarsdóttir, 2010, 2011). Many students therefore graduate from secondary school without enough training in advanced reading skills and practice working with a variety of genres (e.g., academic texts in disciplines that await them at tertiary level, and in the workplace). In summary, English as a school subject does not seem to enhance the English Icelandic children acquire outside of school. Many children leave school with receptive conversational English skills that serve them well in their everyday use of English, mainly for listening to English music and media. This proficiency is enhanced in EFL education, which is largely literature-based at the expense of other genres at the advanced levels. These findings have significant consequences for academic work at the tertiary level. Before addressing these issues, a brief outline of the presence of English in Iceland is presented.

3  C  urrent Issues in Transitioning from High School to EMI in Higher Education 3.1  English as an Additional Language in Iceland English education has not kept up with the changing role of English in Iceland or in the Nordic countries. Research indicates that the demands for radical changes in the emphasis of teaching and learning English in Nordic schools are not being met (Hellekjær, 2005, 2008, 2009; Ranta, 2010). Hellekjær (2008) points out that EFL instruction at secondary level should give far higher priority to reading other material outside the perennial EFL textbooks and literature, and he calls for instruction in academic literacy and learning strategies. Numerous Nordic studies support this view (Arnbjörnsdóttir & Ingvarsdóttir, 2018a; Brevik, 2015; Paulsrud, 2014; Pecorari et  al., 2011; Swerts & Westbrook, 2013). The same applies in Iceland. Icelandic students have easy access to English which begins early in elementary school, is supported through massive exposure outside of school, and continues in secondary school. However, studies of students’ use of English at tertiary level indicate that despite over 10 years of EFL education, many students struggle at university where increasingly English is being introduced as a medium of instruction (Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2009; Bernharðsson & Kristinsson, 2014).

Transitioning EAL Students from EFL Classes to EMI Programs at the University…

103

3.2  Using English at University A recent mixed-methods study examined almost 1100 Icelandic university students’ views about their preparation to use English at university, the challenges they encountered, if any, and the instructional support they received. The survey revealed that students overestimated their English proficiency. Eighty-six percent of the students stated that their speaking, listening comprehension, and reading skills in English were either good or very good, while slightly fewer (75%) reported that their English writing skills were good or very good. Two thirds of students (65%) felt prepared to use English at university. They also stated that they felt prepared to read English textbooks at university (Arnbjörnsdóttir & Ingvarsdóttir, 2018a). Overall, two-thirds of respondents seemed to be content with their skills and found using English easy or rather easy. Twenty-four percent of the respondents reported that there were advantages to using English, while 15% reported disadvantages, and 16% said that it had no effect. One wonders what thought lay behind the 55% who expressed no opinion on this topic (Arnbjörnsdóttir & Ingvarsdóttir, 2018a). Despite the confidence in their English skills, almost half the respondents (44%) said that working with English texts increased their workload, and 83% reported that working with two languages was problematic. Not surprisingly, a difference was found between respondents in different disciplines as students in natural sciences and engineering reported more advantages and fewer disadvantages than average with using English that students in the humanities and social sciences. This was not reflected in their reports about workload as almost half the same students believed that their workload increased when using English. Education students seemed to have the most difficulty with English, and students in the natural sciences had the least. This is despite over half of students in natural sciences reporting that working with English increased their workload. Greater workload was revealed in the multitude of strategies students use to access their textbooks. Around 66% reported using a dictionary while reading, and 59% reported creating an Icelandic glossary. Forty-one percent translated using Google. A third said that they wrote a summary of the text in Icelandic (Arnbjörnsdóttir & Ingvarsdóttir, 2018b). Clearly, students, despite self-reported good English skills, go to some lengths to access English texts, work that is not taken into consideration when courses are assigned credits and work that students do not anticipate prior to entering university. Interviews with ten students from different disciplines revealed more closely the challenges students faced while using English. Interviewees often began by stating that they did not have much difficulty with English, but they revealed that they encountered challenges due to insufficient genre awareness and lack of academic English. Towards the end of his interview, one student stated that he thought about quitting during the first semester because he struggled with English. Many claimed that their primary and secondary school English had not prepared them for academic study (Arnbjörnsdóttir & Ingvarsdóttir, 2018a, 2018b). It is of great concern that the interviews revealed that some students did not read the English texts at all as reading in English was too time consuming and instead relied on

104

B. Arnbjörnsdóttir

instructors’ slides as their main source of content input (Arnbjörnsdóttir & Ingvarsdóttir, 2010, 2018b). The confidence in English proficiency that appears in the surveys may be explained by the fact that students felt that they had, and probably do have, a good command of informal conversational English that serves their everyday needs. This gives them a false sense of confidence when entering university where they soon discover that they have limited genre command and inadequate vocabulary despite almost 10 years of English study prior to university. Most students (and faculty for that matter) seem to believe that this is a personal issue rather than a university-wide issue (Arnbjörnsdóttir & Ingvarsdóttir, 2018a). Despite struggling with English, students at the University of Iceland receive no English language support and their difficulties are a hidden challenge, unacknowledged by university government, faculty, and even by the students themselves. Yet, the problem persists and students from different disciplines at the University were increasingly and inappropriately registering for courses in the bachelor program in English literature and linguistics hoping to improve their academic English. The bachelor program in English is a content-based program with two strands: English literature and English linguistics. The program offers no remedial English courses and prior to the reorganization described here, the program included only one generic English composition course. The influx of students with limited English from other disciplines into the English program, including a sizable body of international students, lead to frustration among the bachelor students majoring in English linguistics and literature. These students had fewer opportunities to write in the only available composition course, which was ineffective because of the large number of students (250+) enrolled with varied levels of English proficiency. The English Department did not have the resources to meet the demands of the extended student population, which led to negative student evaluations, limited observable improvement, and high instructor turnover. Therefore, the English Department, on its own initiative, reorganized their curriculum to better serve the students who were enrolling in its programs.

3.3  T  he New Approach That Targets the Immediate Needs of Students in EMI Programs There is a lack of awareness among educational authorities and even the students themselves about the discord between EFL learners and English users in EMI programs (Doolan, 2017). Despite concerns about students’ lack of preparation for study in EMI programs, few studies are available on interventions designed specifically for EMI students (Dearden, 2015). Many factors contribute to this dissonance as described above. One is the discord between the goals of traditional EFL approaches and the needs of students in EMI programs.

Transitioning EAL Students from EFL Classes to EMI Programs at the University…

105

Traditional EFL approaches focus on developing general English skills with a linear progression from no English proficiency to skills in listening, speaking, reading, and writing, while advanced courses tend to focus on literary genres. The EFL approach to writing is often a reproduction of information where text is presented in a linear fashion with revision on sentence-level, form-focused, proof- reading with minimal awareness of English academic discourse conventions and language. In fact, very little writing is performed in traditional EFL classes in Iceland (Ingvarsdóttir, 2011). Once at university, many students recognize the terminology of academic writing (e.g., thesis, topic sentence, etc.) but are unable to produce and integrate them into a cohesive piece of writing (Arnbjörnsdóttir & Prinz, 2017). Students in an EMI program use writing as a tool for communicating knowledge, relating facts and information to a higher-level idea, and revising with a focus on evidence-based academic writing using authorial voice. Their content knowledge is evaluated based on their ability to execute these writing skills. Students in EMI programs are at the same time expected to understand and use academic discourse as specific to culture, audience, and community of practice. Students in EMI programs need very specific writing instruction, where their skills are honed to develop specific skills that can be transferred to other coursework. With these differences in mind, a new course, using a pedagogical approach and textbook entitled The Art and Architecture of Academic Writing was developed (Prinz & Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2016) to meet student needs. The goal was to develop a textbook that would enhance students’ academic English literacy skills in a single semester. The textbook is designed for students in EMI programs in literature and linguistics who are fluent in conversational English and need very little grammar support but require intensive instruction in basic academic vocabulary and academic writing. The goal was to transform students’ conceptual awareness of academic writing concepts gained in secondary school, hone this into functional skills students can use to regulate their writing in their disciplines (Hyland, 2017), and serve as gateways to more complex discipline-specific genres. The eclectic approach is based on different theoretical frameworks (Kern, 2000; Kern & Nelson, 2012). It builds on traditional structural/product driven approaches and process writing in that writing is divided into specific phases with a recursive process of writing and revision. The text contains minimal reading and clear, concise, explicit instruction leading to practice that develops autonomy in the use of a repertoire of strategies through graphic and visual presentation. The course emphasizes English genre-based writing guided by a thesis (Flowerdew, 2016; Hyland, 2017; Nesi & Gardner, 2012; Swales, 2004) as it demonstrates ways to organize information hierarchically using discourse patterns and terminology appropriate to the genre. Instruction is heavily scaffolded. The book focuses on core skills divided into the structure of writing (architecture) and the style of writing (art). The architecture includes ways to write papers in English that meet the expectations of the community of readers for which the paper is written. This includes strategies to develop a thesis, organize text based on the thesis, strategies to find and cite evidence for the thesis, and strategies for writing introductions

106

B. Arnbjörnsdóttir

and conclusions. The art of writing includes ongoing reflection on and evaluation of rhetorical elements of style and development of authorial voice. The text focuses on a limited number of genres most common to university study; case studies and essays (Nesi & Gardner, 2012). These genres provide a gateway with a focus on transferable features characteristic of expository academic genres. Writing assignments based on students’ own personal knowledge and experience allow them to practice academic language, the formal register of the English academic community. The approach emphasizes mastery of single elements one at a time that are then synthesized into larger writing tasks. The text thus scaffolds production of increasingly more complex writing, progressing from short pieces on familiar topics using informal language to longer more formal genre-specific papers. This is accomplished through a predictable sequence of reflection on the relevance of the different components to their study, writing practice, production, and revision of assignments. Students work from familiar genres, such as personal narratives and descriptions, to a case study based on primary research on a familiar topic. The case study is then expanded into its social and historical context in a research paper using secondary sources. Reflections that build awareness about each component are incorporated into the writing approach (Lavelle & Guarino, 2003; Lavelle & Zuercher, 2001). Recognizing that form focused instruction has minimal impact on improving writing for this group of high level English speakers (Galbraith, 2009), emphasis is placed on practice to improve writing. As reading is minimal, students hone their writing skills through constant writing in class, online, and at home. Cognitive models which underline the role of strategies as precursors to functional writing skills are employed (Deane et  al., 2008; Galbraith, 2009; Oxford, 2015), and explicit instruction is used to model autonomous and independent strategy use (Archer & Hughes, 2011; Galbraith, 2009; Segev-Miller, 2004). The success of the text and approach has been supported by studies over several years.

3.4  T  he Efficacy of the New Approach to Teaching English to Students in EMI Programs The Art and Architecture of Academic Writing text and general approach has been evaluated using mixed-methods over several semesters with almost 800 students and instructors. These evaluations include end of semester evaluations, pre- and post-course student surveys, students’ reflections on various aspects of the program/ approach, analyses of pre- and post-course writing samples, and interviews with instructors. Course evaluations from 2011 and surveys and reflections from the same approximately 100 students in 2013 provide the basis for the results reported below. Eighty-one students took part in the pre-course survey in the spring of 2011, but only 27 filled out the post-course survey. Not all students responded to all the

Transitioning EAL Students from EFL Classes to EMI Programs at the University…

107

questions as seen in the variation of response numbers. The self-efficacy questions were identical in the pre- and post-course survey and began with a statement: I can… + statement, with response options on a Likert scale such as, I strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree, and strongly agree. The first statement was: I can structure my writing to complete papers according to guidelines. Fifty-four percent of the initial 44 students who offered their opinion on this statement in the pre-course survey agreed or strongly agreed, but 85% of the 23 participants in the post-course survey agreed or strongly agreed. Another statement pertaining to self-efficacy was, I can produce clear, concise & organized text. Forty-­ five percent (n = 36) strongly agreed or agreed in the pre-course survey and 79% (n = 19) in the post-course survey. A third and final statement simply stated: I can write academic text. In the post-course survey only 38% of 31 students agreed or strongly agreed while 74% of 20 students responded that they agreed or strongly agreed in the post-course survey. The pre- and post-course surveys has since been made a requirement to ensure more participation in the post survey. This is seen in the participation numbers in the survey reported in the next section. The views of the students are in line with the general perception in the department that this program was working better than previous traditional approaches leading to better overall writing proficiency (Arnbjörnsdóttir & Prinz, 2017). The study from the spring of 2013 examines the extent to which the approach and textbook were successful in developing students’ writing in English, which has different rhetorical conventions than writing in the students’ L1(s). The mixed-­ method study includes (1) pre- and post-course surveys, which measure possible changes in students’ perceptions related to their writing proficiency, and (2) student reflections, which provide a deeper understanding of students’ views of academic writing. The participants were first-year students enrolled in the one-semester intensive academic writing course in the English language and linguistics bachelor programs at the University of Iceland. About half of the approximately 100 participants were Icelandic L1 speakers who enter university at 21 years or older, along with students with mixed L2 backgrounds from a variety of disciplines (Arnbjörnsdóttir & Prinz, 2017). Background survey information indicated that 90% of the participants began English study before the age of 12 and almost half (46%) reported 9–12 years of formal English instruction. Pre-survey data reveals that almost 90% reported good or very good English listening and reading and slightly lower ratings of speaking and writing skills (Arnbjörnsdóttir & Prinz, 2017). The 91 participants completed identical pre- and post-course surveys with 36 questions using a five-point Likert scale. Sixteen questions focused on students’ pre-and post-course perceptions of themselves as writers including 11 questions adapted from the Inventory of Processes in College Composition (IPIC) (Lavelle & Zuercher, 2001). The survey responses were analyzed using simple percentage and correlation calculations through SPSS. Students reporting good or very good writing skills overall rose by 14% in the post-course survey, while, as expected, the numbers for English comprehension stayed the same. The survey results show a modest increase in students’ perceptions

108

B. Arnbjörnsdóttir

of self-regulation with students reporting increase in knowledge of the elements of academic writing and ability to write without assistance. The strongest increase (24%) was among students who agreed with the statement I am familiar with the components of a research paper. Student ambivalence (neither agree nor disagree) about their writing abilities decreased in the post-course survey, suggesting a corresponding growth in awareness of their own abilities. The participants who agreed or strongly agreed with the statement I can write a research paper without any help or instruction increased by 13% in the post-course survey. Students who neither agreed nor disagreed decreased by 7%. Analysis of the pre- and post-course survey responses indicate an increase in students’ awareness of their own writing proficiency (Arnbjörnsdóttir & Prinz, 2017). Another part of the study included students’ reflections on how the approach affected their understanding of the structure of English academic papers especially the purpose of a thesis. Students submitted written responses to six prompts as part of the course requirements out of over 30 overall reflection points in the book. This study analyzes data from one of the six reflections. One hundred and eleven responses to prompts related to students’ thoughts about the purpose and influence of writing guided by a thesis were analyzed based on a Grounded Theory approach to interpretation and identification of general themes (Creswell, 2009; Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, 2009; Zimmerman, 1989, 2013). Students responded to a question asking them about the purpose of a working thesis, and about their experiences writing an English academic paper without a thesis. The majority (68%) reported that their writing became easier after adopting a thesis to guide them, often with reference to specific assignments or passages in the textbook. Three themes related to academic writing were identified in the students’ reflections including. The first theme, thesis-driven writing, included reflections that confirmed that many students were not aware of the role of a thesis statement in academic genres prior to the course even though they knew what a thesis statement was, or “…what a thesis meant” as one student stated (Student #18). The second theme, university writing vs. writing in school, included student comments that were consistent with other studies that report the dearth of academic writing in secondary school EFL classes (Ingvarsdóttir & Jóhannsdóttir, 2018; Jeeves, 2013). While I was in [upper secondary school] I took all the English courses that were available. What I found really frustrating while starting at the University of Iceland was how I did not have any good background in the development and the process of writing a paper… (Student #99)

The quote above suggests that at least some students enter EMI programs after years of EFL study seemingly unaware of the importance of thesis-driven writing in academic discourse. The third theme, academic writing in English vs. writing in other languages, comprised reflections that included 17 comparisons of academic writing in English with other languages. Students made specific references to the differences between academic writing in English and other languages with which they were familiar. Some statements reflected students’ growing awareness of the

Transitioning EAL Students from EFL Classes to EMI Programs at the University…

109

role of a thesis in English expository text. The students who focused on language differences in their reflections appeared to demonstrate lower language proficiency than students whose comments focused on academic writing. In addition, responses in this category suggested limited awareness of cultural variations in text structures. Students’ reflections on writing papers guided by an initial thesis supports a view that their EFL studies did not prepare them to read and write English academic text of which the thesis is key. The reflections also provide evidence for the efficacy of the new writing program.

4  Reflections and Future Directions At the University of Iceland, an EAP approach was implemented to address the needs of EMI students via a writing course. The course was supported through the use of a textbook, The Art and Architecture of Academic Writing, that was specifically developed for university students who are fluent or near fluent in conversational contextualized English but need immediate and intensive support to tackle academic literacy in EMI programs. This chapter has described one university’s effort to meet the needs of students who pursue their studies in English. The Art and Architecture of Academic Writing builds on students’ existing English proficiency and knowledge by restructuring familiar writing concepts into a framework that supports deep-level approaches to writing of two families of genres characteristic of university assignments. This instructional approach fosters cognitive writing strategies specific to certain academic writing tasks and allows students to practice actual writing that leads to greater autonomy. While initial evaluations have reported positive results of the implementation of this intervention, ongoing evaluation is necessary to ensure that needs of this previously neglected population are met. In addition to surveys, this ongoing evaluation should include analyses of students’ actual writings and as students’ perceptions of their learning experience. Each evaluation should be used to develop the program further to create a more refined pedagogical approach. Thus far, data have been collected in relation to the efficacy of this approach. However, ultimately studies are need to examine the long-term effects of this intervention by analyzing the transferability of the academic skills students gain in the course. The next phase of the pedagogical approach of what is now called the AWARE (Arranging to write, Writing, Assessing, Revising and Editing) will target students who have less than advanced proficiency in English. The most pressing issue is to call attention to the needs of EMI students who are L2 English speakers world-wide and invite university management teams to actively begin supporting them. This process begins with official acknowledgement of the actual status of English in countries like Iceland and subsequent adjustment of language and educational policies. Along with policy changes, modifications of the English curriculum should be implemented. In addition to EAP courses, such as the

110

B. Arnbjörnsdóttir

one described in this chapter, content and language integrated approaches should be considered to strengthen specific disciplinary language needs of students at all levels of education.

References Archer, A., & Hughes, C. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Arnbjörnsdóttir, B. (2009) Enska í háskólanámi [Using English in university studies]. Milli mála 1 [Between Languages]. Ársrit Stofnunar Vigdísar Finnbogadóttur [Annual Review of The Vigdís Finnbogadóttir Institute]. Reykjavík, Iceland. Retrieved from https://ojs.hi.is/millimala/ article/view/1423/587 Arnbjörnsdóttir, B., & Ingvarsdóttir, H. (2010). Coping with English at university: Students’ beliefs. Ráðstefnurit Netlu  – Menntakvika 10 [Netla, a webjournal on pedagogy and education]. Retrieved from http://netla.hi.is/menntakvika2010/008.pdf Arnbjörnsdóttir, B., & Ingvarsdóttir, H. (2018a). Language development across the life span: The impact of English on education and work in Iceland. Berlin, Germany: Springer. Arnbjörnsdóttir, B., & Ingvarsdóttir, H. (2018b). Simultaneous parallel code use. In B.  Arnbjörnsdóttir & H.  Ingvarsdóttir (Eds.), Language development across the life span: The impact of English on education and work in Iceland (pp.  163–178). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Springer. Arnbjörnsdóttir, B., & Prinz, P. (2014). An English academic writing course for secondary schools: A pilot study. Netla, veftímarit um uppeldi og menntun [Netla, a webjournal on pedagogy and education]. Retrieved from http://netla.hi.is/greinar/2013/ryn/018.pdf Arnbjörnsdóttir, B., & Prinz, P. (2017). From EFL to EMI: Developing writing skills for the humanities. ESP Today, 5(2), 5–23. Bernharðsson, H., & Kristinsson, A.P. (2014). Landerapport Island: Islandsk eller engelsk i islandsk universitetsvirksomhed [National report Iceland: Icelandic or English in the Icelandic university context]? In F. Gregersen (Ed.), Hvor parallelt: Om parallellspråkighet på Nordens universitet [How parallel: On parallel lanuage use at Nordic universities]. (pp.  427–486). TemaNord 2014, 535. Copenhagen, Denmark: Nordic Council of Ministers. Brevik, L. M. (2015). Strategies and shoes: Can we ever have enough? Teaching and using reading comprehension strategies in general and vocational programmes. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 61(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2015.1075310 Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Deane, P., Odendahl, N., Quinlan, T., Fowles, M., Welsh, C., & Bivens-Tatum, J. (2008). Cognitive models of writing: Writing proficiency as a complex integrated skill. ETS Research Report Series. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.23338504.2008.tb02141.x Dearden, J. (2015). English as a medium of insstruction – A growing global phenomenon. British Council. Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/education/ihe/knowledge-centre/ english-language-higher-education/report-english-medium-instruction Dimova, S., Hultgren, A. K., & Jensen, C. (2015). English-medium instruction in European higher education: English in Europe, 3. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: DeGruyter. Doolan, S. M. (2017). Comparing patterns of error in generation 1.5, L1, and L2 first-year composition writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 35, 1–17. Edgarsson, G. (2018). Academic vocabulary proficiency and reading comprehension among Icelandic secondary school students. In B. Arnbjörnsdóttir & H. Ingvarsdóttir (Eds.), Language development across the life span: The impact of English on education and work in Iceland (pp. 95–112). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Springer.

