Keywords
content and language integrated learning (CLIL)
teacher cognition
teacher professional development
How to Cite
Number of views: 2344
Number of downloads: 1389
Abstract
Learning content through the medium of a second language is a form of education which is growing rapidly in both secondary and tertiary educational phases. Yet, although considerable research now exists on these phases of education viewed separately, virtually no comparisons have been made between the two phases. This study compared beliefs about English medium instruction (EMI) held by 167 secondary and tertiary EMI teachers from 27 countries. Teachers’ beliefs were elicited in four key areas: EMI teachers’ goals, EMI policy, benefits and drawbacks to students, and challenges to teachers. The findings indicate that secondary teachers felt more strongly that EMI provides students with a high quality education. More secondary than tertiary teachers reported an institutional policy on the English proficiency level required of teachers to teach through EMI, yet in neither phase was there evidence of adequate support to reach a required proficiency level. Teachers deemed EMI beneficial to advancing students’ English but felt that EMI would affect academic content, with no clear difference between the phases. Our conclusions indicate that EMI is being introduced without thorough institutional stakeholder discussion and therefore without clear policies on levels of teacher expertise. Neither is there evidence of a dialogue between phases regarding the challenges faced by EMI teachers and students.
References
Al-Maadheed, F. (2013) Models of bilingual education programmes in majority language contexts: An exploratory study of bilingual programmes in Qatari primary schools. Saarbrȕcken: Scholars’ Press.
Başıbek, N., Dolmacı, M., Cengiz, B. C., Bür, B., Dilek, Y., & Kara, B. (2014). Lecturers’ perceptions of English medium instruction at Engineering departments of higher education: A study on partial English medium instruction at some state universities in Turkey. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 1819-1825.
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, 77-97.
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36, 81-109.
Borg, S. (2016). English medium instruction in Iraqi Kurdistan: Perspectives from lecturers at state universities. British Council. Retrieved from https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/Teaching%20English_Publication%20En_Web%20version_v1.pdf
Brenn-White, M., & Faethe, E. (2013). English-taught master’s programs in Europe: A 2013 update. New York: Institute of International Education.
British Council. (2015). English in Brazil: An examination of policy, perceptions and influencing factors. Retrieved from https://englishagenda.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/attachments/english_in_brazil.pdf
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.
Cho, D. W. (2012). English-medium instruction in the university context of Korea: Tradeoff between teaching outcomes and media-initiated university ranking. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 9(4), 135-163.
Chu, Y. W. E. (2005). A bilingual exit: Introducing and evaluating partial English medium of instruction in a Hong Kong secondary school. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Durham University, UK.
Di Martino, E., & Di Sabato, B. (2012). CLIL implementation in Italian schools: Can long-serving teachers be retrained effectively? The Italian protagonists’ voice. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 5(2), 73-105.
Earls, C. W. (2016). Evolving agendas in European English-medium higher education: Interculturality, multilingualism and language policy. New York: Palgrave.
EC (European Commission). (2003). Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 24 July 2003 - Promoting language learning and linguistic diversity: An action plan 2004-2006 [COM (2003) 449 final]. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/RO/ALL/?uri=uriserv%3Ac11068
Favilli, F., Maffei, L., & Peroni, R. (2013). Teaching and learning mathematics in a non-native language: Introduction of the CLIL methodology in Italy. US-China Education Review, 3(6), 374-380.
Fenton-Smith, B., Humphries, P., & Walkinshaw, I. (2017). English medium instruction in higher education in Asia-Pacific: From policy to pedagogy. Dordrecht: Springer.
Francomacaro, R. M. (2011). English as a medium of instruction at an Italian engineering faculty: An investigation of structural features and pragmatic functions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Università Degli Studi Di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Retrieved from http://www.fedoa.unina.it/8637/1/francomacaro_mariarosaria_24.pdf
Gierlinger, E. (2015). ‘You can speak German, sir’: On the complexity of teachers’ L1 use in CLIL. Language and Education, 29(4), 347-368.