Transitioning EAL Students from EFL Classes to EMI Programs at the University…

111

Egilsdóttir, Ó. (2012). English reading comprehension of 9th grade students in Iceland (Unpublished bachelor thesis). University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland. Retrieved from https://skemman. is/bitstream/1946/11077/1/%C3%93l%C3%B6f%20Hildur%20MA%20Ritger%C3%B0.pdf Fleckenstein, L. (2016). Vocabulary in 10th Grade: The receptive vocabulary size of 10th graders in Iceland (Unpublished bachelor thesis). University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland. Retrieved from https://skemman.is/bitstream/1946/23593/1/La%CC%81raMartaFleckensteinBAes say2016.pdf Flowerdew, J. (2016). English for Specific Academic Purposes (ESAP) writing: Making the case. Writing & Pedagogy, 8(1), 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.v8i1.30051 Galbraith, D. (2009). Cognitive models of writing. German as a Foreign Language Journal, 2(3), 7–22. Gestsson, S., & Skúlason S. (2015). Samræmd könnunarpróf: Niðurstöður fyrir árið 2014 [National examinations: Results for 2014]. Rit 1. Reykjavík: Námsmatsstofnun. Retrieved from https:// rafhladan.is/bitstream/handle/10802/9572/skyrsla_nidurstodur_2014.pdf?sequence=1 Guðmundsdóttir, J. G. (2015). Genre based pedagogy: The use of literature in EFL education at upper primary and secondary level in Iceland. Unpublished Master‘s Thesis. University of Iceland. https://skemman.is/bitstream/1946/20363/1/J%C3%B3na_Gu%C3%B0r%C3%BAn_ Gu%C3%B0mundsd%C3%B3ttir.pdf Guðmundsdóttir, G., & Arnbjörnsdóttir, B. (2014). Undirbúningur framhaldsskólanemenda fyrir notkun ensku í háskólanámi: Námskrár og nýtt íslenskt málumhverfi [Preparation of secondary school students’ for the use of English at university: Curriculum guides and the new linguistic context in Iceland]. Netla – Veftímarit um uppeldi og menntun [Netla, a webjournal on pedagogy and education]. Retrieved from http://netla.hi.is/greinar/2014/ryn/010.pdf Hauksdóttir, A. (2013). Language and the development of national identity: Icelanders’ attitudes to Danish in turbulent times. In L. B. Christiansen, K. Hvenegård-Lassen, and N. K. Hansen (Eds.), Made in Denmark. Investigations of the dispersion of ‘Danishness’(pp. 65–94). KULT 1: Roskilde University. Hellekjær, G.  O. (2005). The acid test: Does upper secondary EFL instruction effectively prepare Norwegian students for the reading of English textbooks at colleges and universities? (Doctoral dissertation) University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. Retrieved from https://www.duo.uio. no/handle/10852/32286 Hellekjær, G. O. (2008). A case for improved reading instruction for academic English reading proficiency. Acta Didactica Norge, 2(1). Available from https://www.journals.uio.no/index. php/adno/article/view/1022/901 Hellekjær, G. O. (2009). Academic English reading proficiency at the university level: A Norwegian case study. Reading in a Foreign Language, 21(2), 198–222. Hultgren, A. K., Gregersen, F., & Thøgersen, J. (2014). English in Nordic Universities: Ideologies and practices. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. Hyland, K. (2017). English in the discipline: Arguments for specificity. ESP Today, 1, 5–23. Ingvarsdóttir, H. (2010). Same subject, different goals? The views of teachers and their learners in grade ten. Paper presented in a conference in honor of Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, April 15–17, 2010. Ingvarsdóttir, H. (2011). Teaching English in a new age: Challenges and opportunities. In B. Hudson & M. Meinert (Eds.), Beyond fragmentation: Didactics, learning and teaching in Europe (pp. 93–106). Opladen, Germany: Barbara Budrich Publishers. Ingvarsdóttir, H., & Arnbjörnsdóttir, B. (2018). University instructors’ views on using curriculum materials in English. In B. Arnbjörnsdóttir & H. Ingvarsdóttir (Eds.), Language development across the life span: The impact of English on education and work in Iceland (pp. 95–112). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Springer. Ingvarsdóttir, H., & Jóhannsdóttir, Á. (2018). Learning and using English: The views of learners at the end of compulsory education. In B. Arnbjörnsdóttir & H. Ingvarsdóttir (Eds.), Language development across the life span: The impact of English on education and work in Iceland (pp. 79–94). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Springer.

112

B. Arnbjörnsdóttir

Jeeves, A. (2013). Relevance and the L2 self in the context of Icelandic secondary school learners: Learner views (Doctoral dissertation). The University fo Iceland. Reykjavík, Iceland. Retrieved from https://skemman.is/handle/1946/16755 Jóhannsdóttir, Á. (2010). English in the 4th grade in Iceland: Exploring exposure and measuring vocabulary size of 4th grade students. Ráðstefnurit Netlu  – Menntakvika 2010. Netla  – Veftímarit um uppeldi og menntun. Retrieved from http://netla.hi.is/menntakvika2010/007.pdf Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and language teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Kern, R., & Nelson, M. (2012). Language teaching and learning in the postlinguistic condition. In L. Alsagoff, W. Renandya, G. Hu, & S. McKay (Eds.), Teaching English as an international language: Principles and practices. London, UK: Routledge. Lavelle, E., & Guarino, A. J. (2003). A multidimensional approach to understanding college writing processes. Educational Psychology, 23(3), 295–305. Lavelle, E., & Zuercher, N. (2001). The writing approaches of university students. Higher Education, 42(3), 373–391. Lefever, S. (2010). English skills of young learners in Iceland. Ráðstefnurit Netlu – Menntakvika 2010. Netla  – Veftímarit um uppeldi og menntun. Retrieved from http://netla.hi.is/ menntakvika2010/021.pdf Málstefna stjórnarráðsins [The government’s language policy] (2012). Retrieved from https:// www.forsaetisraduneyti.is/media/frettir1/Malstefna-Stjornarradsins-161112.pdf Mennta-og menningarmálaráðuneytið [Ministry of education, science and culture] (2013) Aðalnámskrá grunnskóla [National curriculum guide for compulsory schools with Subject Areas]. Retrieved from https://www.stjornarradid.is/verkefni/menntamal/namskrar/#Tab0 Mennta-og menningamálaráðuneytið [Ministry of education, science and culture] (2011a). Aðalnámskrá framhaldsskóla [National curriculum guide for secondary schools]. Retrieved from https://www.stjornarradid.is/verkefni/menntamal/framhaldsskolar/ Mennta-og menningamálaráðuneytið [Ministry of education, science and culture] (2011b). Aðalnámskrá grunnskóla. Almennur hluti II. [National curriculum guide for compulsory schools. General section II] Retrieved from https://www.stjornarradid.is/verkefni/menntamal/ namskrar/#Tab0 Nesi, H., & Gardner, S. (2012). Genres across the disciplines. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Nordic Council of Ministers (2006). Deklaration om nordisk språkpolitik [A Nordic language policy declaration]. Copenhagen, Denmark: Nordiska ministerrådet. Retrieved from http://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:700895/FULLTEXT01.pdf Oxford, R.  L. (2015). Expanded perspectives on autonomous learners. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2014.995765 Paulsrud, B. Y. (2014). English medium instruction in Sweden: Perspectives and practices in two upper secondary schools. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm University. Pecorari, D., Shaw, P., Irvine, A., & Malmström, H. (2011). English textbooks in parallel language tertiary education. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 313–333. Pétursdóttir, M. (2013). Explicit teaching of academic vocabulary in EFL: Preparing Icelandic students for education at university level (Unpublished Master’s thesis). University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland. Retrieved from https://skemman.is/handle/1946/16397 Prinz, P., & Arnbjörnsdóttir, B. (2016). The art and architecture of academic writing. University of Iceland. Unpublished manuscript. Ranta, E. (2010). English in the real world vs. English at school – Finnish English teachers’ and students’ views. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20, 156–177. Segev-Miller, R. (2004). Writing from sources: ‘The effects of explicit instruction on college students’ processes and products. Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 4(1), 5–33. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ESLL.0000033847.00732.af Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. London, UK: Sage.

Transitioning EAL Students from EFL Classes to EMI Programs at the University…

113

Statistics Iceland. (2018). Framhaldsskólastig. Retrieved August 3, 2018, from http://px.hagstofa. is/pxen/pxweb/en/Samfelag/Samfelag__skolamal__3_framhaldsskolastig__0_fsNemendur/ SKO03109.px/?rxid=8e4642a0-5f50-4ef6-b8c6-adf77d073301 Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Exploration and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Swerts, S., & Westbrook, P. (2013). Preparing students and lecturers for English medium instruction at the University of Copenhagen. Sprogforum, 56, 71–78. Wächter, B., & Maiworm, F. (2014). English-taught programmes in European higher education: The state of play in 2014. ACA Papers on International Cooperation in Education. Bonn, Germany: Lemmens Medien GmbH. Retrieved from http://www.aca-secretariat.be/fileadmin/ aca_docs/images/members/ACA-2015_English_Taught_01.pdf Zimmerman, B. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 1–23. Zimmerman, B.  J. (2013). From cognitive modeling to self-regulation: ‘A social cognitive career path’. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/0046152 0.2013.794676

English Medium Instruction in Higher Education in Qatar: A Multi-Dimensional Analysis Using the ROAD-MAPPING Framework Zohreh R. Eslami, Keith M. Graham, and Hassan Bashir

Abstract  In recent years Qatar’s higher education system has undergone major changes as a result of an ambitious educational reform movement within the country. While this movement has brought in numerous foreign branch campuses that opened up academic opportunities that had not previously existed, it also has created some discord between the values of locals and the Western institutions. Research has been conducted on various aspects of Qatari higher education, but each study only provides a glimpse of a very complicated system. This chapter utilizes the ROAD-MAPPING Framework (Dafouz and Smit, Appl Linguis 37(3): 397–415, 2016) to examine higher education in Qatar from a macro, holistic view. The dimensions of Roles of English, Academic Disciplines, (Language) Management, Agents, Practices and Processes, and Internationalzation and Glocalization will be explored. Through the results of this multi-dimensional analysis, future recommendations for language policy and research are proposed. Keywords  English medium instruction · Higher education · Qatar · Language policy · Education policy

Z. R. Eslami (*) Department of Teaching, Learning and Culture, Texas A&M University and Texas A&M University-Qatar, Doha, Qatar e-mail: [email protected] K. M. Graham Department of Teaching, Learning and Culture, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA e-mail: [email protected] H. Bashir Liberal Arts Program, Texas A&M University-Qatar, Doha, Qatar e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 S. Dimova, J. Kling (eds.), Integrating Content and Language in Multilingual Universities, Educational Linguistics 44, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46947-4_7

115

116

Z. R. Eslami et al.

1  Introduction Qatar’s education system is very young with its first official school opening in the 1950s. However, in recent years Qatar has embarked on an ambitious education reform and development program implemented on a scale and at a speed rarely if ever seen before (MacLeod & Abou-El-Kheir, 2017). Much of this has been sparked by an evaluation of the education system in 2001 by the nonprofit research organization RAND (Brewer et al., 2007), which criticized the Qatari education system for being outdated with its rote-style pedagogies and lack of strategies for evaluation of outcomes. As a result, both K-12 schools and higher education have seen great changes in terms of curriculum, pedagogies, and the language of instruction. For higher education in particular, many Western institutions have established branch campuses in Qatar’s Education City, importing their policies, procedures, and cultures with them. Qatar University has also faced policy changes in recent years, which has affected many Qataris who are looking to continue their education close to home (Al-Muftah, 2017). While these changes have broadened academic opportunities for Qataris, at the same time, they have created some discord within communities. Research has begun to better understand the evolving nature of higher education in Qatar and the implications it has for society, but these studies only provide a glimpse of a very complicated system. This chapter provides a macro look at higher education in Qatar by using the ROAD-MAPPING framework proposed by Dafouz and Smit (2016). The chapter begins with a brief overview of Qatar’s higher education history, followed by a short description of the ROAD-MAPPING framework. We then examine higher education in Qatar through each of the ROAD-MAPPING dimensions and end with proposals for future directions in Qatar’s higher education institutions. By examining higher education through the lens of Roles of English, Academic Disciplines, (Language) Management, Agents, Practices and Processes, and Internationalization and Glocalization, a more complete picture of higher education will be revealed, which will offer an opportunity for a more accurate comparison of Qatar to other nations, as well as allow for a more holistic analysis from which future research agendas may be built.

2  Historical Overview of Higher Education in Qatar Prior to 1973, Qatari students who wanted to pursue higher education traveled abroad to countries such as Egypt and Lebanon (Al-Muftah, 2017). While traveling abroad to study was typically only an option for males, this changed in the 1970s with government scholarships offering females the opportunity to study abroad under the condition of family approval. In 1973, the Emir of Qatar founded the first national College of Education in Qatar, which gave local Qataris an opportunity to receive their higher education without leaving home (Qatar University, 2017). The

English Medium Instruction in Higher Education in Qatar: A Multi-Dimensional…

117

college was, and still is today, gender-segregated and admitted 57 males and 93 females in its inaugurate class. The College of Education was later expanded in 1977, and Qatar University was established. The expansion included the addition of colleges of Humanities and Social Sciences, Law and Islamic Studies, Science, and Sharia. Shortly after, colleges of Business, Engineering, and Technology were also established. Today, Qatar University has nine active colleges including Arts and Sciences, Business and Economics, Education, Engineering, Health Sciences, Law, Medicine, Pharmacy, and Sharia and Islamic Studies. Higher education opportunities in Qatar further expanded in 1997 with the establishment of Education City by the Qatar Foundation (Brewer et al., 2007). Since the establishment of Education City, the Qatar Foundation has invited foreign universities to set up branch campuses offering degree programs in fields in which the invited university excels. Education City is currently home to six American universities, one British university, and one French university (with an English curriculum) (Qatar Foundation, 2017b). Outside of Education City, there are three additional foreign branch campuses, two from Canada and one from the Netherlands (MacLeod & Abou-El-Kheir, 2017). All of the institutions in Education City and select programs at Qatar University are taught through English medium instruction (EMI).

3  Current Issues in Qatari Higher Education In order to achieve a thorough examination of EMI in Qatari higher education, we utilize the conceptual framework for examining EMI in multilingual higher education settings proposed by Dafouz and Smit (2016). The ROAD-MAPPING framework, an acronym of its components, is based on the theoretical base of sociolinguistics and ecolinguistics, as well as critical works in language policy. The six dimensions of the conceptual framework are Roles of English (RO), Academic Disciplines (AD), (Language) Management (M), Agents (A), Practices and Processes (PP), and Internationalization and Glocalization (ING). Roles of English represents the way English is used within an institution, be it for instruction, research, as a lingua franca, or other purposes. Academic Disciplines discusses the subjects in which English is used in its various roles. It is important to define these disciplines in an analysis as each discipline comes with its own epistemologies and literacies. (Language) Management is concerned with both the explicit and implicit policies that govern language use at an institution. These policies may come from local administration, governments, or even from societies. Agents represent the stakeholders in higher education and the effects of their interactions which result in the realities of how EMI is implemented. Practices and Processes refer to how EMI is implemented in the university. This could include the ways of thinking about EMI, the ways of doing EMI, or both. Finally, Internationalization and Glocalization deals with the effects of EMI on local languages and cultures. These six dimensions are not independent of each other, but rather they often overlap. The sociolinguistic

118

Z. R. Eslami et al.

aspect of this conceptual framework is seen in the impact of internationalization and glocalization on the agents and processes and practices of a higher education institution. The ecolinguistic aspect is represented in how the roles of English intersect with agents, processes and practices, and academic disciplines. Finally, elements of language policy work are seen in management, agents, and practices and processes. Together, these dimensions can be used for “analyzing specific contexts while still acknowledging the importance and constant interaction of global and local forces” (Dafouz & Smit, 2016, p. 398). In the sections that follow, we utilize the ROAD-MAPPING framework to analyze EMI in higher education in Qatar. As Dafouz and Smit (2016) did not necessarily intend that the results of the framework be presented in the order of the acronym, leaving the order of presentation up to researchers, we present the analysis in a different order to facilitate a clearer picture. We begin with Agents as they are the drivers of the higher education system. We then proceed to the Roles of English so as to understand the motivation driving the Agents. (Language) Management, Academic Disciplines, and Practices and Processes follow, detailing a picture of higher education going from a macro policy level to the micro practices and processes in the classrooms. We conclude with Internationalization and Glocalization as these are the often-unintended results of each of the dimensions.

3.1  Agents Agents are those who “take part in the planning, implementation, and assessment of language policies in higher education institutions” (Dafouz & Smit, 2016, p. 406). Qatar’s higher education system has been developed both by local and foreign agents. One of the main local agents responsible for higher education in the region is the Qatar Foundation. It was founded by His Highness Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al Thani and Her Highness Sheikha Moza bint Nasser in 1995 in order to “provide Qatari citizens with a greater choice in education, health and social progress than ever before” (Qatar Foundation, 2017a, para. 5). The Qatar Foundation is responsible for the establishment of Education City, a conglomerate of foreign universities invited for their excellence in specific disciplines. Through these invitations of foreign universities, the Qatar Foundation has developed higher education as it is today. The RAND Corporation, a foreign agent, was contracted in 2001 to evaluate Qatar’s education system and recommend improvements (MacLeod & Abou-El-­ Kheir, 2017). The resulting assessment done by RAND was critical of Qatar’s rigid system of education, outdated pedagogies, and lack of vision (Brewer et al., 2007). As a result, the reform movement known as Education for a New Era was implemented. While this reform was geared mostly toward K-12 education, higher education has influenced and been influenced by this reform movement. This is particularly evident in the change of language policy at Qatar University from Arabic to English (2003) and then back to Arabic (2012). As of 2013, the RAND Corporation was no

English Medium Instruction in Higher Education in Qatar: A Multi-Dimensional…

119

longer contracting with the Qatari government in reform efforts, but their effects as an agent are still influencing education in Qatar today (Qatar Foundation, 2013). The Ministry of Education and Higher Education is Qatar’s governing agency in charge of all education matters, including English language policy in K-12 through the development of curriculum standards (Ministry of Education and Higher Education Qatar, 2017). Within the Ministry of Education and Higher Education, the Higher Education Institute is charged with issues of higher education in Qatar. Specifically, the institute operates under five guiding principles: (1) promoting quality institutions, (2) allowing students flexibility to choose the right institution for their needs, (3) implementing accountability measures for creating responsible students, (4) building student competency through support programs, and (5) supporting students through scholarship programs. All of the principles are in line with the institute’s main mission, to fulfill Qatar Vision 2030, which is a policy document driving much of Qatar’s economic and educational planning. Finally, the foreign universities which have established branch campuses in Qatar undoubtedly have strong roles as agents. The universities in Education City have been given free rein to implement their specific academic discipline from the home campus at no expense of their own (Anderson, 2015). All that was asked is that the program be comparable to that of the home campus. As a result, these universities largely dictate the practices and policies, the (language) management, and the internationalization and globalization effects of EMI.

3.2  Roles of English Dafouz and Smit’s (2016) Role of English dimension describes the roles English takes within educational institutions. In Qatar’s higher education, the role of English takes on various roles such as acting as a gatekeeper, a lingua franca, and the path to employment. 3.2.1  English as a Gatekeeper As students make their way toward university, English takes on a role beyond being the language of instruction. English often acts as a gatekeeper. Admission to most institutions of higher education requires students to show proficiency in English. With the exception of Qatar University, universities require a minimum of 550 on the TOEFL or 6 on the IELTS. For some students, language proficiency requirements are the cause of much anxiety and in some cases the reason for delaying or abandoning higher education (Al-Muftah, 2017; Khalifa, Nasser, Ikhlef, Walker, & Amali, 2016). For students who pass this barrier, the role of English in their education greatly increases in higher education. For nearly all higher education institutions in Qatar, English is the primary language of instruction. This is particularly true for the many

120

Z. R. Eslami et al.

foreign branch campuses in Education City. The foreign branch campuses in Education City import all procedures, policies, methods of teaching, and assessment from their home institutions. English as a gate keeper may also result in a large gender gap in higher education (Abdulla Al-Misnad, 2012). With the dominance of EMI in Qatari higher education, many men may be kept out of degree programs due to a lack of interest or proficiency in English (MacLeod & Abou-El-Kheir, 2017). Women have been shown to have better English language proficiency than men (Swaminathan, 2008). This difference in proficiency has ramifications because admission to universities is predicated on scores from English language tests and instruction is conducted exclusively in English. The role of English as a gatekeeper could possibly be even greater for men. Even if men passed through this gate, it is possible that lack of language proficiency could prevent them from success. 3.2.2  English as a Lingua Franca As is the case in many countries today, English acts as a lingua franca for communication between locals and foreigners. However, unlike many places, the majority of Qatar’s population is made up of non-Qataris, many of whom are enrolled in institutions of higher education. Chalabi (2013) reports that 84% of the residents of Qatar are foreign residents. With such a large population of foreigners, English as a lingua franca has pervaded every aspect of society, especially higher education. Given that the majority of higher education programs are conducted through EMI, and Arabic is often discouraged (Kane, 2014), local and foreign students and instructors engage in classes and communicate with each other using English, often of the lingua franca variety. Beyond Qatar’s campuses, English operates as a lingua franca for students and instructors “to engage in global scientific discussions, as well as to develop social and political connections with other countries” (MacLeod & Abou-El-Kheir, 2017, p.  183) and institutions of higher education (see also Hillman, Graham, & Eslami, 2018; Hillman & Ocampo Eibenschutz, 2018). 3.2.3  English as a Path for Employment One of the main driving forces for EMI in Qatar is the role of English for securing jobs after graduation. Many employers require that job candidates be equipped with high English proficiency, particularly in jobs outside the public sector. In some cases, professional licensing exams are only administered in English (Kane, 2014). Students who receive their education in Arabic rather than English often feel disadvantaged. This is evident in a quote from Al-Muftah (2017) by one of the participants whose degree program was conducted in Arabic at Qatar University, “You know, when a manager gets the CV of a student coming from Qatar Foundation (where the American universities are hosted) and mine, they will pick the Qatar

English Medium Instruction in Higher Education in Qatar: A Multi-Dimensional…

121

Foundation student, even though we work harder” (p. 33). Another participant discussed how a lack of English proficiency can result in exclusion in the workplace, Yesterday we were [in a meeting] with directors, big directors, and everything was in English—and I had studied everything in Arabic. So I was just sitting there, and I could not participate in the discussion because I had studied everything in Arabic. (p. 33)

These two quotes exemplify the strong role English has taken in life after university and why English has become so important for many in higher education.

3.3  (Language) Management The main policy document driving much of Qatar’s economic and educational planning is Qatar Vision 2030, a plan put forth by the government which “defines broad future trends and reflects the aspirations, objectives and culture of the Qatari people” (Qatar General Secretariat for Development Planning, 2008, p. 6). Remarkably absent from this document is policy on language in education or in society in general. Terms such as “language,” “Arabic,” or “English” do not appear in the document despite the importance language has in Qatar’s economic and education sectors. However, one statement seemingly points toward English, stating that educational programs should foster, “a significant international role in cultural and intellectual activity and scientific research” (Qatar General Secretariat for Development Planning, 2008, p. 16). While Qatar Vision 2030 contains no direct statements on how language should be addressed in higher education, leaving it largely up to agents, many have interpreted it as EMI being the path forward.

3.4  Academic Disciplines As of 2017, Education City in Doha has been home to eight foreign branch campuses invited by the Qatar Foundation for excellence in their respective academic disciplines. All of these institutions, six from the United States, one from the United Kingdom, and one from France, conduct their programs exclusively through English using curriculum imported from the home institution. These universities give local students access to degree programs in Engineering (Texas A&M University), Foreign Service and Politics (Georgetown University), Business (HEC Paris), Archeology and Conservation (University College London), Computer Science and Business (Carnegie Mellon University), Design (Virginia Commonwealth University), Medicine (Weill Cornell Medical College), and Journalism and Communications (Northwestern University). Beyond Western branch campuses, there is a history of a variety of academic disciplines being offered through English in  local universities as well. In 2003, Qatar University offered all curriculum in

122

Z. R. Eslami et al.

English, but this policy was later rescinded in 2012 and Arabic was reinstated as the official language of instruction. In Qatari society, not all disciplines are considered equal. Some are valued more than others, and some still carry with them gender-specific stigmas. Taking engineering as an example, subjects like engineering are seen to have a great value to the society. Though many chose engineering because it aligned with their interests, Shaaban (2016) found that many also chose to study engineering because of better job prospects in society or because their family chose it for them. On the other hand, some subjects are not as well understood, and many are thought to be only appropriate for certain genders. Design is an example of a subject that does not have a history in Qatar and is, therefore, not understood. The participants in Yyelland and Paine (2009) who studied design at Virginia Commonwealth University Qatar found difficulty finding jobs in this specific field after graduation. The participants shared the problems of pursuing design in a country that does not understand the need and benefits of the subject. In terms of gender, though academic disciplines in Education City are open to both males and females, women often feel unwelcome in certain majors perceived to be for men. For example, the women at Weill Cornell Medical College often feel their choice to pursue medicine is seen as less desirable than it is for their male counterparts (Golkowska, 2016). Although the universities of Education City fill a need to educate local Qataris in specific fields, questions remain about whether these institutions and their curriculums have gone beyond what was expected, particularly in regard to the liberal arts ideologies that may clash with local traditions (Rostron, 2009). While the foreign universities and their academic disciplines were invited and welcomed, the teaching and learning styles of these academic disciplines may not have been what was asked for. Questions also have been raised about whether the curricula, with their Western texts and examples that are detached from the students’ local experiences, are aligned with the future needs of local work (Bhuian, 2016). One could argue that using local case studies rather than ones imported from Western countries may be more relevant, applicable, and motivating to local Qatari students.

3.5  Practices and Processes EMI can take many forms, ranging from a “weak” EMI implementation, which puts little emphasis on language skills, to a “language-enhanced” EMI, which intentionally aligns language and content goals (Brinton & Snow, 2017). Both types of EMI can be found as practices and processes in Qatar’s higher education. Those transitioning to degree programs often experience “language-enhanced” EMI while those enrolled in English degree programs most often experience “weak” EMI implementations.

English Medium Instruction in Higher Education in Qatar: A Multi-Dimensional…

123

For many, the transition from high school to higher education is tough, particularly in Qatar where many find themselves transitioning from a local education system in Arabic to an American system in English (Hill & Sooriamurthi, 2009; Kane, 2014; Khalifa et al., 2016; Khoury, 2016). Foundation programs have been established to help ease this transition. These foundation programs, also referred to as bridge programs, usually last one year and are geared toward improving math and English skills. In some cases, they may also include Arabic, science, and technology courses, depending on the university hosting the program (Khoury, 2016). Texas A&M University at Qatar also offers an additional three semesters of English foundation classes to support students’ English growth (Hillman & Ocampo Eibenschutz, 2018). These programs have the closest resemblance to an integrated content and language English teaching environment, with goals of both raising English proficiency and learning content knowledge. Whereas the foundation programs are “language enhanced,” once students have exited the foundation program, most EMI courses no longer deliberately focus on language development. The courses offered by universities align with the “weak” version of EMI. The Qatar Foundation requested that Western branch campuses run courses and degree programs that replicate the ones on the home campus. Thus, content takes the sole focus of classes as it would in the home country. Any language learning that occurs is a result of an incidental acquisition through exposure to English rather than through direct language instruction. This often means that classes utilize methods such as group work, self-inquiry, and active learning rather than exclusively lecturing (Kane, 2014). In some instances, when lecture is used, it is directly imported from the home campus through video recordings of lecturers, which give students a roughly identical class experience. Kane (2014) reports that as much of 70% of the lectures at Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar are videotaped at the New York campus and then played at the Qatar campus. In this way, students are experiencing the same exact language input as those in the United States. Some EMI programs often utilize translanguaging, or a natural switching between the first language (L1) and second language (L2) during instruction. In some countries, such as China, the L1 may account for up to 50% of the EMI course (Zhao & Dixon, 2017). Students in Qatar have reported support for translanguaging, which suggests that the use of Arabic in courses could facilitate the learning of content in English (Ellili-Cherif & Alkhateeb, 2015; Hillman et al., 2018). While the use of translanguaging for teacher training in Qatar has been explored (Eslami, Seawright, & Ribeiro, 2016b), little has been written about its use in higher education. There have been accounts that students have been observed using Arabic in groups despite being discouraged by faculty (Kane, 2014). Generally, it seems bilingual instructors are hesitant to use Arabic in the EMI classroom (Hillman et  al., 2018). However, we know through personal accounts from former students in Education City that translanguaging continues to be used occasionally, though the reasons and thought process behind the decision to switch language is unknown.

124

Z. R. Eslami et al.

3.6  Internationalization and Glocalization Internationalization and glocalization examines the effects of the previous dimensions on the local society. With the influence of foreign agents, strong roles of English, the infiltration of English in many academic disciplines, language policies dictated from Western institutions, and imported practices and processes from the West, the internationalization and glocalization of Qatari culture and traditions is widespread. While it may not be immediately evident to stakeholders that a clash of culture exists between Western education and Arabic/Islamic culture, the society is beginning to see shifts in many areas away from their traditions. This is particularly evident in attitudes toward the Arabic language and the identity conflicts experienced by university students (Al-Jarf, 2008; Kane, 2014). 3.6.1  Status of Arabic One of the most concerning effects of EMI in Qatar is the falling status of Arabic. Ellili-Cherif and Alkhateeb (2015) conducted a study examining attitudes of Qatari students toward Arabic and English. Participants indicated that English, rather than Arabic, is the language of jobs and suggested that all students should be given the opportunity to study in English. Eslami, Reynolds, Sonnenburg-Winkler, and Crandall (2016a) found that students studying in foundation English courses at Texas A&M University at Qatar favor English over Arabic as the medium of instruction, despite often finding content easier in Arabic. In interviews with Qatari students, Hillman and Ocampo Eibenschutz (2018) found that students considered studying at Education City campuses to be superior to Qatar University because they are Western institutions and English is used as the medium of instruction. Though the findings of this study are not as extreme as other studies conducted in the region (Graham & Eslami, 2019), where researchers have reported participants overwhelmingly attributing more value to the English language and suggesting Arabic no longer has a place in academia (Al-Jarf, 2008), concern exists that Qatar could follow toward these more extreme attitudes. 3.6.2  Roles Traditionally, Qatari society operated under a “patriarchal bargain,” a system where women traditionally were homemakers, and men were the breadwinners of the family. However, in today’s Qatar, women are encouraged at all levels of society to participate in higher education. While on the surface this may seem in contradiction to the traditional conservative views of the past, in many ways attitudes are in line with tradition as education of women is seen by this conservative society as a way to improve mothering. As for the women themselves, many are conflicted about the increased access to higher education and their roles in a conservative society

English Medium Instruction in Higher Education in Qatar: A Multi-Dimensional…

125

(James-Hawkins, Qutteina, & Yount, 2016). For some, there is concern that pursuing higher education and a career will negatively affect their chances of marriage (Golkowska, 2016). Many pursue education with hopes of entering into a career yet fully realizing that their role as mother will take priority in the future. Women of this view see employment in the public sector more feasible, with its policies that limit hours and provide supportive benefits for mothers. On the other hand, some women are pursuing education for independence and security, thus redefining what a “good woman” is (James-Hawkins et al., 2016). The Education City campus in particular brings challenges for women in that the campus and classes are mixed gender. For many, this is the first time in a setting where men and women co-mingle. As noted by Golkowska (2016), “there is no unmarked woman on a transnational campus in the Gulf” (p. 9), meaning women find every choice and movement scrutinized to a much greater degree than they may have experienced in gender-segregated schools. 3.6.3  Identity Various studies have reported that students develop dual identities—a Qatari identity and an “English” or “Western” identity—as a result of their participation in EMI degree programs. In the words of one Qatari EMI student, “When I’m talking in English that’s not really me, that’s just the Cornell E’temaad, but once I’m back home, that’s normal E’temaad” (Kane, 2014, p.  103). These conflicts of identity have been reported to arise both in the personal and professional lives of EMI students and graduates. For example, students have voiced feeling that the ‘‘Western’’ jokes and conversations they engage in on the international campuses are not transferrable to their lives at home. Often this results in a feeling of distance with family and friends they were close with before their EMI studies. One student lamented, “There are jokes that my cousins and aunts will never understand because it’s just very Western” (Kane, 2014, p. 104), illustrating the gap created between the EMI identity and their local, Qatari one. Professionally, as in the case of medicine, graduates from a Western medical education as provided by Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar often feel out of place in the local medical environment. Students seem unequipped with the terminology in Arabic to describe medical ailments and often lack the ability to communicate with patients within the social norms of Qatar, having only been taught how to communicate with Western patients.

4  Reflections and Future Directions The examination of the use of EMI in Qatar’s higher education institutions using the ROAD-MAPPING Framework has revealed areas for future reform and research in each dimension. Beginning with Agents, the analysis revealed that Qatar’s higher education system has mostly been the product of foreign agents. While the Qatar Foundation has driven the investment, much of the planning and decisions have

126

Z. R. Eslami et al.

come from foreign agents such as the RAND Corporation or Western universities. Although the Ministry of Education and Higher Education in Qatar does play a role, their guiding principles suggest that the Ministry’s role is to support students, rather than to drive policy. Though it has yet to be seen whether the policies and practices of Western universities will result in better outcomes, the local agents in Qatar should consider taking stronger roles in the formation of higher education. It is local agents that truly understand local needs. This is not to say that foreign agents should be eliminated, but rather a better balance should be implemented between the agents so as to ensure that policies do not result in negative outcomes for the students and society. Graham, Elsheikh, and Eslami (Forthcoming) propose a glocalized EMI framework. As they note, in the glocalized EMI framework, local needs are prioritized and thus language teaching and teacher training decisions will be better informed and more likely to contribute to a better balanced and morally sound educational experience for students. Instructors will make decisions based on the global and local needs of the students. As for Roles of English, the role of English as a gatekeeper is of concern. Although exact numbers do not exist at this time, Qatar should take note of the number of citizens whose human capital is not being tapped as a result of the use of English keeping citizens out of higher education. As seen from the analysis, English has a strong role in society as a lingua franca and in jobs, but it is certainly not the sole indicator of talent and success. Those who struggle with acquiring English certainly have other talents that could be cultivated in a higher education system. Authorities should ensure that these students are not being left behind due to limited English proficiency. Moving on to (Language) Management, a lack of formal policy and vision on language may be resulting in unintended consequences. In an increasingly internationalized world, English cannot be ignored. However, it should also not be allowed a higher status than local languages. Qatar should consider implementing formal language policy statements within its vision to guide schools and strike a balance between Arabic and English. An “either/or” monolingual policy is not the only choice; a bilingual/multilingual policy is viable as well and should be considered. As it stands now, the language management has been put into the hands of other agents who are driven by monolingual ideologies, mainly foreign agents who control higher education. With respect to Academic Disciplines, the Qatar Foundation should be commended for creating access to academic disciplines for both males and females. However, some of these academic disciplines have not met their full potential in society. Graduates of some disciplines are being employed outside of their areas of expertise, which is an unfortunate misuse of talent. Stronger coordination between the government, higher education institutions, and industry can help better align the needs of industry with the skilled talent these institutions are producing. In addition, the gender-specific stigmas associated with certain academic disciplines should be addressed. By allowing these stigmas to continue, Qatari society may miss out on

English Medium Instruction in Higher Education in Qatar: A Multi-Dimensional…

127

the opportunity to capitalize on the talent of both males and females that are cultivated during degree programs. In terms of Practices and Processes, little is known about what goes on in specific classrooms in universities in Qatar. A documentation and analysis of the practices and processes of instructors, both foreign and local, is needed. In addition, research is needed to better understand how two divergent educational philosophies, Western and local, interact. Finally, research should look at the successes and struggles of EMI in Qatar and the role, if any, of Arabic in facilitating learning. Practices such as translanguaging should be examined and encouraged to promote additive bilingualism and higher student achievement where English has been a barrier (Hillman & Ocampo Eibenschutz, 2018). Of all the dimensions, the internationalization and glocalization of Qatari society through higher education might be the most pressing concern for researchers and policy makers alike. It seems English in higher education may be causing the erosion of Arabic identity and culture, and the status of Arabic in Qatar may be at risk. To address these issues, a shift in mindset toward a more multilingual/multicultural higher education may be required. First, rather than thinking that degree programs or universities need to be one language or the other, both Arabic and English should be encouraged in a way that promotes additive bilingualism (Graham, Elsheikh, & Eslami, Forthcoming). This could take a variety of forms, such as through translanguaging practices or bilingual curriculums. Using English and Arabic in an equitable manner to meet international standards will help give students access to the international market while also maintaining students’ Arab identity, heritage, culture, and values. Second, higher education institutions, particularly those brought in from other countries, should examine their practices as it relates to identities, particularly for women. While women have open access to higher education programs, they continue to be scrutinized to a greater degree than men on campuses. There is a need to better understand, address, and resolve these identity conflicts faced by women. In closing, using the ROAD-MAPPING Framework has allowed us to illustrate the very multi-dimensional nature of EMI in Qatari higher education, while at the same time revealing major gaps in what we know about each of the six dimensions. Each of the dimensions remain understudied and much remains either undocumented or unknown. It is recommended that future research, while addressing the above concerns, also works toward documenting the current state of each of the dimensions more thoroughly. While exploring every dimension of the ROAD-­ MAPPING framework is far beyond the capacity of one study or researcher, each dimension deserves equal attention from the field. By using this framework as a guide for future research of Qatar's higher education system, future analyses will have the opportunity to be better informed by a well-bodied foundation of research that will allow for a clearer picture of successes and challenges for higher education in Qatar.

128

Z. R. Eslami et al.

References Abdulla Al-Misnad, S. (2012). The dearth of Qatari men in higher education: Reasons and implications. Retrieved from http://www.mei.edu/content/ dearth-qatari-men-higher-education-reasons-and-implications. Al-Jarf, R. (2008). The impact of English as an international language (EIL) upon Arabic in Saudi Arabia. Asian EFL Journal, 10(4), 193–210. Al-Muftah, E. (2017). Qatari women in a corporatized higher education setting: International reforms and their local bearings. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS), 15(1), 19–41. Anderson, N. (2015, December 6). In Qatar’s Education City, U.S. colleges are building an academic oasis. Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/in-qatars-education-city-us-colleges-are-building-an-academic-oasis/2015/12/06/6b5387 02-8e01-11e5-ae1f-af46b7df8483_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.365da3ebcc8c Bhuian, S. N. (2016). Sustainability of Western branch campuses in the Gulf Region: Students’ perspectives of service quality. International Journal of Educational Development, 49, 314–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2016.05.001 Brewer, D. J., Augustine, C. H., Zellman, G. L., Ryan, G., Goldman, C. A., Stasz, C., & Constant, L. (2007). Education for a new era: Design and implementation of K-12 education reform in Qatar. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Brinton, D.  M., & Snow, M.  A. (2017). The evolving architecture of CBI.  In M.  A. Snow & D. M. Brinton (Eds.), The Content-based classroom (pp. 2–20). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Chalabi, M. (2013, September 26). Qatar's migrants: How have they changed the country? The Guardian: Data Blog. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/ sep/26/qatar-migrants-how-changed-the-country Dafouz, E., & Smit, U. (2016). Towards a dynamic conceptual framework for English-medium education in multilingual university settings. Applied Linguistics, 37(3), 397–415. https://doi. org/10.1093/applin/amu034 Ellili-Cherif, M., & Alkhateeb, H. (2015). College students' attitude toward the medium of instruction: Arabic versus English dilemma. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 3(3), 207–213. Eslami, Z., Seawright, L. E., & Ribeiro, A. (2016b). Attitudes toward English as a lingua franca: University students in Qatar. In L. E. Seawright & A. Hodges (Eds.), Learning across borders: Perspectives on international and transnational higher education (pp.  132–148). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Eslami, Z. R., Reynolds, D., Sonnenburg-Winkler, S. L., & Crandall, J. (2016a). Translanguaging for teacher development in Qatari middle school science classrooms. In J.  Crandall & M. Christison (Eds.), Teacher education and professional development in TESOL: Global perspectives (pp. 240–254). New York, NY: Routledge. Golkowska, K. U. (2016). Negotiating academic identity on a North-American branch campus. Arab World English Journal, 7(4), 3–12. Graham, K., & Eslami, Z. R. (2019). Attitudes toward EMI in East Asia and the Gulf: A Systematic Review. Language Problems and Language Planning, 43(1), 8–31. Graham, K. M., Elsheikh, A., & Eslami, Z. R. (Forthcoming). A Proposed glocalized framework for English-medium instruction. Transitions. Hill, G., & Sooriamurthi, R. (2009, October). Bridging the gap: Experience with the Qatar summer college preview program. In 2009 39th IEEE frontiers in education conference, 18-21 Oct. 2009 (pp. 1–6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2009.5350781. Hillman, S., & Ocampo Eibenschutz, E. (2018). English, super-diversity, and identity in the State of Qatar. World Englishes, 37, 228–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12312

English Medium Instruction in Higher Education in Qatar: A Multi-Dimensional…

129

Hillman, S. K., Graham, K. M., & Eslami, Z. R. (2018). Teachers’ translanguaging practices at an international branch campus in Qatar. English Teaching & Learning, 42(3–4), 1–23. https://doi. org/10.1007/s42321-018-0015-3 James-Hawkins, L., Qutteina, Y., & Yount, K. M. (2016). The patriarchal bargain in a context of rapid changes to normative gender roles: Young Arab women’s role conflict in Qatar. Sex Roles, 77, 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0708-9 Kane, T. (2014). Whose lingua franca?: The politics of language in transnational medical education. The Journal of General Education, 63(2/3), 94–112. Khalifa, B., Nasser, R., Ikhlef, I., Walker, J. S., & Amali, S. (2016). A qualitative study of student attitudes, perceptions, beliefs, outlook and context in Qatar: Persistence in higher education. Near & Middle Eastern Journal of Research in Education, 2016(1), 1–22. https://doi. org/10.5339/nmejre.2016.2 Khoury, I. E. (2016). Building a foundation for success? Foundation programs in the Arab Gulf States using Qatar as a case study. In M. Shah & G. Whiteford (Eds.), Bridges, pathways, and transitions: International innovations in widening participation (pp.  141–155). Cambridge, MA: Chandos Publishing. MacLeod, P., & Abou-El-Kheir, A. (2017). Qatar’s English education policy in K-12 and higher education: Rapid development, radical reform and transition to a new way forward. In R. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), English language education policy in the Middle East and North Africa (pp. 171–197). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Ministry of Education and Higher Education Qatar. (2017).. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov. qa/En/Pages/Home.aspx. Qatar Foundation. (2013, December 23). Qatar Foundation and RAND Corporation to conclude RQPI Agreement. Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/news/press/2013/12/23.html. Qatar Foundation. (2017a). About Qatar Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.qf.org.qa/about Qatar Foundation. (2017b). Education City. Retrieved from https://www.qf.org.qa/education/ education-city#section-2 Qatar General Secretariat for Development Planning. (2008). Qatar National Vision 2030. Retrieved from https://www.mdps.gov.qa/en/qnv1/pages/default.aspx Qatar University. (2017). About Qatar University. Retrieved from http://www.qu.edu.qa/about Rostron, M. (2009). Liberal arts in Qatar: Intercultural perspectives. Intercultural Education, 20(3), 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675980903138517 Shaaban, K. (2016, April) Investigating the reasons for choosing a major among the engineering students in Qatar. In 2016 IEEE Global engineering education conference, 10-13 April 2016 (pp. 57–61). https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2016.7474531. Swaminathan, N. (2008, March 5). Girl talk: Are women really better at language? Scientific America. Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ are-women-really-better-with-language/ Yyelland, B., & Paine, P. (2009). Qatari women and ten years of American design school: Student perceptions of a cross-cultural educational experience. International Journal of the Humanities, 7(9), 119–129. Zhao, J., & Dixon, L. Q. (2017). English-medium instruction in Chinese universities: Perspectives, discourse and evaluation. New York: Routledge.

Internationalization Through Language and Literacy in the Spanish- and  English-­Medium Education Context Davinia Sánchez-García

Abstract  In light of the growing internationalization of higher education (HE), the Spanish higher education space is adopting a series of strategic plans to enhance the quality of education and research and to better address the educational needs of students and society. One of the main drivers underpinning these strategic policies is language. Spain seeks to strengthen the international profile of its HE system by promoting English medium education (EME) – an added value to its already consolidated Spanish medium programs. Although at policy level, equating EME with internationalization is a likely effective measure, the reality at classroom level is not without its challenges. Lecturers for whom English is an foreign language (FL) are often unaware of the specific linguistic skills necessary for them to cope with the communicative demands of the EME classroom (e.g., constructing disciplinary knowledge and interacting with their also non-native English-speaking students). This chapter describes and reflects on the role of language in the Spanish EME context and the importance of teacher talk in the development and learning of disciplinary literacy and epistemology at university level. Keywords  English medium instruction · Teacher talk · Classroom discourse · Teacher education

D. Sánchez-García (*) Department of English Studies (Linguistics and Literature), Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 S. Dimova, J. Kling (eds.), Integrating Content and Language in Multilingual Universities, Educational Linguistics 44, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46947-4_8

131

132

D. Sánchez-García

1  Introduction The internationalization of higher education (HE) is a pressing priority worldwide in response to the various economic, political, societal, and institutional forces that derive from globalization (Dimova, Hultgren, & Jensen, 2015; Doiz, Lasagabaster, & Sierra, 2013). Under such circumstances, the adoption of English as the academic lingua franca has rapidly become an established practice across HE levels. The benefits of adopting an additional language as the vehicle of instruction have empirically documented the steady development of both disciplinary knowledge and language proficiency (Evnitskaya, 2018). However, the integration of content and language is not always sought after in all instructional contexts, either purposely because of its real complexity or unintentionally because one of the two components is awarded greater importance. Whatever the case may be, the result is a wide spectrum of integrative educational scenarios that have, in turn, given rise to a similarly wide range of terminology to try to depict present-day internationalized university (Smit & Dafouz, 2012). The Spanish educational context precisely features a variety of such integrative approaches. At primary and secondary levels, for instance, the Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) model is being implemented as a “dual-focused educational approach” that targets the deliberate and equal merge of content and language (Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010, pp.  41–45). In contrast, at tertiary level, this balanced blending, often labeled as Integrating Content and Language in Higher Education (ICLHE), is yet not a reality. Instead, English medium instruction (EMI) or English medium education (EME) is the approach often adopted, with the main focus mostly lying on disciplinary content and with little explicit attention to language (Dafouz, 2017). Thus, although Spanish higher education is by no means homogeneous throughout all regions and institutions, it is generally characterized by the fictitious separation of content and language as brought about by their unequal integration in EME programs when, as a matter of fact, both components are two sides of the same coin. Consequently, efforts towards awakening teachers’ awareness of the role of language in their teaching of subject matter at university are being made by a number of institutions in the form of specific language policy recommendations for Spanish HE internationalization and custom-made teacher development programs (Dafouz, 2018; Doiz, Lasagabaster, & Sierra, 2011; Fortanet-Gómez, 2013; Ramos-García & Pavón, 2018). Against this backdrop, adopting an applied linguistics perspective, the objectives of this chapter are the following: (1) to offer a summarized account of the internationalization processes undergone by Spanish universities, (2) to reflect upon the role of the languages of instruction (English and Spanish) used in this context, (3) to illustrate specific EME realities, by focusing on one particular setting, Complutense University of Madrid (UCM), and (4) to examine classroom discourse and literacy practices and their pedagogical uses in teacher education programs.