Hu, G. (2008). The misleading academic discourse on Chinese-English bilingual education. China Review of Educational Research, 78(2), 195-231.
Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification, and sociolinguistic realm: The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. G. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp. 11-30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Karmani, S. (2015). Petro-linguistics: The emerging nexus between oil, English, and Islam. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 4(2), 87-102.
Kiliçkaya, F. (2000). Instructors’ attitudes towards English-medium instruction in Turkey. Humanizing Language Teaching, 6(8), 1-12.
Kim, E. G., & Shin, A. (2014). Seeking an effective program to improve communication skills of non-English-speaking graduate Engineering students: The case of a Korean Engineering school. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 57(1), 41-55.
Lasagabaster, D. (2009). The implementation of CLIL and attitudes towards trilingualism. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 157, 23-43.
Leone, A. (2015). Outlooks in Italy: CLIL as language education policy. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 30(1), 43-63.
Macaro, E. (2018). English medium instruction: Content and language in policy and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McIlwraith, H. (Ed.). (2012). Multilingual education in Africa: Lessons from the Juba Language-in-Education Conference. London: British Council. Retrieved from https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/C413%20Juba%20Publication_FINAL_WEB%20ONLY%20v3.pdf
McMullen, M. G. (2014). The value and attributes of an effective preparatory English program: Perceptions of Saudi university students. English Language Teaching, 7(7), 131-140.
Met, M. (1999). Content-based instruction: Defining terms, making decisions (NFLC Report). Washington, DC: The National Foreign Language Center. Retrieved from http://carla.umn.edu/cobaltt/modules/principles/decisions.html
Moate, J. M. (2011). The impact of foreign language mediated teaching on teachers’ sense of professional integrity in the CLIL classroom. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(3), 333-346.
Moore-Jones, P. J. (2015). Linguistic imposition: The policies and perils of English as a medium of instruction in the United Arab Emirates. Journal of ELT and Applied Linguistics, 3, 63-73.
Muthwii, M. J. (2004). Language planning and literacy in Kenya: Living with unresolved paradoxes. Current Issues in Language Planning, 5(1), 34-50.
O’Dowd, R. (2015). The training and accreditation of teachers for English medium instruction: A survey of European universities. SGroup News Bulletin, 135. Retrieved from http://sgroup.be/sites/default/files/EMI%20Survey_Report_ODowd.pdf
Othman, J., & Saat, R. M. (2009). Challenges of using English as a medium of instruction: Pre-service science teachers’ perspective. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 18(2), 307-316.
Probyn, M. (2001). Teachers’ voices: Teachers reflections on learning and teaching through the medium of English as an additional language in South Africa. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 4(4), 249-266.
Rogier, D. (2012). The effects of English-medium instruction on language proficiency of students enrolled in higher education in the UAE (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Exeter, United Kingdom. Retrieved from https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10036/4482/RogierD.pdf?sequence=2
Ruiz De Zarobe, Y., & Jiménez Catalán, R. M. (Eds.). (2009). Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Ryhan, E. (2014). The role and impact of English as a language and a medium of instruction in Saudi higher education institutions: Students-instructors perspective. Study in English Language Teaching, 2(2), 140-148.
Shohamy, E. (2012). A critical perspective on the use of English as a medium of instruction at universities. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster, & J. M. Sierra (Eds.), English-medium instruction at universities: Global challenges (pp. 196-213). London: Longman.
Soren, J. K. (2013). Teacher identity in English-medium instruction: Teacher cognitions from a Danish tertiary education context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. Retrieved from https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00863816/document
Stoller, S. (2004). Content-based instruction: Perspectives on curriculum planning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 261-283.
Sultana, S. (2014). English as a medium of instruction in Bangladesh’s higher education: Empowering or disadvantaging students? Asian EFL Journal, 16(1), 11-52.
Tai, H.-Y. (2015). Writing development in syntactic complexity, accuracy and fluency in a content and language integrated learning class. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 2(3), 149-156.
Tan, M., & Lan, O. S. (2011) Teaching mathematics and science in English in Malaysian classrooms: The impact of teacher beliefs on classroom practices and student learning. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10, 5-18.