Internationalization Through Language and Literacy in the Spanish- and…

133

2  T  owards a Common Ground for the Internationalization of Spanish Higher Education The internationalization of HE is described as, the intentional process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose, functions or 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, Hunter, Howard, & Egron-Polak, 2015, p. 29)

At the European level, the internationalization of HE made its appearance with the ERASMUS programs in the 1980s and was later bolstered by the Bologna Process in 1999, paving the way for the European Area for Higher Education (EAHE). The road to internationalization has steadily made progress by approving and setting in motion manifold strategies that include the European Commission’s first comprehensive internationalization strategy: European Higher Education in the World (2013) or the launch of educational and research programs such as Erasmus+ and Horizon 2020 (de Wit et al., 2015). These reforms have the common goal of progressing towards the knowledge-based society and economy by means of strengthening universities as knowledge-generating institutions capable of facing the global challenges of the twenty-first century (MECD, 2015). Following these measures, European member states were encouraged to develop their own national strategies and internationalization agendas. In this context, Spain has set to work by seeking a strategic plan faithful to its own idiosyncrasy and conducive to internationalization. As a first step, a SWOT analysis was performed to examine the Spanish university system and better understand its weaknesses and strengths (MECD, 2015). The analysis revealed the poor international nature of instructional practices, the low ratio of instruction offered through English and other foreign languages, and the difficulty in recruiting international lecturers, researchers, and administration personnel as some of the main areas for improvement. Other threats had to do with the high level of competition at institutional level, the difficulty in interacting with companies for international liaison, and the economic crisis limiting the resources for the internationalization project and university staff turnover (MECD, 2015). However, Spain can count on a number of advantages that, if well exploited, could downplay the likely hazards. Several of these assets include Spain’s high quality in teaching, the high appreciation of graduates abroad, its high quality and excellence in research and development, solid internationalization structures at national and institutional levels, and the already consolidated joint degrees with foreign universities (see MECD, 2015). Drawing on the SWOT results, three types of measures were then proposed: (1) proactive actions in order to increase the international appeal of Spanish universities, (2) defensive actions in order to build and consolidate a highly internationalized university system, and (3) adaptive and survival actions in order to promote the international competitiveness and intensify HE cooperation with other regions of the world. Each of these three major strategic

134

D. Sánchez-García

actions take shape through more concrete measures, in many of which language plays a central role (MECD, 2015).

2.1  I nternationalization Through Languages in Spanish Higher Education Spain acts as a bridge between Europe, Africa, and the Americas, both geographically and socially. This strategic positioning provides Spain with the vantage point of joining in the world’s two most influential political and cultural communities: Europe and Latin America (MECD, 2014). A direct result transpires precisely in the Spanish universities’ classrooms, which receive a substantial number of students from both destinations (MECD, 2014). Certainly, the presence of Spanish as an official language in both parts of the world works as a junction point. According to a recent report by Instituto Cervantes1 (IC) (2018), in 2018 more than 480 million people had Spanish as their first language (L1). At the same time, the group of potential users of Spanish in the world surpasses 577 million. Spanish is the second L1 in the world by number of speakers, after Mandarin Chinese, and also the second language (L2) in a global computation of speakers (including speakers with native proficiency, limited proficiency, and Spanish students). For demographic reasons, the percentage of the world’s population speaking Spanish as their L1 is increasing but so is the number of people studying Spanish as their foreign language, which in 2018 exceeded 21 million. In fact, Spanish competes with French and Mandarin Chinese for second place in the classification of the most studied languages as L2. Also, the interest in learning Spanish is especially intense in the United States and the United Kingdom. The IC report (2018) also underscores the influence of Spanish in other fields closely related to the internationalization of HE, such as its presence on the Internet and social networks, and its role in science and culture. The use of Spanish on the Internet grew 1696% between 2000 and 2017, making it the third most widely used language. Likewise, the percentage of participation of all the Spanish-speaking countries in the world scientific production has grown steadily since 1996. Although the use of Spanish in the scientific and technical fields seems to be relegated to a second place after English in the international arena, it is worth highlighting that almost 75% of the scientific production in Spanish is distributed between three main disciplinary areas: social sciences, medical sciences, and arts and humanities. All these aspects make the Spanish language a powerful contender and an added value in the process of the Spanish HE internationalization. After all, not only is Spain the European country with the highest number of outbound Erasmus students (over 65,000 a year and over 625,000

1  Instituto Cervantes (IC) is a Spanish public organisation set up in 1991 by the Government of Spain, and whose two main objectives are promotion and teaching of the Spanish language, and dissemination of the Spanish and Latin American culture.

Internationalization Through Language and Literacy in the Spanish- and…

135

since the launch of the program) but also the preferred destination for Erasmus students across the European continent since 2001 (SEPIE, 2017). Despite the complexity involved in nourishing the coexistence of languages, Spain has a long multilingual tradition and practices. At a national level, there are three other co-official languages spoken in different regions in Spain, namely, Galician, Catalan, and Basque. These languages currently spoken in Spain are Romance languages within the family of Indo-European languages, except for Basque, which is a language isolate to any other known living language. Consequently, the linguistic landscape of the country is of a fairly heterogeneous nature, consisting of monolingual and bilingual regions. In monolingual areas where Spanish is the official language, Spanish is the medium of instruction and one or two other foreign languages (FLs), typically English as one, are included in the curricula. In the bilingual areas where Spanish functions as the co-official language with the regional language, instruction takes place in these two languages and often a third one, usually English, is also added to the mix (Julián-de-Vega & Ávila-­ López, 2018). While it might be true that Spain has always lagged behind in FL learning with respect to other European countries (a situation possibly accentuated by the prestige and weight of Spanish as a world language), its inherent multilingual experience may have served as a solid ground on which to build. Spain has embraced teaching and learning through English since 1995 in response to the official European policies to establish multilingualism and political unification (European Commission, 1995). Since the early 1990s, English has ceased to be the sole object of study in FL classes to increasingly become the medium of instruction. In fact, by 2010, Spain was already “rapidly becoming one of the European leaders in CLIL practice and research” (Coyle, 2010, p. viii). This instructional change started out in Spanish primary and secondary educational levels. The adoption of CLIL has challenged traditional pedagogies since, as noticed by de Bot (in Marsh, 2002), it is obvious that teaching a subject in a foreign language is not the same as an integration of language and content (…) language teachers and subject teachers need to work together (…) [to] formulate the new didactics needed for a real integration of form and function in language teaching. (p.32)

The natural progression of these bilingual programs in primary and secondary education has been timely. It met the Spanish HE internationalization at its peak by giving potential undergraduate students the chance to continue, not without challenges, their bilingual education at university. This progression brings with it the new goal for the Spanish university to purposefully put into action what has been termed Comprehensive Internationalization (Hudzik, 2011), that is, “the planned, strategic integration of international, intercultural, and global dimensions into the ethos and outcomes of higher education” (NAFSA, 2014, p.  1). It should be an institutional imperative to articulate the internationalization process with an explicit focus on all students (outbound, inbound, and local) to ensure Internationalization at Home (IaH) (Nilsson, 2003) with development of all learners’ international perspectives beyond the formal curriculum (Beelen & Jones, 2015). These intrinsic

136

D. Sánchez-García

features characterizing the Spanish context lay bare the important role that languages play in the internationalization process. As a result, the efforts of the Spanish university to become more internationalized could be geared towards combining the potential of both world languages, English and Spanish, to forge their harmonious coexistence. As officially reported by the Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport (MECD, 2016), Spain has a total of 84 universities, out of which 50 are public and the remaining 34 private. The universities are distributed throughout the 17 autonomous communities that make up the country (plus the two autonomous cities, Ceuta and Melilla, in North Africa). Educational responsibility rests, in fact, at the level of these autonomous communities, which characterizes Spanish higher education by a “high degree of decentralisation” (Eurypedia, 2014, n.p.) Despite this political and educational fragmentation, “Spanish higher education – at the national and regional levels, and in the context of individual institutional activities – has clearly undertaken a range of tangible efforts to expand its international agenda and profile” (Egron-Polak et al., 2016, p. 174; de Wit et al., 2015). To accomplish this objective, the first national Strategy for the Internationalization of Spanish Universities 2015–2020 (MECD, 2015) encourages the learning of English by all members of academia and recommends the increase of the number of university bilingual/multilingual2 degrees and Master’s programs. These programs usually contribute to the development of FL competence by means of employing that FL as the medium of instruction. English commonly stands out above other languages, given its status as the lingua franca of science and business. The proper functioning of this bilingual/multilingual model calls for establishing clear and thorough program objectives and setting an explicit language policy on the use of the various languages in each HE institution. Another determining aspect is defining the precise profile and role of the main agents involved in the pursuit of the bilingual/multilingual programs, namely lecturers and students. The implementation of these programs brings linguistic and pedagogical changes that impact students’ learning process and that make the development of these specific linguistic and pedagogical skills a priority for lecturers. The pressing need to address these linguistic and pedagogical skills in the context of the internationalization process led to the drafting of a framework document commissioned to the Spanish Language Policy Sub-Working Group (CRUE-IC) to offer concrete guidelines and recommendations for teachers, students, and administrative personnel.3 The framework document was agreed upon, revised, and endorsed by representatives of 22 Spanish universities in 2016. The purpose of the framework is to facilitate decision-making and implementation of internationalization measures through languages across

2  Including English, Spanish, the co-official languages of the Spanish territory, and other foreign languages. 3  Although the role of administration personnel in the internationalization of UCM is crucial, the analysis of their agency falls out of the scope of this chapter. Check out the framework document by Bazo et al. in 2017 for further details on the CRUE’s recommendations for this university group.

Internationalization Through Language and Literacy in the Spanish- and…

137

Spanish HE. The document outlines three fundamental lines of action: accreditation, training, and incentives (Bazo et al., 2017). In relation to lecturer development programs, the CRUE framework document (Bazo et  al.,  2017) is committed to high quality, practical teacher professional development that emphasizes linguistic, pedagogical, and organizational skills, as well as personal reflection and collaboration with other teachers from within and across disciplines. This training should prepare teachers to help students develop adequate discourse for disciplinary learning. Teacher development courses should be offered in a flexible and modular way. The courses should include initial and continuous professional development for teachers, as well as observation and mentoring of novice lecturers by experts. These training opportunities should be supported by a quality assessment system at European level.

2.2  T  he Internationalization Reality at UCM: Minding the Gap UCM is an international HE institution that has students, teachers, and administrative staff from more than 40 countries. More than 11 languages are used on campus (UCM, 2019b). In the academic year 2016–2017, official reports recorded an overall number of 67,737 students actively enrolled at the institution, 5922 academic staff, and 3278 administrative staff (UCM, 2018). Although such a diverse educational scenario seems to be the perfect breeding ground for internationalization to thrive, the process is not exempt from complexity and has taken place at two different levels. At its inception, the internationalization process at UCM saw the light of day in the form of grassroots initiatives of individual teachers and faculties that recognized the educational potential of teaching and learning through a FL (Dafouz, 2018; Dafouz & Guerrini, 2009). Only due to the pressing political and socioeconomic need for HE internationalization did these bottom-up piloting initiatives find institutional support through the emergence of top-down policies. In an attempt to bridge the gap and as a commitment to internationalization, a top-down UCM strategy was put forward in 2014 under the name Language Plan for Internationalization, which with time paved the way for the current Plan for Curricular Internationalization (UCM, 2016). This comprehensive plan seeks to configure an international, intercultural, and multilingual framework conducive to the internationalization of curricula and the general academic offering. It embraces four main objectives: (1) materializing an international dimension moving beyond mobility and including curricular internationalization; (2) complementing student learning outcomes with international and intercultural competences; (3) encouraging liaison with transnational entities through international networks and joint projects; and (4) adopting English as one of the languages of instruction in the classroom.

138

D. Sánchez-García

One of the first UCM faculties which set out to offer an international dimension to their programs by offering EME was the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration (see del Campo, chapter “English Medium Instruction Through the Lens of a Content Teacher: Challenges, Adjustments, and Opportunities”, in this volume). Since the outset of this pioneering proposal, a substantial number of educational programs have also been put forward and now make up a wide (and still growing) EME offer available at the institution (UCM, 2019a). To become eligible for English medium teaching and learning, UCM teachers and students must meet specific requirements. The only condition that students must fulfil in order to be admitted to EME courses is to provide evidence of B2 (Common European Framework of Reference [CEFR]) proficiency level in English. Despite the fact that the level of English is the constitutive element to engage in EME programs, the level of competence acquired on completion of the program is never evaluated or taken into consideration. Thus, the level of language competence is merely a requirement for enrollment (Dafouz, Camacho, & Urquía, 2014, p.  3). Teachers have to either demonstrate a C1 (CEFR) proficiency level in English or have taught in this language for a minimum of 2 years at UCM or at another university. In addition, long-term research and teaching stays at foreign universities where English has been the main language of instruction are also accepted. Teachers must commit to teach their EME courses for a minimum of 3 years and must have received at least one positive evaluation of their teaching in English. A number of studies have found that changing the language of instruction implies accessing a different culture, content, and materials, and that the challenges that derive from it go far beyond a good language command (Ball & Lindsay, 2013; Björkman, 2010; Kling & Stæhr, 2012). Yet, the level of English language competence still remains the prime requirement to engage in EME in most HE institutions (Dimova & Kling, 2018). As indicated by the aforementioned requirements, UCM is no exception to this tendency and, in fact, to facilitate compliance with this requirement, it provides teachers with an internal accreditation system that allows them to prepare for official and/or ACLES4 exams (ACLES, 2014). Additionally, the fact that EME lecturers are likely to face not only language-related challenges but also pedagogical and intercultural challenges is also acknowledged. Once the linguistic requirements are complied with and teachers are about to or already engaged in EME, training courses for the development of specific teaching strategies for the international classroom are offered.

4  Asociación de Centros de Lenguas en la Enseñanza Superior (ACLES), that is, Association of Language Centres in Higher Education.

Internationalization Through Language and Literacy in the Spanish- and…

139

3  C  urrent Considerations: Classroom Discourse and Disciplinary Literacy as a Means of Internationalization Learning is a cultural, social, and constructive process mediated by language as a culturally constructed tool. It is in language that knowledge is embodied and in the processes of interaction and negotiation that actual meanings are construed and realized (Gee, 2008; Lantolf & Poehner, 2014; Lave & Wenger, 1991). Therefore, students learn and acquire knowledge by means of the classroom discourse enacted in the social and communicative interactions taking place in the lessons. EME could be considered the ideal breeding ground for significant learning since, although giving unequal balance to content and language, it can foster the integration of both aspects. In other words, EME offers plenty of opportunities for authentic exchanges and negotiation of meaning related to a wide variety of contexts and topics and for an ample variety of purposes. EME sparks off learning because it enhances language and content interdependence, that is, “subject matters provide food for thought and thoughts are instrumentalized through language” (Lorenzo, 2007, p. 32). In this potentially enriching learning environment, classroom discourse takes on much relevance since language enables students to partake in collaborative meaning-making processes that will culminate in their subsequent learning of disciplinary epistemology. Under these circumstances, the lecturer becomes the centerpiece since teacher talk constitutes the major source of comprehensible content and language input that can precipitate students’ learning and development (Nunan, 1991). Consequently, teacher discourse could be used to accomplish two main pedagogical objectives: (1) realizing and constructing the disciplinary knowledge and literacy that is to be learned by students, and (2) managing the classroom as a social event by promoting the meaningful interaction conducive to negotiation of meaning and ultimate learning. This implies that an effective use of classroom discourse can be turned into a valuable tool to help EME teachers and learners to teach and learn better. Generally speaking, university content lecturers do not seem to be aware of the potential of language, in general, and classroom discourse, in particular, in the teaching and learning process. A wealth of research into the beliefs and attitudes of EME teachers has come to reaffirm that teachers do not consider themselves responsible for language teaching (Airey, 2012; Short, 2002; Trent, 2010). Although science educators have advocated for the advantages of explicit language instruction to content learning, lecturers admit lacking the expertise (Cammarata & Tedick, 2012). Behind this belief may be teachers’ conviction that an explicit focus on language equals teaching English grammar, instead of realizing that it means overtly addressing the specific language requirements of their particular discipline. As experts of their field epistemologies, teachers need to gain full understanding of the embodiment of their discipline matter in written and spoken language and in their own classroom discourse. Only by reaching this conscious awareness could teachers make sure that their students learn the academic and disciplinary literacy necessary

140

D. Sánchez-García

for them to become full-fledged members of its community of practice. The importance of situating literacy and science each in the service of the other becomes crucial for helping students gain skills and proficiency in both. Despite the fact that a large number of undergraduate students may have enrolled in English-taught subjects in their primary and/or secondary education and may have been exposed to general academic language, the specialized scientific genres that construe knowledge at university level become ever more dense and abstract. Therefore, facilitating students’ acculturation process into academia should be included in teachers’ teaching agendas. Acquiring science knowledge and full participation in discourse about science, for example, inevitably involves acquiring the ability to make meaning from oral and written language representations, that is, developing proficiency in how to read, write, reason, and discuss with and about the language, texts, and principles of a particular scientific discipline (Pearson, Moje, & Greenleaf, 2010). In Valdez, Bunch, Snow, and Lee’s (2005) words, “noticing language, even when it appears to be transparent, is essential for teachers committed to supporting the general intellectual and specific subject matter competencies of students at all levels” (p. 127). A major step in raising teachers’ awareness of the role played by language in their teaching practices is guiding them through the discovery of the language functions that predominate in their discipline and how these functions could assist them to fulfill their communicative purposes (Dalton-Puffer & Smit, 2013). In this way, teachers could experience and see the value behind their use of classroom discourse from a perspective far removed from grammar and as the sole responsibility of language teachers. It is typically the case that EME teachers’ main concern is their level of language proficiency in the language of instruction. Although high proficiency is central to accomplish effective communication and to introduce disciplinary epistemology, it will not suffice (Kling, 2016). While being competent users of the English language, EME teachers are compelled to co-construct knowledge through a language that is not mastered at the same level as their L1 (Delicado & Pavón, 2015). This is not an easy endeavor; it requires moving beyond fluency and general language competence. Teachers need to cultivate a special linguistic sensitivity to accommodate the disciplinary content to the new language of communication and facilitate students’ learning process (Pavón, Hernández, Lorenzo, & Hengst, 2005). As a result, teachers often find themselves in the situation of needing a solidly structured classroom discourse. They have to (1) provide much more scaffolding and more explicit signposting, (2) support their explanations with more examples, and (3) display a greater number of resources for interacting with their students (Dafouz & Núñez, 2010; Dalton-Puffer, 2007). This means that being (near)bilingual, understood as having (near)native-like control of English (Grosjean, 1999), apart from not being realistic, may not be a panacea either. Instead, managing a wider range of discourse strategies, that is, being aware of the ample variety of linguistic resources readily available in teachers’ linguistic repertoire and enlarging this array of discourse strategies may be much more beneficial to lecturers, especially in the likely event of facing communicative challenges. These strategies could be supportive of teacher

Internationalization Through Language and Literacy in the Spanish- and…

141

classroom discourse and be decisive and instrumental in achieving the two pedagogical goals previously mentioned: constructing and facilitating the provision of disciplinary knowledge and literacy, as well as promoting meaningful interaction conducive to the learning of that specialized content.

3.1  C  lassroom Discourse in the Construction of Disciplinary Knowledge and Literacy As an attempt to highlight the classroom discourse needs of UCM teachers and the potential language and pedagogical training they could benefit from in their EME practices, a comparative study was undertaken at the UCM (see Sánchez-García, 2016). The investigation was concerned with the different discourse strategies that two UCM lecturers employed when delivering content matter in their parallel Spanish medium and EME courses, with how these strategies were linguistically articulated and with examining whether these discursive resources varied depending on the language of instruction used. The analysis of a corpus of 16 English and Spanish parallel lectures led to the conclusion that the change in the language of instruction seemed to largely influence teachers’ use of discourse in general and discursive strategies in particular. By discourse strategies the study referred to the linguistic resources that assist the speaker in the delivery of the complete intended meaning (see Sánchez-García, 2016). Teachers seemed to prioritize some types of strategies over others depending on the language of communication (examples are provided next). The highest number of discourse strategies tended to occur as compensatory practices by which teachers sought alternative ways to attain their communicative goal through modifying language. The second most recurrent discourse strategies involved the use of stalling devices that allowed lecturers to gain extra time and/or to keep the communication channel open at times of difficulty. Finally, to a lesser extent but also quite pervasive were reduction strategies, which were those involving either a temporary or permanent abandonment of the intended message. Following up on this analysis, the closer examination of these discourse resources revealed that certain strategies were likely to function as more favorable linguistic tools than others in enhancing teachers’ discourse (Sánchez-García, 2019). Circumlocution, that is, using a rather lengthy stretch of language to make reference to something for which a concise term or expression exists, seemed to be one such strategy as it prevented the teacher from experiencing a communicative breakdown and instead contributes to the attainment of the intended communicative goal. Example 1: This is a… a… It’s like…a… it’s like a… it’s like a… a document, a official document in which you have a official stamp and it’s like it’s money, but it’s not exactly money.

Example 1 comes from a lesson within a course on Financial Accounting (Bilingual Business Administration degree). The lecturer is in the middle of negotiating the

142

D. Sánchez-García

concept “bill of exchange.” However, she happens to find difficulty retrieving the specialized term as she speaks, and for the sake of students’ knowledge and the development of the meaning-making process, she opts to find an alternative linguistic route to convey the meaning by drawing on circumlocution. Interestingly enough, a large number of the discourse strategies that encapsulate communicative potential to assists teachers’ classroom discourse are also the ones that turn out to be the least employed, possibly due to teachers’ lack of awareness of how to use them. Another strategy prevailing in EME teacher classroom discourse is codeswitching, which involves the alternating use of more than one linguistic code in the classroom (Lin, 2013). A thorough analysis of this strategy at UCM (see Sánchez-García, 2018) concluded that facilitating, first, the construction of disciplinary knowledge, and second, the management of the classroom were the main reasons behind teachers’ change of the language of instruction from English to Spanish in EME lessons. Example 2: Ok, let’s analyze the commercial we have seen. It is very rational but at the same time it really surprises you. That’s not what you are expecting. You are expecting someone sitting on a truck, not eehhh doing… eehhh… equilibrios. I think it’s a good ad. Example 3: In Spanish we also call we call this debe and this is haber. Many people think that the debit means that you own something and haber in the credit side means that you are going to have something.

Example 2 comes from a lesson on Business Marketing (Bilingual Business Administration degree) where teacher and students had watched a commercial and were about to apply their disciplinary knowledge to judge whether the ad complied with the basic marketing tenets already explained. The teacher could not recall the word “balance” in English and decided to use the Spanish equivalent instead. With this discursive move, she avoided breaking the pace and disrupting the flow of negotiation. What this instance also illustrates is the fact that as expert members of their scientific discipline, teachers do not seem to face much difficulty regarding the instructional register of their lesson, i.e., introducing and explaining the knowledge and skills relevant to their discipline. Yet, it seems to be often the case that their discourse practices lack mastery of the more regulative register, which has to do with the everyday social language that usually complements discipline-specialized terminology. As illustrated in example 3, the vast majority of the occasions in which lecturers seemed to resort to codeswitching to refer to disciplinary-specific lexicon responded to their intentional decision to provide the technical terms of their academic field in both languages. Thus, classroom discourse is pedagogically used to support students’ acculturation process in the particular disciplinary literacies through two linguistic codes (Sánchez-García, 2018).

Internationalization Through Language and Literacy in the Spanish- and…

143

3.2  C  lassroom Discourse in Collaborative Meaning-Making Processes As previously argued, teacher discourse also enables students to actively engage in their learning process. It is by means of the constructive process inherent in interaction that meaning-making is achieved and learning attained. It is then considered of great importance to provide enough classroom space for negotiations of meaning between participants to ensure students’ knowledge development. Despite the documented advantages of interaction in the teaching and learning process, sustaining reciprocal communication and promoting the collaborative creation of knowledge often becomes one of the most challenging feats for teachers in EME contexts. In meeting this challenge, making use of effective questioning practices seems to yield positive results (Chang, 2012; Crawford Camiciottoli, 2004; Dalton-Puffer, 2007; Morell, 2007). Questions permeate classroom discourse since they are fundamental to orchestrate classroom interaction. They help teachers control the different patterns of communication, establish turn-taking, facilitate topic conversations, and manage teachers’ pedagogical plans. It has been precisely their potential as triggers of collaborative meaning-making opportunities that have aroused scientific interest (Chang, 2012; Crawford Camiciottoli, 2007; Dalton-Puffer, 2007). Interestingly, several empirical studies examining the linguistic role and function of lecturers’ questioning practices at UCM have found the intricate nature of questions and that they are not necessarily easy to master (Dafouz Milne & Sánchez-García, 2013; Sánchez-García, 2010). It has been brought to light that a poor formulation of questions could lead to nullifying their potential by reducing the opportunities for interaction and meaning negotiation among classroom participants (SánchezGarcía, 2018). Example 4: What do you think about this engine? Is it powerful enough for such a machine? What model is it? How many models did we say there are in this category? Is it an example of model A, B or C? It’s definitely model C, isn’t it? [Students nod]

In this classroom extract, the teacher tries to promote interaction and construction of knowledge together with his engineering students by using questions. After having explained the different types of engines, he pursues the pedagogical goal of helping students build on that theoretical knowledge to assess the practical adequacy of an engine. He starts by eliciting students’ opinion on the use of a particular engine and seeks students’ reasoning and justification. However, his attempt towards collaborative meaning-making seems to be thwarted because the way he poses questions, together with short wait time for response, limits the students’ participation to a large extent and is reduced to students’ one-word answer or even just nodding. The questions he utters range from being open-ended and referential questions likely to trigger personal and extended output from the learners to being closed-­ ended and yes/no questions, resulting in students nodding. What also follows from this finding is that when questions are poorly articulated, not only does it impede meaningful interaction, but it also stops the teacher from achieving his/her

144

D. Sánchez-García

pedagogical objectives (Sánchez-García, 2020). In the end, the teacher’s pedagogical aim of giving his students the opportunity to apply their disciplinary theoretical knowledge to a real case scenario does not come to fruition. Understanding the role of classroom discourse in the collaborative meaning-­ making processes that lead to the co-construction of disciplinary knowledge and literacy highlights the importance of raising teachers’ awareness of their actual discourse use to enhance their students’ learning experience. After all, language is the tool through which they achieve content knowledge, and also “the metacommunicative means by which to construct knowledge, as well as the ability to develop and maintain social roles and identities” (Jocuns, 2012, p. 4).

3.3  UCM Teacher Education Development In consonance with the importance of teacher discourse in the teaching and learning processes and the additional linguistic needs that EME brings with it in this respect, the design and organization of teacher education programs with a special focus on classroom discourse and disciplinary literacy is a must. UCM provision of teacher education development to support EME addresses this. The main program that has been running at UCM since 2016 is called Communication Strategies for English-Medium Instruction in the International University (InterCOM). This is a 30-hour course that focuses on the oral communication strategies needed by teachers to deal effectively with the teaching of content through English as a foreign language. InterCOM consists of face-to-face sessions with participants working in small groups on analysis, awareness-raising, and practical oral tasks related to the use of language, literacy, pedagogy, and interculturality. More specifically, the contents that are addressed in depth in the program address the following: • the methodological implications of teaching and learning through English in an international classroom • strategies to develop the academic and disciplinary competences needed for effective lecturing • interactional practices and group dynamics that could facilitate students’ learning, such as how to enhance the use of questions • intercultural issues likely to emerge in the international classroom and how to attend to cross-cultural critical incidents As output for assessment, participants have to put all these communication strategies into action in a micro-teaching practice. The course is specifically targeted at university teachers with no experience in EME or with less than 2  years’ experience. As established in the UCM Plan for Curricular Internationalization, these lecturers need to demonstrate a C1 level (CEFR) in English and, preferably, be teaching a course in English in the current academic year.

Internationalization Through Language and Literacy in the Spanish- and…

145

4  Reflections and Future Directions In the last decades, universities have been subject to a vast array of changes in their attempt to become more international. In the case of Spain, the current internationalization panorama is notably heterogeneous across regions and HE institutions. Nevertheless, to reach consensus, certain policies have emerged in the Spanish setting and are currently under development. This is the case of the Strategy for the Internationalization of Spanish Universities, which envisages an increase in the number of EME programs as of 2020 among its objectives. Thus, languages become a constitutive element of Spanish HE internationalization, as a way to appeal to international students and researchers, prepare local students for the globalized world, and enhance the prestige of the institution. The implementation of EME should be coordinated so as to ensure its balanced coexistence with the already established high quality Spanish medium programs that give added value to the tertiary education landscape in Spain. In this respect, the Spanish Rectorate’s Conference (CRUE) has laid the groundwork by drafting a seminal language policy (Bazo et al., 2017) that helps navigate HE internationalization through languages on the basis of three main components: accreditation, incentives, and training. This last aspect is particularly important because the success of implementing EME and becoming an internationally-oriented university depends to a great extent on equipping lecturers with the tools necessary to cope with this new educational context. Despite the acknowledgement of the role of language at national policy level, its importance still needs to be implemented at classroom level. The vast majority of Spanish lecturers are users of English as an FL and have typically carried out their teaching through their L1. Although with EME they experience the challenges associated with having to teach through a language other than their L1, they are unaware of the potential of language in helping them to cope with such challenges. In fact, mastering classroom discourse is one of those essential tools teachers need to be equipped with as it is teacher talk that represents the means to construct and facilitate disciplinary knowledge while also promoting the meaningful interaction that favors effective learning. This premise is often underestimated in the context of Spanish university EME, which typically portrays the unequal integration of content and language. While disciplinary knowledge is the central focus of formal instruction and explicit teaching goals, language is merely considered the medium of instruction to which scarce heed is paid. In this respect, teachers need to know how their disciplinary epistemology is concretized through domain-specific language and how to explicitly present that disciplinary knowledge that facilitates students’ comprehension and development of subject-specific literacy. Teachers must know how to manipulate and make best use of discourse in order to promote the collaborative meaning-making processes that contribute to learning. The correct formulation and use of questions are often instrumental to this end while also supporting the accomplishment of the lesson’s pedagogical objectives. Thus, gaining an understanding of the crucial role played by classroom discourse in the co-­ construction of the knowledge, values, beliefs, and behaviors of the particular

146

D. Sánchez-García

academic disciplines comes to the fore in EME. A possible way of contributing to this understanding is raising teachers’ awareness of how their discourse can be best structured for effective learning by helping them go through the understanding that their academic and disciplinary culture is embedded in language use and that the mutual interdependence of content and language would not make it possible for one to exist without the other. This awareness is meant as a deeper understanding and more informed use of their classroom discourse since in both their planned and enacted curriculum, teachers who have an awareness of the profound role of well-structured oral language in higher-order learning will be better able to support their diverse students into the academic registers of the diverse disciplines (Love, 2009, p. 558).

As argued by Räsänen and Klaassen (2004), “becoming an academic expert also means becoming competent in expressing and communicating about that expertise so that the person can be identified as an expert” (p. 556). Consequently, lecturers need to be competent users of their own classroom discourse to be able to co-­ construct knowledge with their students despite any possible linguistic and/or conceptual difficulty while, at the same time, become rich input providers of academic language and their discipline-specific linguistic conventions and literacy. Attention to L2 classroom discourse and academic and disciplinary literacy has direct implications for teacher professional development. In this vein, UCM has set in motion transformative professional development initiatives that equip lecturers to work in EME diverse contexts and that enhance their classroom discourse. Further moves towards the effective implementation of EME in HE institutions should concentrate on the distinctive linguistic features and pedagogical principles that characterize each academic discipline and how to make them more salient and transparent to students so as to aid their understanding. Likewise, sustained collaboration between language experts and disciplinary specialists should be encouraged to ensure language support for lecturers and students throughout the teaching and learning process. Finally, research should continue unraveling the EME needs not only from the lecturers’ perspective, but also from that of students and administrative staff, so that internationalization becomes a comprehensive process bringing together all stakeholders in equal measure. Acknowledgements  UCM research group The Role of English in the Internationalization of Spanish Higher Education - https://clue-project.weebly.com/.

References Airey, J. (2012). I don’t teach language. The linguistic attitudes of physics lecturers in Sweden. AILA Review, 25, 64–79. Asociación de Centros de Lenguas en la Enseñanza Superior. (2014). CertAcles: ACLES. Model for the accreditation of language competence. Salamanca: Integrated Digital editions.

Internationalization Through Language and Literacy in the Spanish- and…

147

Retrieved March 11, 2019, from https://www.acles.es/files/model-accreditation-languagecompetence.pdf Ball, P., & Lindsay, D. (2013). Language demands and support for English-medium instruction in tertiary education: Learning from a specific context. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster, & J. M. Sierra (Eds.), English-medium instruction at universities: Global challenges (pp.  44–64). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Bazo, P., Centellas, A., Dafouz. E., Fernández, A., González, D., & Pavón, V. (2017). Documento marco de política lingüística para la internacionalización del sistema universitario español [Framework document for linguistic policy for the internationalization of the Spanish university system]. CRUE Universidades Españolas. Beelen, J., & Jones, E. (2015). Redefining internationalization at home. In A.  Curaj, L.  Matei, R.  Pricopie, J.  Salmi, & P.  Scott (Eds.), The European higher education area (pp.  59–72). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Björkman, B. (2010). So you think you can ELF: English as a lingua franca as the medium of instruction. Hermes: Journal of Language and Communication Studies, 45, 77–96. Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D. (2012). Balancing content and language in instruction: The experience of immersion teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 96, 251–269. Chang, Y. (2012). The use of questions by lecturers in lectures given in English: Influences of disciplinary cultures. English for Specific Purposes, 31, 103–116. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Coyle, D. (2010). Foreword. In D. Lasagabaster & Y. de Zarob (Eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training (pp. vii–viii). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Crawford Camiciottoli, B. (2004). Interactive discourse structuring in L2 guest lectures: Some insights from a comparative corpus-based study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 39–54. Crawford Camiciottoli, B. (2007). The language of business studies lectures: A corpus-assisted analysis. Amsterdam, The Netherlands/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Dafouz, E. (2017). English-medium instruction in multilingual university settings. An opportunity for developing language awareness. In P. Garrett & J. M. Cots (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of language awareness (pp. 170–185). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Dafouz, E. (2018). English-medium instruction and teacher education programmes in higher education: Ideological forces and imagined identities at work. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(5), 540–552. Dafouz, E., Camacho, M., & Urquía, E. (2014). Surely they can’t do as well: A comparison of business students’ academic performance in English-medium and Spanish-as-first-languagemedium programmes. Language and Education, 28(3), 223–236. Dafouz, E., & Guerrini, M. (2009). CLIL across educational levels: Experiences from primary, secondary and tertiary contexts. Madrid, Spain: Richmond Publishing. Dafouz, E., & Núñez, B. (2010). Metadiscursive devices in university lectures: A contrastive analysis of L1 and L2 learner performance. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp.  213–232). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. Dafouz Milne, E., & Sánchez-García, D. (2013). Does everybody understand? Teacher questions across disciplines in English-medium university lectures: An exploratory study. Language Value, 5(1), 129–151. https://doi.org/10.6035/LanguageV.2012.5.7 Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U. (2013). Content and language integrated learning: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 46, 545–559. de Wit, H., Hunter, F., Howard, L., & Egron-Polak, E. (2015). Internationalization of higher education. Study requested by the European Parliament’s committee on culture and educa-

148

D. Sánchez-García

tion. Retrieved February 23, 2019, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ STUD/2015/540370/IPOL_STU(2015)540370_EN.pdf Delicado, G., & Pavón, V. (2015). La implantación de titulaciones bilingües en la educación superior: el caso de la formación didáctica del profesorado bilingüe de primaria en la Universidad de Extremadura. Educación y Futuro, 32, 35–64. Dimova, S., Hultgren, A. K., & Jensen, C. (2015). English-medium instruction in European higher education. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton. Dimova, S., & Kling, J. (2018). Assessing English-medium instruction lecturer language proficiency across disciplines. TESOL Quarterly, 52(3), 634–656. Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J.  M. (2011). Internationalization, multilingualism and English-medium instruction. World Englishes, 30(3), 345–359. Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J.  M. (2013). English-medium instruction at universities: Global challenges. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Egron-Polak, E., Howard, L., Wit, H., & Hunter, F. (2016). Internationalisation of higher education. Directorate-General for Internal Policies. European Parliament. https://doi.org/10.2861/444393 European Commission. (1995). Teaching and learning: Towards the learning society. Retrieved March 25, 2019, from http://europa.eu/documents/comm/white_papers/pdf/com95_590_en.pdf Eurypedia. (2014). Spain – Overview. Retrieved March 16, 2019, from https://webgate.ec.europa. eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Spain:Overview Evnitskaya, N. (2018). Classroom interaction and language learning in CLIL contexts. CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 1(1), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/clil.3 Fortanet-Gómez, I. (2013). CLIL in higher education: Towards a multilingual language policy. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Gee, J. (2008). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Grosjean, F. (1999). Individual bilingualism. In R. Asher (Ed.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp. 1656–1660). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. Hudzik, J. K. (2011). Comprehensive internationalization: From concept to action. Washington, DC: NAFSA, The Association of International Educators. Instituto Cervantes. (2018). El español: Una lengua viva. Retrieved March 16, 2019, from https:// cvc.cervantes.es/lengua/espanol_lengua_viva/pdf/espanol_lengua_viva_2018.pdf Jocuns, A. (2012). Classroom discourse. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 620–625). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. Julián-de-Vega, C. & Ávila-López. J. (2018). Políticas lingüísticas europeas y españolas: el camino hacia el cambio en la educación terciaria (pp. 17–30). Porta Linguarum, Monográfico III. Kling, J. (2016). Content teachers engaged in English-medium instruction in Denmark. In J. Crandall & M. A. Christison (Eds.), Global research on teacher education and professional development in TESOL (pp. 225–239). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Kling, J., & Stæhr, L.S. (2012). The development of the Test of Oral English Proficiency for Academic Staff (TOEPAS) (Technical support). Copenhaguen, Denmark: Centre for Internationalization and Parallel Language Use, University of Copenhagen. Retrieved from https://cip.ku.dk/forskning/cip_publikationer/CIP_TOPEPAS_Technical_Report.pdf Lantolf, J., & Poehner, M. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education: Vygotskian praxis and the research/practice divide. New York, NY: Routledge. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lin, A. (2013). Classroom code-switching: Three decades of research. Applied Linguistics Review, 4(1), 195–218. Lorenzo, F. (2007). The sociolinguistics of CLIL: Language planning and language change in 21st century Europe. RESLA, 1, 27–38.

Internationalization Through Language and Literacy in the Spanish- and…

149

Love, K. (2009). Literacy pedagogical content knowledge in secondary teacher education: Reflecting on oral language and learning across the disciplines. Language and Education, 23(6), 541–560. Marsh, D. (2002). CLIL/EMILE – The European dimension: Actions, trends and foresight potential. Brussels: European Commission. Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte (MECD). (2014). Estrategia para la internacionalización de las universidades españolas 2015–20120. Resumen Ejecutivo. Grupo de trabajo de internacionalización de universidades [Strategy for the internationalization of Spanish universities 2015–20120. Executive Summary. University Internationalization work group]. Retrieved March 16, 2019, from http://www.educacionyfp.gob.es/educacion-mecd/dms/mecd/ educacion-mecd/areas-educacion/universidades/politica-internacional/estrategia-internacionalizacion/EstrategiaInternacionalizaci-n-Final.pdf Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte (MECD). (2015). Estrategia para la internacionalización de las universidades españolas 2015–2020 [Strategy for the internationalization of Spanish universities 2015–2020]. Retrieved March 16, 2019, from https://sede.educacion.gob.es/ publiventa/estrategia-para-la-internacionalizacion-de-las-universidades-espanolas-2015-2020/ universidad/21475 Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte (MECD). 2016. Datos y cifras del sistema universitario español. Curso 2015–2016 [Dates and figures of the Spanish university system. Academic courses 2015–2016]. Retrieved March 16, 2019, from http://www.educacionyfp.gob.es/dms/ mecd/servicios-al-ciudadano-mecd/estadisticas/educacion/universitaria/datos-cifras/datos-ycifras-SUE-2015-16-web-.pdf Morell, T. (2007). What enhances EFL students’ participation in lecture discourse? Student, lecturer and discourse perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(3), 222–237. NAFSA. (2014). NAFSA announces 2014 Simon Award recipients. Retrieved February 19, 2019, from http://www.nafsa.org/Explore_International_Education/For_The_Media/ Press_Releas-es_And_Statements/NAFSA_Announces_2014_Simon_Award_Recipients/ Nilsson, B. (2003). Internationalisation at home from a Swedish perspective: The case of Malmö. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(1), 27–40. Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology: A textbook for teachers. New  York, NY: Prentice Hall International. Pavón, V., Hernández, C., Lorenzo, F, & Hengst, H. (2005). Borrador para la elaboración del currículo integrado plan to promote multilingualism [Draft for the development of the integrated curriculum] junta de Andalucía. Retrieved March 11, 2019, from http://www.juntadeandalucia. es/averroes/plurilinguismo/curriculo/borradorcil.pdf Pearson, D., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328(5977), 459–463. Ramos-García, A.  M., & Pavón, V. (2018). The linguistic internationalization of higher education: A study on the presence of language policies and bilingual studies in Spanish universities (pp. 31–46). Porta Linguarum Monográfico III. Räsänen, A., & Klaassen, R. (2004). Academic competences in a multilingual learning environment. In R.  Wilkinson (Ed.), Integrating content and language: Meeting the challenge of a multilingual higher education (pp. 565–570). Maastricht, The Netherlands: Universitaire Pers Maastricht. Sánchez-García, D. (2010). Classroom interaction in university settings: The case of questions in three disciplines (Unpublished master’s thesis). Madrid, Spain: Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Sánchez-García, D. (2016). A contrastive analysis of Spanish- and English-medium instruction in tertiary education: Teacher discourse strategies in a spoken corpus (Doctoral dissertation). Madrid, Spain: Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Sánchez-García, D. (2018). Teacher questioning: Exploring student interaction and cognitive engagement in Spanish and EMI university lectures (pp.  103–120). Porta Linguarum Monográfico III.