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.
Vinke, A. A. (1995). English as the medium of instruction in Dutch engineering education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Technische Universiteit Delft, The Netherlands. Retrieved from: http://repository.tudelft.nl/view/ir/uuid:491b55f9-fbf9-4650-a44d-acb9af8412a8/
Wächter, B., & Maiworm, F. (2008). English-taught programmes in European higher education: The picture in 2007. Bonn: Lemmens Medien.
Yeh, C. C. (2014). Taiwanese students’ experiences and attitudes towards English-medium courses in tertiary education. RELC Journal, 45(3), 305-319.
License
1.1 The Author hereby warrants that he/she is the owner of all the copyright and other intellectual property rights in the Work and that, within the scope of the present Agreement, the paper does not infringe the legal rights of another person. The owner of the copyright work also warrants that he/she is the sole and original creator thereof and that is not bound by any legal constraints in regard to the use or sale of the work.
1.2. The Publisher warrants that is the owner of the PRESSto platform for open access journals, hereinafter referred to as the PRESSto Platform.
2. The Author grants the Publisher non-exclusive and free of charge license to unlimited use worldwide over an unspecified period of time in the following areas of exploitation:
2.1. production of multiple copies of the Work produced according to the specific application of a given technology, including printing, reproduction of graphics through mechanical or electrical means (reprography) and digital technology;
2.2. marketing authorisation, loan or lease of the original or copies thereof;
2.3. public performance, public performance in the broadcast, video screening, media enhancements as well as broadcasting and rebroadcasting, made available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them;
2.4. inclusion of the Work into a collective work (i.e. with a number of contributions);
2.5. inclusion of the Work in the electronic version to be offered on an electronic platform, or any other conceivable introduction of the Work in its electronic version to the Internet;
2.6. dissemination of electronic versions of the Work in its electronic version online, in a collective work or independently;
2.7. making the Work in the electronic version available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, in particular by making it accessible via the Internet, Intranet, Extranet;
2.8. making the Work available according to appropriate license pattern Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) as well as another language version of this license or any later version published by Creative Commons.
3. The Author grants the Publisher permission to reproduce a single copy (print or download) and royalty-free use and disposal of rights to compilations of the Work and these compilations.
4. The Author grants the Publisher permission to send metadata files related to the Work, including to commercial and non-commercial journal-indexing databases.
5. The Author represents that, on the basis of the license granted in the present Agreement, the Publisher is entitled and obliged to:
5.1. allow third parties to obtain further licenses (sublicenses) to the Work and to other materials, including derivatives thereof or compilations made, based on or including the Work, whereas the provisions of such sub-licenses will be the same as with the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Creative Commons sub-license or another language version of this license, or any later version of this license published by Creative Commons;
5.2. make the Work available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, without any technological constraints;
5.3. appropriately inform members of the public to whom the Work is to be made available about sublicenses in such a way as to ensure that all parties are properly informed (appropriate informing messages).
6. Because of the royalty-free provision of services of the Author (resulting from the scope of obligations stipulated in the present Agreement), the Author shall not be entitled to any author’s fee due and payable on the part of the Publisher (no fee or royalty is payable by the Publisher to the Author).
7.1. In the case of third party claims or actions for indemnity against the Publisher owing to any infractions related to any form of infringement of intellectual property rights protection, including copyright infringements, the Author is obliged to take all possible measures necessary to protect against these claims and, when as a result of legal action, the Publisher, or any third party licensed by the Publisher to use the Work, will have to abandon using the Work in its entirety or in part or, following a court ruling in a legal challenge, to pay damages to a third party, whatever the legal basis
7.2. The Author will immediately inform the Publisher about any damage claims related to intellectual property infringements, including the author’s proprietary rights pertaining to a copyrighted work, filed against the Author. of liability, the Author is obliged to redress the damage resulting from claims made by third party, including costs and expenditures incurred in the process.
7.3. To all matters not settled herein provisions of the Polish Civil Code and the Polish Copyright and Related Rights Act shall apply.