150

D. Sánchez-García

Sánchez-García, D. (2019). I can’t find the words now…: Teacher discourse strategies and their communicative potential in Spanish- and English-medium instruction in higher education. CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 2(2), 43–55. Sánchez-García, D. (2020). Mapping lecturer questions and their pedagogical goals in Spanish- and English-medium instruction. Journal of Immersion and Content-based Education, 8, 28–52. Servicio Español para la Internacionalización de la Educación (SEPIE). (2017). The internationalization of higher education in Spain. Retrieved February 10, 2019, from http://sepie.es/doc/ comunicacion/publicaciones/SEPIE-ENG_internacionalizacion.pdf Short, D. (2002). Language learning in sheltered social studies classes. TESOL Journal, 11, 18–24. Smit, U., & Dafouz, E. (2012). Integrating content and language in higher education: Gaining insights into English-medium instruction at European universities. AILA Review, 25(3), 1–12. Trent, J. (2010). Teacher identity construction across the curriculum: Promoting cross-curriculum collaboration in English-medium schools. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 30(2), 167–183. Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM). (2016). Plan para la internacionalización de la docencia de la UCM [Plan to internationalize teaching at UCM]. Retrieved March 16, 2019, from https://www.ucm.es/data/cont/media/www/pag-75406/Plan%20para%20 Internacionalizaci%C3%B3n%20Docencia%20UCM%202016%20Nuevo.pdf Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM). (2018). Datos y cifras 2017–2018 [Dates and numbers 2017–2018]. Retrieved March 11, 2019, from https://www.ucm.es/data/cont/ docs/3-2018-02-21-DATOS%20Y%20CIFRAS%202018-2019%20enero%202018.pdf Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM). (2019a). Titulaciones en inglés [Qualifications in English]. https://www.ucm.es/pid/grados-1 Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM). (2019b). Plan para la internacionalización de la docencia [Plan for the internationalization of teaching]. Retrieved March 23, 2019, from https://www.ucm.es/pid/presentacion Valdez, G., Bunch, G., Snow, C., & Lee, C. (2005). Enhacing the development of students’ language. In L.  Darling-Hammond & J.  Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world (pp. 126–167). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

Part III

Content Teachers’ Reflections

Acknowledging the Role of Language in English Medium Instruction: Experiences from a Pilot Project Intervention at University of Copenhagen Sanne Larsen and Frank Jensen

Abstract  This chapter discusses the development, implementation, and outcomes of a pilot project intervention aimed at improving students’ writing skills in English in an interdisciplinary English medium Master’s program at the University of Copenhagen (UCPH). The pilot project was set up as a collaborative effort between the content lecturers of a compulsory course in the program, a project coordinator from the strategic initiative that funded the pilot project, and an academic language consultant from UCPH’s language competence development center for students and staff. As an outcome of the pilot project, a feedback module has become a permanent element of the program with funding secured locally to continue the language support. This outcome was highly attributable to the content teachers’ level of engagement in the project and their awareness of both the direct and indirect roles that language plays in English medium instruction. Keywords  English medium instruction (EMI) · Collaboration between content and language teachers · Language support · Feedback on student writing · Role of language in EMI

S. Larsen (*) Centre for Internationalisation and Parallel Language Use, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] F. Jensen Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 S. Dimova, J. Kling (eds.), Integrating Content and Language in Multilingual Universities, Educational Linguistics 44, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46947-4_9

153

154

S. Larsen and F. Jensen

1  Introduction At Danish universities, English shows few signs of relinquishing its stronghold as a medium of instruction. Recent numbers show that 43% of all Master’s students are enrolled in English medium instruction (EMI) programs (see Statistics Denmark, 2018). For the technical and natural sciences, the enrollment figures are even higher, amounting to 90% and 70%, respectively (see Statistics Denmark, 2018). These numbers suggest that EMI continues to be extensively implemented in Danish higher education in order to address the challenges of globalization and internationalization in what is a small non-Anglophone country where the national language is not used widely outside its borders. In Denmark, as in other European countries, the desire to improve domestic students’ competitiveness in the global knowledge economy and to get a share of the international student market have been the key motivations from above for the implementation of EMI (CarrollBoegh, 2005; Hellekjaer & Westergaard, 2002; Holmen, 2016; Thøgersen, 2013). In contrast, voices from below have tended to stress the need to support the teaching and learning of content through a medium that is not the first language (L1) of the majority of the students and teachers involved (Henriksen, Holmen, & Kling, 2018; Tange, 2010). The provision of language support for EMI on a scale that matches its implementation, however, is no simple issue. The role assigned to English as a language of teaching and learning differs widely from discipline to discipline, as does the recognition of the need to provide language support for EMI. At the University of Copenhagen (UCPH), there has been a long-standing institutional recognition of this need for EMI lecturers and students. The university’s competence development center for staff and students, the Centre for Internationalisation and Parallel Language Use (CIP), was established in 2008. It has since developed and run tailor-made courses for lecturers and students in English and Danish for academic and professional development purposes. From 2013 to 2018, CIP also administered a five-year, university-wide initiative entitled, The Language Strategy: More Languages for More Students (Language Strategy) aimed at identifying and addressing students’ foreign language needs (see also Holmen, “Integrating Content and Language: The Role of Other Languages than English in an International University”, in this volume). Under the auspices of this initiative, students across UCPH were surveyed to identify language needs, and 36 pilot projects were funded. As part of the pilot projects, language consultants collaborated with content teachers to strengthen students’ language skills in relation to a particular course or program. The pilot projects targeted different skills (e.g., reading, writing, speaking, listening) and languages (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, German, Greek, Latin, and Spanish). Each pilot project developed through meetings with study boards, where content teachers were encouraged to apply for funding for pilot projects that targeted the language needs of their students. The pilot projects shared a common end goal, which was development of sustainable models for addressing the language needs of students in a specific academic environment.

Acknowledging the Role of Language in English Medium Instruction: Experiences…

155

In this chapter, we discuss the implementation, evaluation, and outcomes of one of these pilot project interventions, the purpose of which was integrating language support for student writing in an interdisciplinary EMI Master’s program at the Faculty of Science. The pilot project was set up as a collaborative effort between the content lecturers of a compulsory course in the program, a project coordinator from the Language Strategy, and an academic language consultant from CIP. We start by giving a historical overview of the issue by describing the Language Strategy initiative and the local educational context of the pilot project in focus here. We then describe the type of language support that was integrated into the program and the evaluation of this support by students. We end by reflecting on the experiences and insights generated from the pilot in light of other pilots implemented under the Language Strategy.

2  H  istorical Overview: The Language Strategy and Environmental and Natural Resource Economics The Rector of UCPH launched the Language Strategy in 2013 based on recommendations from a cross-faculty committee report on language needs for students. The key mandates of the strategy were (1) to obtain an overview of the uses of and the needs for foreign languages based on student surveys across the university, and (2) to develop language support that addressed student language needs, based on dialogue with students, teachers, and study boards. Although the initiation of the strategy was top-down, its implementation relied on being met with interest from the students, lecturers, and heads of study who are members of the study boards (Larsen & Holmen, 2017). Dialogue meetings with study boards provided lecturers with an opportunity to develop applications for pilot projects with support from the strategy’s project team. Pilot project applications were assessed by the strategy’s steering committee comprised of Associate Deans from all six faculties at UCPH (Science, Law, Social Sciences, Theology, Humanities, and Health and Medical Sciences). A key criterion for funding was sustainability, i.e., a commitment to embed language support in the local academic settings upon completion of the project period. This process resulted in the implementation and evaluation of 36 pilot projects, among which 11 focused on academic writing in EMI contexts. The pilot project discussed in this chapter is one of these 11 Language Strategy pilots and was implemented in a Master’s of Science (MSc) program in Environmental and Natural Resource Economics (ENRE). ENRE is a social science degree program, where students apply economic theory in the analysis of a broad spectrum of environmental issues from both a national and global perspective. A core assumption of the program is that a good economic analysis of any environmental issue, be it the sustainable management of a country’s fossil fuel energy reserves and/or its involvement in international environmental agreements, requires knowledge from other scientific disciplines than economics.

156

S. Larsen and F. Jensen

First year Block 1 Block 2 Compulsory course: Ecology and Ecosystems Science in relation to Environmental Economics 15 ECTS Compulsory course: Compulsory course: Natural Resource Economics Applied Econometrics 7.5 ECTS 7.5 ECTS

Second year Block 1 Elective course 7.5 ECTS Elective course 7.5 ECTS

Block 2 Elective course 7.5 ECTS Elective course 7.5 ECTS

Block 3 Compulsory course: Incentives and Regulation 7.5 ECTS Compulsory course Economic Valuation Methods and Cost-Benefit Analysis 7.5 ECTS

Block 3

Block 4 Compulsory course: Applied Environmental and Natural Resource Economics 7.5 ECTS Elective course 7.5 ECTS

Block 4 Thesis 30 ECTS

Fig. 1  ENRE program structure

Table 1  Overview of ENRE enrollment 2016–17 in terms of country of origin

Student origin Domestic Anglophone countries EU countries (minus the UK) Africa and South East Asia Total

2016 10 0 24 2 36

2017 12 2 19 4 37

The interdisciplinary nature of the program is reflected in the program structure (see Fig. 1), which combines a focus on economics, the environment, and natural resources in different constellations in the “core” curriculum (i.e., the compulsory courses). For example, Ecology and Ecosystem Science in Relation to Environmental Economics is a natural science course that focuses on various environmental topics. Applied Econometrics deals with advanced statistics, while Natural Resource Economics is a course on extraction from renewable and non-renewable resources. In Incentives and Regulation, the regulation of environmental problems is discussed, while Economic Valuation Methods and Cost-Benefit Analysis is about appraisal of environmental projects. Applied Environmental and Natural Resource Economics (AENRE), which is a thesis writing preparatory course that was involved in the pilot intervention, is described in detail below. ENRE was established as an EMI program both to promote the competitiveness of domestic students on a global job market and to attract a number of international students. The ENRE program enrolls on average 36 students per year, with around 66% international students from a wide range of countries. Table  1 provides the enrollment figures for 2016–17 in terms of students’ country of origin. The enrollment of students from all around the world is seen as providing the program “with an interdisciplinary anchoring and international atmosphere” (Curriculum, 2013, p. 3) that contributes centrally to the academic profile of the ENRE graduates. At the same time, the international profile adds complexity in the educational set-up in terms of an increased heterogeneity that impacts teaching and learning. Table  2 below shows the educational background of students of

Acknowledging the Role of Language in English Medium Instruction: Experiences…

157

Table 2  Educational background of the ENRE students, 2017 Denmark

Other Nordic countries

Other European countries

Non-European countries

Bachelor degree Environmental and natural resource economics Economics Other social science Other Environmental and natural resource economics Economics Other social science Other Environmental and natural resource economics Economics Other social science Other Environmental and natural resource economics Economics Other social science Other

Number of students 8 2 2 0 0 2 1 1 1 5 5 0 2 1 1 2

different nationalities for 2017. Many domestic students have a bachelor degree in environmental and natural resource economics. However, the international students have a much broader educational background (mainly within social science). There is thus a difference between domestic and international students as regards their experiences with an economics-oriented education, which needs to be bridged by ENRE faculty. While the domestic students are by no means a homogenous group in terms of their academic experiences, they share a common understanding with their Danish lecturers regarding how to approach academic writing and the kind of written project work that is a core part of the program. The international students may lack this implicit understanding and tend to have less experience than the domestic students carrying out written projects. As these differences challenge many international students in the ENRE program in terms of doing their written course work and ultimately in terms of writing their theses, the AENRE course was offered as a compulsory course (see Fig. 1). In this course students work with a written report which is defended in an oral examination. The alignment between the intended learning outcomes of the AENRE course and those of the thesis is presented in Table 3. A main purpose with the AENRE course is to prepare students for writing their theses by training them to identify and delimit a relevant problem for analysis and synthesize previous knowledge. The course relies on student-led project work,

158

S. Larsen and F. Jensen

Table 3  Alignment between the intended learning outcomes of “Applied Environmental and Natural Resource Economics” (AENRE) and the Master’s thesis Intended learning outcomes Knowledge

AENRE course Define a scientific problem to be analyzed Synthesize and extend knowledge gained in previous courses in the ENRE program

Skills

Competences

Analyze a chosen topic within environmental and natural resource economics using economic theory Discuss advanced environmental and natural resource economics, focusing on theories and applications

Thesis Societal as well as scientific problems related to environmental problems and natural resources Theory and state-of-the-art methods/ models based on international research within environmental and natural resource economics Apply and critically evaluate theories on environmental and natural resource economics Independently initiate and perform academic research on issues related to environmental problems

which is carried out in groups or individually and scaffolded by the content teachers. An overview over the AENRE course is provided in Table 4. In the first week of the course, an introductory thematic lecture provides the students with a range of examples of topics for in-depth exploration. During the second week, the students present their chosen topic area and initial research idea orally and receive feedback from both peers and content teachers. From the third to the seventh week, the students are supervised upon request by a content teacher and the project report is submitted at the end of week seven. The students defend the project orally in week eight of the course. Even though a number of project examples is presented by the content teachers in the introductory lecture, the students are strongly encouraged to find topics of their own interest and specialization. This approach is chosen because it is motivating for the students to work with a topic that interests them. Ten examples of the titles of student projects from 2018 are presented in Table 5. From the titles in Table 5, it is clear that the students select very different topics varying from urban trees to community-based management in fisheries. As the time schedule for the course is tight (see Table 4), the content teachers continually stress that students set realistic goals for the scope of their project. Specifically, the content teachers try to ensure that the students have enough scientific literature to draw upon when writing the project, and an attempt is made to limit the amount of independent work in the project (e.g., by recommending that the students undertake a literature review within a very restricted research area). As mentioned above, a main purpose with the AENRE course is to prepare the students for writing their theses, and the course seems to fulfil this objective.

Acknowledging the Role of Language in English Medium Instruction: Experiences…

159

Table 4  The structure of the AENRE course and integration of language support into the course Week The ordinary number AENRE course Week 1 Introduction to the course Examples of project themes Week 2 Student presentations of project ideas Week 3 Supervision Week 4 Supervision Week 5 Supervision

Week 6

Supervision

Week 7

Submission of project

Week 8

Oral defense

Pilot in 2016 Two-hour introductory lecture on English academic writing

Students hand in drafts for written feedback Individualized electronic feedback on student drafts Feedback workshop

Pilot in 2017 Two-hour introductory lecture on English academic writing

Students hand in drafts for written feedback Individualized electronic feedback on student drafts and feedback workshop

Permanent structure from 2018 Brief introduction to writing in English

Students hand in drafts for written feedback Individualized electronic feedback on student drafts and individual oral feedback

Table 5  Ten examples of the titles of student projects from 2018 Towards a green growth: The effect of environmental policies on productivity growth The theoretical relationship between WTP/WTA and EV/CV/ES/CS in the case of an environmental/public good with the focus on what role income plays in this relationship Evaluating the feasibility for including in-stream flow valuation in water allocation models for the Colorado River Basin Environmental rebounds: Macroeconomic implications for the promotion of environmentally-­ friendly products Valuing forest ecosystem services in a biodiversity hotspot in India Waste management: The case of bio-waste in Copenhagen Community-based aqua and agriculture systems in developing countries Circular economy for climate change mitigation The economic impact of coral reefs and the impact of coral bleaching Substituting salt: Does prolonging the life of urban trees justify the cost of a deicing alternative?

160

S. Larsen and F. Jensen

The following are three examples of student statements from the official evaluation in 2015: It is nice to get the opportunity to work independently with a topic we have chosen ourselves. (Student 1) The course is a good preparation for writing our Master Thesis. (Student 2) The course provides a good opportunity for preparing for the Master Thesis where you have to work independently with help from a supervisor. (Student 3)

Thus, from a student perspective, the AENRE course was successful, and content teachers also experienced that students were better prepared for their thesis work. However, many students still struggled with communicating their ideas in a precise and clear way in writing. Economics is a mathematical, logical, scientific discipline that requires very precise formulations, but as in most EMI settings, language was not an explicit learning outcome of the course (see Coleman, 2006; Henriksen et al., 2018; Pecorari & Malmström, 2018). For this reason, the program administration decided to apply for funding from the Language Strategy (see Holmen, “Integrating Content and Language: The Role of Other Languages than English in an International University”, in this volume) to develop language-focused support for students’ writing that could be integrated into the existing structure of the AENRE course.

3  C  urrent Considerations: Implementing Support for English Academic Writing in Environmental and Natural Resource Economics The AENRE pilot project was set up as a collaborative effort between the content lecturers of AENRE, a project coordinator from the Language Strategy, and an academic language consultant from CIP. The collaboration took its point of departure in the application for funding, which outlined the purpose and basic structure of the language support. However, its specific form and focus were to be developed jointly by the project participants and adjusted based on student evaluations. As with all projects under the Language Strategy, the end goal was a sustainable model of language support tailored to the needs of the students and content teachers in the program. The pilot was run with two different cohorts in 2016 and 2017. In both cases, the language support consisted of three elements that the language consultant facilitated: (1) an introductory lecture on English academic writing, (2) individualized electronic feedback on student drafts, and (3) a feedback workshop. The language consultant was present both for the introductory lecture of the course and the student presentations in the second week of the course (see Table 4). The course coordinator participated in the introductory lecture on English academic writing. The type of language support developed thus resembles what Greere and Räsänen (2008) labelled “adjunct-CLIL”: the language support was integrated in subject studies

Acknowledging the Role of Language in English Medium Instruction: Experiences…

161

based on joint planning between language and content specialists, but it did not involve team-teaching. The two-hour introductory lecture on academic writing focused on a number of language issues that the content teachers identified as recurrent problems in their students’ writing and that they found difficult to address in their own feedback during supervision: coherence, positioning (hedging and boosting), academic style, academic vocabulary, and common grammatical and syntactical errors. In the introductory lecture, these focus areas were framed by a short introduction to writing as a process and a genre-based analysis of the structure and language of a published research article in their discipline, based on move structure analysis (Swales & Feak, 2004). The genre-based analysis provided an opening for a discussion with students about disciplinary linguistic conventions. It served to raise the students’ awareness of the language of the discipline-specific articles that they experienced when reading for content. For the electronic feedback, students were invited to submit a draft of their report to the language consultant before submitting the final exam. The students received detailed, individualized feedback on three to five pages of their drafts based on the focus areas of the introductory lecture. The bulk of the feedback focused on the students’ ability to formulate the content clearly and precisely, but it also targeted common grammatical and syntactical errors (e.g., subject-verb agreement, comma splices/run-ons) that might distract readers from focusing on what the students were trying to convey. Figure 2 provides an example of the electronic feedback that students received on their drafts. The feedback workshop allowed students to ask questions and to clarify any unresolved issues.

Fig. 2  Example of electronic feedback

162

S. Larsen and F. Jensen

Table 4 shows that the introductory lecture on English academic writing was placed in the first week of the course in 2016. The students delivered drafts for written feedback in week five and received written feedback in week six. The feedback workshop was held in the seventh week of the course. We conducted two kinds of evaluation of the language-related activities among the students: (1) an official evaluation embedded in the regular course evaluation and (2) a separate evaluation of the language support only. From both evaluations for 2016, it is clear that the students who took the opportunity to participate in the language support saw it as both relevant and useful: Really good with the English feedback and the lectures in report writing as well as English. (Student 1) It was a good chance to check the knowledge that we have attained so far in the program and to learn how to demonstrate our knowledge in a written paper. The supervision was satisfactory, and the language consultation was also helpful. (Student 2) The teacher pointed out clearly where problems were and also suggested solutions. This helped me a lot. (Student 3)

However, although the content teachers promoted the language support in both the course introduction and the course description, it was clear that the pilot attracted a limited number from the first cohort of students. While 14 projects were submitted for electronic feedback in 2016, only eight students participated in the introductory lecture, and only five students participated in the feedback workshop. Furthermore, several students indicate that delivering and receiving written feedback should be moved closer to the submission deadline. From the official evaluation in 2016 two examples of student statements are: The English language corrections was useful but I received these too early. (Student 1) The written feedback on my English should be moved as close to the delivery date as possible. (Student 2)

Therefore, in 2017, we decided to undertake two adjustments of the language support component of the course. First, the time for delivering for written feedback was moved to the end of the sixth week of the course while both the written feedback and workshop were placed in the seventh week (see Table 4). Second, to increase participation in the language support sessions, a decision was made to make the language module mandatory in 2017. Moving the written feedback closer to the submission deadline was well received by the students, while mandatory participation resulted in a more mixed response. While the majority of students appreciated the language feedback, some students, primarily L1 speakers of English, objected strongly to making this element compulsory: I believe that the English language supervision was not very well designed. It is definitely very important to improve academic writing skills, but it was not needed to require students to send their drafts for language feedback. (Student 1)

Despite this criticism of the language strategy part of the AENRE course in 2017, the content teachers believed that the language-focused activities were an important addition to the course and that the learning outcomes were clearly reflected in

Acknowledging the Role of Language in English Medium Instruction: Experiences…

163

the end product. They, therefore, secured a permanent continuation of some of the activities with departmental funding. Based on the evaluations of the pilot, the following structure for the language support was chosen (see Table 4). The permanent support model does not include the introductory lecture. The lecture has been replaced by a brief introduction to the language support, which now consists of the electronic feedback from the language consultant followed by individual oral feedback based on the electronic feedback. As can be seen from Table 4, the students delivered part of the project for written feedback in the sixth week of the course in the permanent structure, while the individual written and oral feedback was placed in the seventh week. Finally, participation in the language-focused activities is presented as completely voluntary, but the content teachers repeatedly state that the activities are relevant and useful for the students’ writing both within and beyond the AENRE course. From the official course evaluation in 2018, it is clear that the language related activities received a positive evaluation despite the fact that the overall evaluation of the course was less positive. I REALLY enjoyed the lectures and find it extremely useful to have access to the English help. (Student 1) It was a great opportunity to “practice” for the master thesis, which was really nice. Good with individual supervisors and really, really nice with the language feedback. Such a great idea. Please keep doing that! (Student 2) The English language classes were not useful for me personally – as a native speaker. However, I appreciate that they were made available to others. Excellent writing skills are essential for success. (Student 3)

Sixteen out of 25 students submitted a draft of the project report for electronic feedback in 2018, and three students requested and received a follow-up on this electronic feedback from the language consultant. To evaluate the effect of the pilot project further, we have calculated the average grades and participation rates in the language support from 2015 to 2018 (Table 6). The average grades in Table 6 are of course a highly uncertain measure for the effect of the language support. For example, the supervisors involved in the AENRE course have changed, and the academic competences of the ENRE students will vary from year to year. However, if the grades are a reliable indicator of the effect of a language feedback module, three important conclusions can be drawn from Table 6: (1) by comparing the average grade for 2015 with the average grades for the other years, language-related support increases the grade, (2) by comparing the average grade for 2016 with the average grades for 2017 and 2018, a higher

Table 6  Average grade in the AENRE course and participation rate in the English written feedback module

Year 2015 2016 2017 2018

Average Participation rate (%) grade 0 7.4 38 8.7 90 10.1 64 10.4

164

S. Larsen and F. Jensen

participation rate leads to a higher grade and (3) by comparing the average grades for 2017 and 2018, voluntary feedback increases the grade.

4  Reflections and Future Directions Seen from the perspective of the content teachers and the objectives of the Language Strategy, the AENRE pilot project was a success. It generated a model of language support that aligned well the learning goals, teaching methods, and structure of the AENRE course. It has also proved sustainable beyond the pilot project with the feedback module continuing with funding from the program itself, a result attributable to the high level of engagement and agency from the content teachers of the AENRE course. From the outset, the learning goals of the AENRE course encompassed a set of literacy skills closely aligned with the knowledge, skills, and competences required for completing the Master’s thesis of the program. This was successfully facilitated through student-led project work scaffolded by supervision. However, the ability to express ideas and arguments in a precise and clear manner was not explicitly addressed in the teaching and learning activities of the course. For the AENRE teachers, a key motivation for applying for funding from the Language Strategy was their experience that many students were not prepared linguistically for writing their theses and that this had an influence on their grade, either implicitly or explicitly. The teachers have repeatedly evoked the argument that grading students on skills that they are not explicitly taught is not only unfair but also unproductive considering the career trajectories of the ENRE graduates. They have maintained that a focus on writing as both process and product is needed to scaffold students’ development of writing skills in English within their field of study. In the permanent model of language support, students are provided with the opportunity to get language-focused feedback on the report in the final stage of their writing process. At this point, they will have had a chance to draft and discuss the content and global structure of their report with their supervisors, who do not require but strongly encourage students to take the opportunity to get feedback on language. The intentions with and goals of the language support have been incorporated into the course description and continue to be assessed for further development in the official course evaluation on par with the core elements and activities of the course. The AENRE teachers and students have allowed for the collection of data from supervision sessions as well as drafts and exam submissions of student texts. The language consultants can also continue to improve the language support through analyses of the role that language plays in the supervision process and explore the changes that students are capable (and not capable) of making on the basis of the language feedback that they receive. Although the pilot was a success, the language support at AENRE depends on bringing in language expertise from outside of the local academic setting. This might in the longer run affect its sustainability given the cost associated with

Acknowledging the Role of Language in English Medium Instruction: Experiences…

165

bringing in external language consultants. Although one could also argue that the content teachers of ENRE should teach both the literacy and language of their discipline, experiences across the Language Strategy pilots focused on writing suggest this is a complex issue. While the content teachers have developed advanced literacy and language skills in English related to their field, these do not easily transfer to providing language-focused feedback on written texts. A content teacher who was part of a pilot project at Sociology claimed: I’d say that I have written quite a lot of papers, but I don’t feel very confident writing in English. I can do it, and I do it. But I cannot just transfer those skills to teaching writing to my students. Of course, in supervising my students, I can say a lot about the structure of a paper – but in terms of the language quality and the particular ways of stating an argument and the use of words – I would need to have someone from the outside to help me do that. I think that if and when we are asking students to deliver up to 30 pages of theoretical argumentation in English – if we demand that from the students – we need to facilitate it. (Kling & Larsen, 2018, p. 25)

One of the key outcomes of the Language Strategy has been the sustained dialogue around literacy and language at the nexus of specific content courses across UCPH. In many cases, this resulted in fruitful exchange and cross-fertilization of skills among the project participants brought about by exchange of practice in the process of co-developing teaching materials, evaluating project outcomes, and, in some cases, co-teaching (Kling, Larsen, & Thomsen, 2018). This kind of exchange has been essential for support development that was tailored to the disciplinary writing needs of students, but more sustained co-operation seems to be needed to facilitate transfer of skills in terms of providing feedback on L2 writing. One of the key challenges that lies ahead is bringing these insights as a whole to bear on future strategic efforts at UCPH. Along with data about student language needs collected via the Language Strategy surveys, the experiences generated across pilot projects form a knowledge base from which qualified discussions of and recommendations for language policy at the institution can proceed. This knowledge base can be drawn upon for strategic planning and implementation at either individual faculty or institutional levels. Efforts are underway to incorporate the insights generated from the Language Strategy into the implementation of UCPH’s overall strategy for 2019–2024. Breaking with a long tradition of a laissez-faire approach to language issues, UCPH’s first strategy, Destination 2012, established the principle of parallel language use (see Holmen, “Integrating Content and Language: The Role of Other Languages than English in an International University” in this volume) as the basis for language use at the institution. Although successive strategies at UCPH have shown continued commitment to this principle, the actual decision-making that takes place concerning the use of languages in administration and teaching varies extensively across faculties, and language policy could benefit from further articulation and negotiation, not least as regards teaching and learning (Holmen, 2016). The experiences from the Language Strategy pilots suggest that emphasis should be placed on a differentiated approach in terms of addressing language needs across the institution but that recognition of the role of language(s) and the value of language support can be identified across the entire university among the key stakeholders.

166

S. Larsen and F. Jensen

References Carroll-Boegh, A. (2005). Internationalization and teaching through English: A Danish perspective. Educate, 5, 19–30. Coleman, J.  A. (2006). English-medium teaching in European higher education. Language Teaching, 39(1), 1–14. Curriculum for MSc in Environmental and Natural Resource Economics. (2013). Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen. https://www.science.ku.dk/studerende/studieordninger/ kandidat/enre/Sto_Environmental_and_natural_resource_Economics.pdf. Accessed February 4, 2019. Greere, A., & Räsänen, A. (2008). Lanqua subproject on content and language-integrated learning. Redefining CLIL – Towards multilingual competence. Year One Report. https://www.unifg. it/sites/default/files/allegatiparagrafo/20-01-2014/lanqua_subproject_on_clil.pdf. Accessed January 7, 2020. Hellekjaer, G. O., & Westergaard, M. R. (2002). An exploratory study of content learning through English at Scandinavian Universities. Acta Didactica, 3, 47–61. Henriksen, B., Holmen, A., & Kling, J. (2018). English medium instruction in multilingual and multicultural universities: Academics’ voices from the northern European context. Oxon, UK: Routledge. Holmen, A. (2016). Parallel language strategy. In N.  Van Deusen-Scholl & S.  May (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Second and foreign language education (pp. 1–11). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Kling, J., & Larsen, S. (Eds.). (2018). The language strategy – More languages for more students 2013-2018. Accessed January 7, 2020 from https://cip.ku.dk/english/morelanguages/. Kling, J., Larsen, S., & Thomsen, S. F. (2018). The need for focused literacy training in the medical school curriculum: A cross-Sectional study of undergraduate students. Education Research International, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/7273824. Larsen, S., & Holmen, A. (2017). Towards more languages for more students at the University of Copenhagen: The interplay between local and global drivers of change. CASALC Review, 2, 132–144. Pecorari, D., & Malmström, H. (2018). At the crossroads of TESOL and English medium instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 52(3), 497–514. Statistics Denmark. (2018). Engelsksprogede uddannelser [English medium instruction programs]. https://www.dst.dk/Site/Dst/Udgivelser/nyt/GetPdf.aspx?cid=30250. Accessed February 4, 2019. Swales, J., & Feak, C.  B. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Tange, H. (2010). Caught in the tower of babel: University lecturers’ experiences with internationalization. Language and Intercultural Communication, 10, 137–149. Thøgersen, J. (2013). Stylistic and pedagogical consequences of university teaching in English in Europe. In H. Haberland, D. Lønsmann, & B. Preisler (Eds.), Language alternation, language choice and language encounter in international tertiary education (pp.  181–199). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

English Medium Instruction Through the Lens of a Content Teacher: Challenges, Adjustments, and Opportunities Cristina del Campo

Abstract The Faculty of Economics and Business Administration of the Complutense University of Madrid decided to introduce English as a medium of instruction with the implementation of the new four-year degrees adapted to the Bologna Declaration and the European Area for Higher Education in the academic year 2009–2010. Since then the students have had the opportunity to follow the Economics and Business Administration degrees fully in English. Some comments on the challenges and rewards, expected and unexpected, found in Statistics and Decision Analysis courses (first and third year, respectively, Business Administration Degree) are presented. The present chapter shows the impact and the implications, from the point of view of a content teacher, of the move towards the English medium instruction in a non-Anglophone country like Spain. Keywords  Spain · Higher education · EMI · Disciplinary learning · Instructional challenges

1  Introduction The 1999 Bologna Declaration fostered the European Area for Higher Education (EAHE), which launched measures such as the adoption of comparable degrees, the creation of a compatible credit system (ECTS  - European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System) and the establishment of mobility synergies for both students and lecturers. However, it gave way to a growing use of a foreign language in EAHE institutions for teaching and learning. As a result, the increasing domination C. del Campo (*) Department of Financial and Actuarial Economics and Statistics, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 S. Dimova, J. Kling (eds.), Integrating Content and Language in Multilingual Universities, Educational Linguistics 44, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46947-4_10

167

168

C. del Campo

of English as the world’s leading medium of communication in the international arena, especially in business, science, politics, and academics, has begun to have an impact on educational institutions where English is used as the main lingua franca and medium of instruction (Dafouz, 2015; Dearden, 2015). In this context, a significant number of European universities offer “bilingual” or “European” undergraduate and graduate degrees, in which English is usually the language of teaching, communication, and assessment. In particular, in Spain, the number of institutions offering English-taught degrees has grown exponentially in the last few years (Jover, Fleta, & González, 2016; Ramos García, 2013). Likewise, English medium of instruction (EMI), understood as “the use of the English language to teach academic subjects (other than English itself) in countries or jurisdictions where the first language (L1) of the majority of the population is not English” (Dearden, 2015, p. 2), has been incorporated not only in Europe (Wächter & Maiworm, 2014) but worldwide, including Asian countries (Budde-Sung, 2011; Hu & Lei, 2014). In addition, internationalization of higher education institutions and student exchange have increased research interest in foreign-language medium instruction (namely EMI) (Wächter & Maiworm, 2014). There have been numerous papers presenting the pros and cons of teaching in a language other than the country’s national language. Much has been said about the potential usefulness of EMI and benefits on cross-cultural and mental development of the learners. But the possible lack of mastery of the academic content and the learners’ problems in producing the language appropriately to engage in interaction in content classes are the most repeated counter arguments (see for example Arkın, 2013). There is also a consensus among some researchers that EMI may increase students’ workload and affects the quality of education negatively (Gao, 2008; Vinke, Snippe, & Jochems, 1998). Written from the perspective of a content teacher, the following addresses the challenges and rewards, both expected and unexpected, that resulted from two EMI courses, Statistics and Decision Analysis, within a Business Administration undergraduate degree. This chapter is for those interested in how content teachers cope with the challenge of teaching in a foreign language. I hope that a closer look, like the present one, into what happens in content classes with respect to the interaction processes and learner output will be helpful to other content teachers thinking about engaging in a foreign language medium instruction. My goal is also to change some preconceived drawbacks, ideas, and arguments against it. In the following, I present my position on why EMI teaching needs to be seen as an opportunity for improving the education of all students.

2  Overview of the Context In Spain, where foreign language instruction is compulsory, English is by far the most studied language, but this has not always been the case. From the early 1900s until the 1970s, Spaniards learned French as their first foreign language because it

English Medium Instruction Through the Lens of a Content Teacher: Challenges…

169

was considered the language of education, culture, and diplomacy: “In the 1950s English was taught as an optional first foreign language in secondary schools to around 5 per cent of the students, whereas French was studied by over 90 per cent of students” (Lorenzo, 1996, p. 17). Nowadays, the situation is the quite different with English at the top with more than 90% of the students studying the language. During the early 2000s, Spain saw an increasing social demand for economics and business majors capable of conducting business in English, as English had become the lingua franca. Therefore English as a foreign language has become a tool to enhance job prospects, both in Spain and around the world. Indeed, most Spanish companies specify that prospective candidates need to be fluent in English, even when they recruit for positions in the home market, and some say that multilingual ability is an added value. Hence, in higher education, teaching Economics and Business Administration in English seemed a logical step to take. The Faculty of Economics and Business Administration of the Complutense University of Madrid (Spain) decided to introduce EMI with the implementation of the new Bologna adapted four-year degrees in the academic year 2009–2010. Since then, students have been given the opportunity to complete the Economics and Business Administration degrees, including their theses, fully in English. However, according to university regulations, no differentiated entry requirements to the Economics and Business Administration degrees can be established. So, students wishing to apply to either of these two degrees in English must complete the same application process as any other student. Once admitted to the university, the students can apply for section E (E for English), provided they can document minimum English language proficiency, which is set at the B2 level on Common European Framework for Reference (CEFR). It is not compulsory to follow all the courses in English to complete the degree; students might decide to follow the English track just for some of the subjects. Hence, although all subjects the students take (be they in English or not) appear on their transcript, their diploma will state that the degree was in English only if at least 75% of the ECTS credits were taken in English. Lecturers volunteer to teach in the EMI program. No language proficiency requirement for lecturers has been established although all the participating lecturers self-assess their level of proficiency in English as at least a CEFR B2. Institutional language support has been provided for lecturers from the beginning in 2009–2010 in the form of weekly conversation classes and review of the teaching material (teaching guides, presentations, practical cases, exams, etc.). Since 2015, as part of the university Plan for Curricular Internationalization, the Vice-Rector for International Affairs office offers a 20-hour training workshop every June to UCM in-service lecturers who are currently involved (or want to be involved) in EMI. This workshop is taught by language experts who help lecturers develop teaching strategies for the international classroom, as well as help them improve their oral skills for the teaching and learning of content through English. This workshop has been very useful at improving the skills of all the participants who were required to have a B2 (C1 preferred) level of English as they were teaching or planning to teach in EMI programs.

170

C. del Campo

3  Current Considerations 3.1  Major Challenges While Spain has 46.7 million inhabitants (INE, 2019), there are more than 480 million people who have Spanish as their first language (L1). The number of Spanish speakers rises to 580 million if those who have it as a second or foreign language are included. That makes Spanish the second language in the world by number of native speakers, after Mandarin Chinese, and the second language of international communication (Instituto Cervantes, 2019). With such a large number of speakers, the Spanish higher education system has a large target market (see Sánchez-García, Chapter “Internationalization through Language and Literacy in the Spanish English Medium” in this volume). It is therefore perhaps unsurprising that there was strong opposition against the introduction of EMI related to language issues and English’s expanding role in higher education from some faculty members at the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration. Some argue, in fact, that the Spanish language is under threat by the English language. They believe there is an unnecessary use of English words in everyday language (e.g., the use of words like “marketing” or “online”) since there are suitable Spanish equivalents (mercadotecnia and en línea, respectively) for most of those concepts (Lorenzo, 1996; Segura, 2003). However, there was a majority on the faculty board supporting the introduction of EMI and it was approved. While there still is some opposition or concern about EMI based on the belief that instruction through English may limit access to students from lower socio-economic groups and establish a type of elite instruction, the opposition has died down given the positive results in student’s employability (García Greciano & Rivero Rodríguez, 2017). Although employment statistics are positive, there are certain challenges when teaching EMI courses. As was previously stated, the students enrolled in the EMI courses in the faculty have to provide official evidence that they have at least CEFR B2 in English. Unfortunately, in the nine years I have been teaching EMI courses, I have found there are always some Spanish students whose language proficiency is lower than required. Although the percentage is very small, it is sometimes necessary to change the pedagogy to prevent those students from falling behind. Certainly, that is my greatest challenge also because these students tend to participate less in the classroom and as research shows, are more likely to drop out (Selzer & Gibson, 2009). Interestingly, I have never, so far, found the same problem among international students, which may mean that international students decide to study in EMI themselves, while domestic students faced family pressure to study in English. The aim of EMI courses is to teach content, and not to teach English, although an improvement in students’ English linguistic skills may be indirectly obtained not only due to immersion, but also because lecturers contribute to the improvement of students’ skills by promoting accuracy, fluency, clarity, and use of an appropriate register. Lecturers of each subject are responsible for teaching the language required for academic success in their respective disciplines, which includes some

English Medium Instruction Through the Lens of a Content Teacher: Challenges…

171

domain-specific vocabulary that might also be used in general English. Sometimes the students cannot differentiate between the domain-specific and the general meaning of a word, which can cause misunderstanding. This problem of meaning, however, can also appear when teaching in the students' L1, Spanish in this case. Nevertheless, it becomes exacerbated when teaching in English, especially because it is usually associated with a different concept than in the L1. Still, sometimes it is easier to use the English, rather than the Spanish, domain-specific vocabulary because the students may be unfamiliar with the general meaning of the word. This helps avoid misunderstanding. For example, one of my colleagues, who teaches Financial Accounting, finds it much easier to convey most of the accounting concepts in English because in Spanish many of the discipline-specific terms are used in everyday situations with a different meaning. Some recent studies indicate that students have negative attitudes towards EMI (see for example Chang, 2010; Lo & Macaro, 2012; Suliman & Tadros, 2011) even though they recognize that EMI courses help them improve their English skills, especially listening. Further, undergraduate students from a Department of Economics reported having difficulty in understanding the main concepts when they took EMI courses (see e.g., Kirkgöz, 1999). However, that is not the case for most of the UCM students on the EMI strand who generally do not have these difficulties. This may be due to the fact that EMI is not compulsory. The EMI section in our faculty is optional. In fact, there are many students with sufficient English language proficiency who decide not to follow the EMI program because they lack confidence in their own English abilities, and they fear failing, as they think that learning in English will be harder. This could indicate that most students who enroll in the EMI section are those confident with their English language proficiency. It is also true, that unlike other contexts, the Spanish capital region of Madrid has been moving toward complete bilingualism in Spanish/English at many primary and secondary schools. In 2004-2005, a bilingual program started with 26 state schools, and now there are 564, which represents 50.0% of the state primary schools and 59.2% of the state secondary schools (see Comunidad de Madrid, 2019). Inevitably, these students are more confident in their use of the language. Furthermore, some lecturers and students find the atmosphere of EMI lessons less enjoyable than the courses delivered in their native language since some teachers report that it is difficult to make jokes and tell anecdotes in a foreign language when teaching (Tung, Lam, & Tsang, 1997). But, anyone with some teaching experience would agree that novice lecturers’ first classes are not as good as those very same lessons given years later. In fact, I was really afraid teaching my first classes in Spanish (my L1) and could not tell any jokes for a couple of years. It is common knowledge that all lecturers improve with experience, so doing it through English is no exception. Hence, after a couple of years, any lecturer will find herself/himself sufficiently prepared and confident enough to tell jokes and anecdotes in their EMI class, if given the opportunity. It is also true that over the past few years some departments in the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration at UCM, similar to my own, have begun to hire lecturers with a high level of English language proficiency (at least CEFR C1),

172

C. del Campo

much like other European universities (see for example Werther, Denver, Jensen, & Mees, 2014). A proven record of EMI and a willingness to participate on the English-taught track are considered an added value, so that part of the previously mentioned problems about inexperienced EMI teachers can be avoided. There is no doubt that an EMI class should use English as the teaching language with focus on the disciplinary content. At UCM, there is no institutional policy mandating English-only or prohibiting the option to resort to Spanish when there is a lexical problem with a word or whole expressions, or outside the class, for example in tutorial hours. Opinions vary in the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration and even within the different departments about the use of the L1 outside the classroom. While a content teacher main objective is to transmit and ensure the students acquire the knowledge (and the disciplinary language) of their subject, I would argue that there is still a responsibility to expose them (especially those who are Spanish) to a range of English registers and provide opportunities for a meaningful use of the second language (L2) in an environment not as constrained as the classroom. Hence, in my opinion, even if language learning is not the aim, maintaining an English-only policy in all interactions with EMI students, whether these take place in the classroom or the canteen, addresses this dilemma. Most of the lecturers in EMI in the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration have a great deal of experience teaching their subjects, and their main concern about their English is linguistic accuracy and fluency as Aguilar and Rodríguez (2012) point out. The issue of language proficiency is a very important one, but many times it is nothing more than a lack of confidence as other authors have remarked (cf. Goodman, 2014). The ability of exemplification and the ability to perform longitudinal connections (between old and new knowledge of those that are to be taught) and cross connections (between information specific to the subject taught and those of other subjects) comes from experience, and that is the same in your L1 or L2. So my advice would be to prepare your lesson well in advance (even rehearsing it to gain confidence) and forget about what the students are going to think and say. Perfect English production may be important, but the most important thing is a deep knowledge and understanding of our subject as well as also taking the required time to make students understand the concepts. Put yourself in the students’ shoes – did you not comment on your lecturers’ outfit or their way of talking? I did. Everybody does. The good teachers are not the ones who never make mistakes; they are the ones who never give up on students whatever the language of instruction. Undoubtedly, the success of any lesson depends greatly on good organization, otherwise the result can be disastrous, even more so when the lecture is two hours long. Careful planning is therefore required when embarking upon EMI teaching, and it requires more than merely translating content and delivering it. In my opinion, whenever possible, materials should be specifically designed for the subject, not translated, especially when there is some research that suggests that the lack of specific teaching materials can hinder the quality of EMI classes (Dafouz, Begoña Núñez, & Foran, 2007; Fernández-Costales & González-Riaño, 2015; Halbach, Lafuente, & Guerra, 2013; Pérez-Vidal, 2007). There is little doubt about the

English Medium Instruction Through the Lens of a Content Teacher: Challenges…

173

existence of certain content areas where the transition to EMI might be easier, and I am particularly thinking about my colleague in Business Law. During our common first year lecturing in English, while I was overwhelmed with the amount of materials at my disposal (my subject was Business Statistics I), he did not even have Spanish Law translated to any other language (now most of it is translated into English). When I first started teaching EMI classes, it was very easy to prepare the material for Business Statistics I (first year, spring term, Business Administration Degree). Not only was there ample material (web pages, videos, newspapers articles...) and textbooks in English (even more than in Spanish), I had a colleague preparing basically the same content for Statistics I (first year, Spring term, Economics Degree). So, we worked together, split the workload, and had more fun than working alone. There were only a handful of students enrolled (since then numbers have increased to equal the sections taught in Spanish) and, as already mentioned, EMI lecturers had (they still do) an English language support teacher to give them weekly conversation classes and to help them review the material and discuss language doubts. All in all, the experience was less frightening and easier than expected. So, when the moment for teaching the compulsory subject Decision Analysis (third year, Autumn term, Business Administration Degree) came up, I jumped at the opportunity, but it was not as easy as with Business Statistics I.  All sections taught in Spanish share a common virtual learning environment (EMI section is excluded) ensuring all students have the same material (in-class slides, exercises sheets, recommended readings, additional material). They also share the same tight schedule, with practical cases and practical classes taking place in the same week and same final exam (specifically translated for EMI). In addition, there was no textbook or manual in English (there are still none, but there are a few in Spanish written by members of the department) that followed our same syllabus. The class covers a selection of the techniques to help decision makers make complex choices using a mathematical model to infer from these choices what s/he should do in that complex intractable decision. Although almost half of that syllabus was included in only one chapter of several managerial decision-making books, they did not have the required depth. However, there were very nice expositions of most of the syllabus chapters in several papers published in an equal number of academic journals that the university was subscribed to. Hence, it was easy to download and upload them on the university virtual learning environment for the students to read. It was not long after the start of the classes that students pointed out they did not find the papers provided in English as appealing as anticipated. Moreover, there were no exercises or enough additional material they could practice with. The easy solution for Spanish-speaking students was to use the recommended material for the course in Spanish (specifically adapted to the syllabus). But for those very few foreigners who did not speak Spanish, that very first year was hard. That experience made me realize I needed to reshape the additional material available to the students. It took me a couple of months of almost full-time searching, i.e., reading papers, reviewing books, going through web pages, and watching videos, to find teaching materials that might be the adequate level for third year undergraduate students.

174

C. del Campo

One final challenge has to do with the development of Spanish as a second language. The Erasmus + program is becoming more and more popular in the context of Europe. According to recent estimates (European Commission, 2020), in the academic year 2017-2018, 343,600 students received Erasmus support to pursue studies or traineeships abroad and spent an average of 6.2 or 4.4 months, respectively, at their host university or firm. Offering courses in English attracts students who cannot speak the native language (Spanish, in our case). In fact, the most popular destinations, in descending order of incoming students, were Spain, Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, and France. With this policy, universities open their doors to a larger pool of international students and a more diverse student population whose growing numbers have a direct impact on EMI classes, as this is the usual choice for those students because they usually come with an only intermediate language skill in the country’s national language. But, even if the students are learning in an English classroom, they still find ways to experience the host country's language and culture. And, the enrichment of culture is reciprocal for domestic students with whom they share the classes. It seems that some Spanish L1 lecturers do not want these Erasmus incoming students in their Spanish medium classes, but most EMI lecturers are very happy with the situation. Many of those EMI lecturers already have at least some international experience, but teaching at home through another language has proved to be a valuable experience that has opened up new perspectives. In my case, it has developed my personal values and my understanding of people from other cultural and ethnic backgrounds. My class dynamics have completely changed due to the current intercultural dialogue and interaction, and apart from some specific pronunciation problems with a name or two as I attempted to read them from the list, it has been so far a very gratifying and valuable experience. Classes are not repetitive anymore and they have turned out to be more participative and some modifications to teaching materials were developed as a result of questions posed in class.

3.2  Rewards Some research points out the additional workload that managing content through an L2 entails (Doiz, Lasagabaster, & Sierra, 2013). Although teaching is a gift that seems to come quite naturally to some lecturers, for most teaching is always hard work, even more so when it is done in a foreign language. Experience and continuous preparation logically lead, after some years, to a reduction of that workload, but it still requires some extra time compared to teaching the same subject through your L1. And, many lecturers around the world complain that the extra effort frequently goes unrewarded, as the teaching load is not usually reduced despite the extra time required to offer a subject in L2. Fortunately for me, that is not the case at Complutense University of Madrid. Since 2015, as part of the university Plan for Curricular Internationalization, all lecturers teaching through a foreign language (apart from those teaching in the English or Translation Departments) are given a

English Medium Instruction Through the Lens of a Content Teacher: Challenges…

175

small reduction in their teaching load. All ECTS for foreign language medium instruction courses are calculated as 1.5 times ECTS. It is not much, but it is a recognition of that extra effort and extra preparation time. In the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, this measure has been in place since 2009 when the EMI degrees were first offered. However, this international dimension is not yet recognized in the (nationwide) process of evaluation and promotion of faculty. Another reward from EMI teaching was an interdisciplinary collaboration of researchers from the areas of Economics and Business Administration and Language Studies grouped around Inte-R-LICA. Inte-R-LICA is an international project with the objective to analyze in depth the linguistic, cultural, and academic challenges derived from the implementation of bilingual degrees. The project was financed by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness and brought together an interdisciplinary collaboration between linguists and teachers of economics and business from five different universities (Complutense University of Madrid, University of Alcalá, JAMK University of Applied Sciences, University of Southampton, and University of Vienna) with no common L1 language. The different intertwined research lines reflect the variety of universities and researchers participating in the project. Although it was difficult at the start, due precisely to all the previously mentioned differences, I am quite sure all my colleagues would join me in saying the fun we had has greatly outweighed the initial problems. For more information on the project and its results, please visit http://www.ucm.es/interlica-en. Still, the best reward I get from teaching an EMI class is that I have rediscovered that teaching can be a lot of fun. My classes now have a larger and more diverse pool of international students, which makes it at times very challenging and intellectually demanding. Hence, I have learned to expect the unexpected in every class and enjoy the surprise. Most days, I leave the class with at least one exciting, funny, or interesting story to tell, and that is thanks to my intercultural class.

4  Reflections and Future Directions Teaching through the medium of English, at the Faculty of Economics and Business of the Complutense University of Madrid, constitutes an active response to a demand from the Spanish society, as well as a way to increase the employability of the students and to widen the appeal and international element of our faculty in line with the Bologna Declaration. This first nine years of experience of the fully English-taught Business Administration and Economics bachelor degree programs has revealed some challenges, but it has mainly contributed to promote international mobility, both incoming and outgoing. From a more individual perspective, this experience has meant a challenge and an opportunity to improve personally and, up to a certain point, professionally. Although many of my colleagues, myself included, already had international experience, this teaching has proven to be a valuable experience that has opened up new perspectives. However, EMI should not be confused with

176

C. del Campo

internationalization. From my point of view, EMI is the first step in promoting a multilingual Europe (Eurydice, 2006) and educating multiliterate and multicultural professionals able to work and communicate in a globalized world (García, 2009).

References Aguilar, M., & Rodríguez, R. (2012). Lecturer and Student Perceptions on CLIL at a Spanish University. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(2), 183–197. Arkın, I. E. (2013). English-medium instruction in higher education: A case study in a Turkish university context (Doctoral dissertation), Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta, North Cyprus. Retrieved July 4, 2018 from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1. 1.824.16&rep=rep1&type=pdf Bologna Declaration. (1999). The European higher education area: Joint declaration of the European Ministers of Education convened in Bologna on the 19th of June 1999. Retrieved July, 27 2018 from http://www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/Ministerial_conferences/02/8/1999_ Bologna_Declaration_English_553028.pdf Budde-Sung, A.  E. K. (2011). The increasing internationalization of the international business classroom: Cultural and generational considerations. Business Horizons, 54, 365–373. Chang, Y. (2010). English-medium instruction for subject courses in tertiary education: Reactions from Taiwanese undergraduate students. Taiwan International ESP Journal, 2(1), 55–84. Comunidad de Madrid. (2019). Datos y cifras de la educación 2019-20. Retrieved May 15, 2020 from http://www.madrid.org/bvirtual/BVCM050013.pdf Dafouz, E. (2015). Más allá del Inglés: la Competencia Lingüística Multidimensional como Estrategia para la Enseñanza en la Universidad Internacional. Educación y Futuro, 32, 15–34. Dafouz, E., Begoña Núñez, C.  S., & Foran, D. (2007). Integrating CLIL at the tertiary level: Teachers’ and students’ reactions. In D. Wolff & D. Marsh (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning in Europe – Converging and diverging goals (pp. 91–102). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang. Dearden, J. (2015). English as a medium of instruction  – A growing global phenomenon. London, UK: The British Council. Retrieved June 25, 2018 from http://www.britishcouncil.org/education/ihe/knowledge-centre/english-language-higher-education/ report-english-medium-instruction Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2013). Globalisation, internationalisation, multilingualism and linguistic strains in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(9), 1407–1421. European Commission. (2020). Erasmus+ Annual report 2018. Retrieved May 14, 2020 from https:// op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/7985705e-41b7-11ea-9099-01aa75ed71a1/ language-en Eurydice. (2006). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. Brussels, Belgium: Eurydice European Unit. Fernández-Costales, A., & González-Riaño, X. A. (2015). Teachers’ satisfaction concerning the implementation of bilingual programmes in a Spanish University. Porta Linguarum, 23, 93–108. Gao, X. (2008). Shifting motivational discourses among mainland Chinese students in an English medium tertiary institution in Hong Kong: A longitudinal inquiry. Studies in Higher Education, 33(5), 599–614. García Greciano, B., & Rivero Rodríguez, C. (2017). Empleabilidad: Un enfoque basado en competencias requeridas y adquiridas. In J. García, J. M. González-Páramo, & A. Matas (Eds.), Análisis empíricos sobre la economía española. Ensayos en homenaje a Josep Lluís Raymond Bara (pp. 359–388). Madrid, Spain: Aranzadi. García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

English Medium Instruction Through the Lens of a Content Teacher: Challenges…

177

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. Halbach, A., Lafuente, A. L., & Guerra, J. P. (2013). La Lengua Inglesa en la Nueva Universidad Española del EEES. Revista de Educación, 362, 105–132. Hu, G., & Lei, J. (2014). English-medium instruction in Chinese higher education: A case study. Higher Education, 67, 551–567. INE. (2019). España en cifras 2019. Retrieved May 14, 2020 from http://www.ine.es/prodyser/ espa_cifras/2019 Instituto Cervantes. (2019). El español: Una lengua viva. Retrieved May 14, 2020 from https:// cvc.cervantes.es/lengua/espanol_lengua_viva/pdf/espanol_lengua_viva_2019.pdf Jover, G., Fleta, T., & González, R. (2016). La Formación Inicial de los Maestros de Educación Primaria en el Contexto de la Enseñanza Bilingüe en Lengua Extranjera. Bordón, Revista de Pedagogí, 68(2), 121–135. Kirkgöz, Y. (1999). Knowledge acquisition from L2 specialist texts. PhD Thesis, Aston University, Birmingham, Great Britain. Retrieved July 10, 2018 from http://publications.aston.ac.uk/15191/ Lo, Y. 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. Lorenzo, E. (1996). Anglicismos Hispánicos. Madrid, Spain: Gredos. Pérez-Vidal, C. (2007). The need for Focus on Form (FoF) in content and language integrated approaches. An exploratory study. Revista española de lingüística aplicada, 1, 39–54. Ramos García, A. M. (2013). Higher education bilingual programmes in Spain. Porta Linguarum, 19, 101–111. Segura, J. (2003). El DRAE y los anglicismos innecesarios. Panace@, IV(11), 55–58. Selzer, M. A., & Gibson, I. R. (2009). Preparing Japanese students for English-medium instruction in international studies: Methodology and practice in the IIIS international public service program. Ritsumeikan Journal of International Studies, 22(1), 127–140. Suliman, W. A., & Tadros, A. (2011). Nursing students coping with English as a foreign language medium of instruction. Nurse Education Today, 31(4), 402–407. Tung, P., Lam, R., & Tsang, W. K. (1997). English as a medium of instruction in post-1997 Hong Kong: What students, teachers, and parents think. Journal of Pragmatics, 28(4), 441–459. Vinke, A. A., Snippe, J., & Jochems, W. (1998). English-medium content courses in non-English higher education: A study of lecturer experiences and teaching behaviours. Teaching in Higher Education, 3(3), 383–394. Wächter, B., & Maiworm, F. (Eds.). (2014). English-taught programmes in European higher education: The state of play in 2014. Bonn, Germany: Lemmens. Werther, C., Denver, L., Jensen, C., & Mees, I. M. (2014). Using English as a medium of instruction at university level in Denmark: The lecturer’s perspective. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35(5), 443–462.

Postscript: Moving Forward in Integrating Content and Language in Multilingual Higher Education Emma Dafouz

Abstract  This chapter reflects on the development of research in the area of Integrating Content and Language in Higher Education (ICLHE) by outlining the major theoretical and methodological milestones that the field has reached so far. It then goes on to highlight the contributions of the current book to the field with references to the different ICLHE contexts featured across the chapters. The chapter ends with a call for active engagement of ICLHE researchers in wider societal outreach in order to address current social and educational challenges. Keywords  ICLHE theory and research · ICLHE contextual factors · Integrating content and language

My first encounter with the Integrating Content and Language in Higher Education (ICLHE) community dates back to 2006, when I attended the ICLHE conference at Maastricht University. I clearly remember being highly impressed by the diversity of participants, university contexts, and disciplinary areas represented along with a wide range of research interests and stakeholders involved. I think that this conference was the first time I moved from my comfort research zone of English linguistics and delved into the truly interdisciplinary mode of enquiry that bonds the ICLHE community, namely, examining the role of language(s) in higher education (HE). More than a decade later, the ICLHE community has come a long way. As it has gradually developed, so too have the research interests, methods, and theoretical frameworks used to inform and understand the integration of content and language in increasingly internationalized and multilingual university settings. To describe

E. Dafouz (*) Department of English Studies (Language and Literature), Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 S. Dimova, J. Kling (eds.), Integrating Content and Language in Multilingual Universities, Educational Linguistics 44, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46947-4_11

179

180

E. Dafouz

such development, I will start by drawing on the paper that Cecilia Jacobs, one of the plenary speakers at the Maastricht 2006 conference, delivered. In this paper, she offered an interesting analysis of the early ICLHE research agenda. Surveying the papers published in the 2003 and 2006 conference proceedings (see Wilkinson & Zegers, 2007, 2008), Jacob concludes that most of the first conference papers were descriptive and rather atheoretical, addressing the level of practice, and largely foregrounding concerns related to the teaching of English as an additional language to enhance content learning (Jacobs, 2015, p. 22). The following conferences in Maastricht (2013), Brussels (2015), and the most recent one in Copenhagen (2017), where I had the pleasure of presenting as a keynote speaker, already showcased how the ICLHE agenda was gradually evolving to incorporate a wider range of research foci. Learning effectiveness, language policies, program development, and conceptualizations on the integration of language and content were now prevalent (see Valcke & Wilkinson, 2017; Wilkinson & Walsh, 2015). Yet, while a stronger sense of research community was undoubtedly starting to emerge, there was arguably still a need to establish a certain “commonality across the range of conceptual frameworks and analytical tools [used]” in order to theorize our work and move forward as a field of inquiry, as Jacobs had already pointed out in 2006 (Jacobs, 2015, p. 21). As a scholar who has been researching in this area for almost two decades now, I believe that this volume has succeeded in achieving this much sought-after commonality and theorization. The chapters in this book show that ICLHE has grown into a robust field of enquiry, where global and common perspectives of integrating content and language in higher education are addressed without losing sight of individual and local realizations. In this respect, one of the publication’s main merits is the editors’ use of a common structure throughout the chapters to include the history of national and/or local languages with relation to English in the respective settings, be it countries, regions, or individual higher education institutions (HEIs). Furthermore, all the chapters describe the main issues and future considerations regarding integrating content and language (ICL) across the different contexts. This shared configuration allows, at the same time, for a much more nuanced and context-­ sensitive analysis of such ICL realities. After all, as Charles Ferguson claimed back in the 1970s, “all language planning activities take place in a particular sociolinguistic setting, and the nature and the scope of the planning can only be fully understood in relation to the settings” (Ferguson, 1977, p. 9). The sociolinguistic setting rests upon a set of conditioning factors (e.g., Van der Walt, 2013; Hamers & Blanc, 2000), which encompass the historical, socio-­ structural, cultural, ideological, and socio-psychological factors that ultimately favor (or not) the development of ICL policies and practices in specific universities. Drawing on very different geographical settings, types of HEIs, and languages, the contributions in this book weave a multifaceted picture of bi/multilingual universities at the turn of the century. In the European setting, five distinct countries are explored. Starting at the very north, Iceland is presented as a case study where English is viewed as a foreign language that can bridge a smooth transition to English medium education (see chapter “Transitioning EAL Students from EFL

Postscript: Moving Forward in Integrating Content and Language in Multilingual…

181

Classes to EMI Programs at the University of Iceland”). In the case of Denmark, a top-down multilingual strategy implemented in different study programs in English (see chapter “Acknowledging the Role of Language in English Medium Instruction: Experiences from a Pilot Project Intervention at University of Copenhagen”) and covering different languages (e.g., German, French, Latin, Arabic, Chinese) is motivated by a combination of traditional practices as well as by new orientations in the academic labor market (chapter “Integrating Content and Language: The Role of Other Languages Than English in an International University”). The Swedish case is used in contrast to the Hong Kong context (see chapter “English Medium Instruction: Disintegrating Language and Content?”) to reflect upon the specific conditions that are needed for success in English medium instruction (EMI). The chapter concludes that too little is understood about the factors that lead to successful EMI and, in the case of Sweden, it claims that assumptions that English proficiency and learning benefits outweigh costs have not been rigorously tested (Pecorari, this volume). In Southeast Europe, the study in Croatia focuses on teacher perspectives and experiences with regard to EMI and reflects on the existing tensions between advocates of an English-only policy and those supporting a bilingual one, where Croatian plays a role in disciplinary learning (see chapter “The Benefits, Challenges and Prospects of EMI in Croatia: An Integrated Perspective”). This recurrent concern can be traced across the entire volume in very different settings. In the south, the Spanish context portrays different national language policies and the pedagogical use of classroom discourse in a monolingual (Spanish-speaking) HEI for professional development (see chapter “Internationalization Through Language and Literacy in the Spanish English Medium Education Context”). The content expert view is also presented, drawing closely on the lecturer’s personal beliefs and experiences on how ICL can be put into practice in the classroom, while concurrently claiming more specific support from the language specialists (see chapter “English Medium Instruction Through the Lens of a Content Teacher: Challenges, Adjustments, and Opportunities”). Changing continents, in the Middle East, an example of an Anglophone branch campus in Qatar is presented, where the principles, values, and language practices of the home US university are closely followed (see chapter “English Medium Instruction in Higher Education in Qatar: A Multi-dimensional Analysis Using the ROAD-MAPPING Framework”). In this setting. English is reported to act as a gatekeeper for Qatari students’ access to HE– a concern the authors show in the concluding lines. Jumping continents to Northeast Asia, the case of Japan provides a detailed description of the Ministerial strategy for EMI devised to enhance the Japanese higher education system, strengthen the quality and accessibility of Japanese research, attract international students, and help domestic students to develop international and intercultural skills (chapter “Internationalizing Japan’s Undergraduate Education Through English Medium Instruction”). Finally, the Hong Kong example, presented in contrast to the Swedish setting, as mentioned above, reflects a postcolonial past where English was traditionally used as medium of instruction in education (see chapter “English Medium Instruction: Disintegrating

182

E. Dafouz

Language and Content?”). Thus, while this English-rooted past translates to more support for EMI students in their development of academic skills, for instance, it is concluded that there is room for improvement in this Asian setting too. These context-sensitive cases portray the diversity of ICL settings in a comprehensive and detailed manner. For example, other conditioning factors, such as the ecology of languages in multilingual universities and the changing landscapes of English are adequately depicted. A degree of asymmetry among the languages and their users is reflected in the examples provided, with English dominating the scene, as the use of the variety of labels related to EMI across the volume clearly shows. Similarly, the attitudes and ideologies that different agents (whether lecturers, students, language planners, or decision makers) may adopt, and the resulting teaching and learning practices implemented in such settings, are described in thorough detail. All such topics provide strong evidence of the ICLHE development across time, from largely language-oriented studies and descriptive accounts, to multi-­ dimensional and theoretically grounded overviews of ICLHE settings. However, contrary to what one might wish, tidy and straightforward description of ICLHE realities are difficult. Regardless, the reader, whether a researcher, a decision-maker, a content or a language teacher engaged in this setting, will find a “faithful description” of such realities, a description that “acknowledges their situated complexity” (Dafouz & Smit, 2020) and shies away from simple and fast, good or bad categorizations. As such, the chapters allow stakeholders to better understand and respond to the complexity of these contexts. By and large, this book is an excellent example of the good health of ICLHE research. The editors, Slobodanka Dimova and Joyce Kling, offer us a valuable and rich portrait of the intricacy and context-sensitive nature of current HEIs and their multifaceted approaches to ICLHE. Such descriptions align too with the multilingual turn in education (cf. May, 2014), that, at this point, can be viewed more as a desideratum in HE than a reality. In other words, the few multilingual cases reported in this volume come from originally bilingual areas that add English to their setting, thus reflecting the scarce presence of multilingual scenarios in most HEIs. An interesting exception is the Copenhagen case, where multilingualism is indeed the direct result of a planned internationalization strategy fostered by a particular HEI. In this light, one crucial direction in which the ICLHE field evidently needs to grow lies in the research and promotion of desirable educational policies that truly facilitate multilingual repertoires, multilingual practices, and multilingual literacies (cf. Palfreyman & Van der Walt, 2017); policies that move beyond English-medium orientations (Van der Walt, 2013) and that ultimately embrace the value of multilingual HE in the twenty-first century. As with any field of enquiry, the years to come will put us to the test. New conferences and symposia will be exciting venues for discussion, enquiry, and reflection on the challenges that HEIs will need to face as we approach the third decade of the twenty-first century. At a time when menacing nationalisms, populisms, fake news, and xenophobia seem to be growing around the world, a research field such as ICLHE, which engages researchers from very diverse settings, different languages, and distinct cultures, can provide opportunity for dialog and genuine respect. After

Postscript: Moving Forward in Integrating Content and Language in Multilingual…

183

all, research of any kind needs to be put at the service of society. In the specific case of ICLHE, its intrinsic multilingual, multicultural, interdisciplinary, and international profile necessarily entails “willingness to serve society outside the walls of higher education” (Brandenburg, de Wit, Jones, & Leask, 2019). I trust, therefore, that the riveting and diverse cases portrayed in this volume contribute to this end as well as inspire educators, curriculum developers, and policy makers worldwide.

References Brandenburg, U., de Wit, H., Jones, E., & Leask, B. (2019, May). Internationalization in Higher Education for Society. University World News. Dafouz, E. and Smit, U. (2020). ROAD-MAPPING English medium education in the internationalised university. London, UK Palgrave Macmillan. Ferguson, C. (1977). Sociolinguistic settings of language planning. In J.  Rubin, B.  Jernudd, J. D. Gupta, J. A. Fishman, & C. A. Ferguson (Eds.), Language planning processes (pp. 3–9). The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton. Hamers, J.  F., & Blanc, M. (2000). Bilinguality and bilingualism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Jacobs, C. (2015). Mapping the terrains of ICLHE: A view from the South. In R. Wilkinson & M.  L. Walsh (Eds.), Integrating content and language in higher education. From theory to practice (pp. 21–28). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang. May, S. (Ed.). (2014). The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA. TESOL and bilingual education. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor and Francis. Palfreyman, D. M., & Van der Walt, C. (2017). Introduction: Biliteracies in higher education. In D. M. Palfreyman & C. Van der Walt (Eds.), Academic biliteracies: Multilingual repertoires in higher education (pp. 1–18). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Valcke, J., & Wilkinson, R. (Eds.). (2017). Integrating content and language in higher education: Perspectives on professional practice. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang. Van der Walt, C. (2013). Multilingual higher education: Beyond English medium orientations. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Wilkinson, R., & Walsh, M. L. (Eds.). (2015). Integrating content and language in higher education: From theory to practice (pp. 1–341). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang. Wilkinson, R., & Zegers, V. (Eds.). (2007). Researching the integration of content and language (pp. 1–255). Maastricht, The Netherlands: Maastricht University. Wilkinson, R., & Zegers, V., (Eds.) (2008). Realizing the integration of content and language. Maastricht, The Netherlands: Maastricht University. Available from http://digitalarchive.maastrichtuniversity.nl/fedora/get/guid:7a48d841-788b-44b1-add7-c0878081ffd7/ASSET1