1. Ernesto Macaro University of Oxford: Department of Education
English Medium Instruction as a Tool of Internationalization in Higher Education
Ernesto Macaro
University of Oxford: Department of Education

2. Overview
What should be the ‘approach’ with regard to EMI in HE? (Implementation <->Research)
What are the methodological challenges presented by EMI research ?
Some initial findings from a survey of 54 countries
A research agenda for EMI Oxford

3. Aims of EMI policy in Universities
To internationalise universities?
To facilitate learning of subjects by home students?
A way of ensuring that home students can compete in a world market?
To build/improve English language capacity of home country?
Are these aims shared by all participants?

4. Aims of EMI policy in universities
A new multilingual and multicultural tool for developing intercultural communication?
Authentic language learning?
A way of forcing change in HE pedagogy?
Are these aims shared by all participants?

5. EMI Oxford: End-user research-driven approach to EMI
English Medium Instruction
University faculty
Secondary school teachers
University students
School students
Parents
RESEARCH EVIDENCE
Policy makers
Employers
Evolution

6. EMI research: Methodological challenges
Global phenomenon – contexts
Nomenclature – contextual (a common glossary?)
Rapid changes (examples Qatar; Malaysia)
Access to data and participants

7. Phase 1 of project Aims: To map the current situation
To identify future trends
Phase 2: online questionnaire investigating lecturer/teacher attitudes to EMI in their subject
Phase 3: in depth analysis of smaller number of countries: Turkey; Italy; Austria

8. Phase 1 Method Open ended (essentially qualitative) questionnaire
Sent to British Council staff in 60 countries worldwide
Primary analysis of data
Follow up request to plug gaps
Secondary analysis of data: attempt to quantify
Caveat: Reliability of data

9. The Field: Public vs. Public Education

10. The Field: Public vs. Public Education

11. In ‘your country’, is EMI officially ‘allowed’ in public sector?
Primary Education n
percent
Allowed 29
52.7
Not allowed 21
38.2
Secondary Education n
percent
Allowed 39
70.9
Not allowed 13
23.6
Universities n
percent
Allowed 43
78.2
Not allowed 10
18.2

12. Why EMI has been (or is being) introduced
Globalization [‘local university’ fading]
Attract international students
Attract international faculty
Employment and study abroad

13. Do official policies or statements on EMI exist?

14. Policy Changes in Past 10 Years?

15. General trend in each country

16. Examples of “Mixed Trends”
Argentina
“More, there is a trend towards increasing EMI at primary and secondary levels. State schools have mostly stayed away from it, despite some talks of including EMI in Buenos Aires.”
Azerbaijan
“Public primary: less; public secondary: the same; public HE: more. Private primary, secondary and HE: more. “
Israel
“More, universities want to teach more in English. Schools are not moving in this direction.”
Turkey
“In HEIs, more. In state schools has become less with the abolishment of an initial year of EMI in the elite state Anadolu High Schools. The stated reason for abolishing EMI here is that pupils were performing poorly in science and mathematics.”

17. Official backing for ‘trends’
Croatia: “In the context of the Bologna Process and increased international mobility as one of its priorities, the Ministry [has] Action Plan for the removal of obstacles and strengthening of the international mobility in education … including the increase in the number of study programmes offered in foreign languages”

18. Official backing for ‘trends’
Uzbekistan: “The presidential decree of 2012 encourages English to be taught, spoken, and used for business communication at all levels and at any institution of Uzbekistan be it journalism, economics or staff of a ministry.”

19. Equivocal official backing
Hungary: “Government recognises the efficiency of EMI programmes, ….however, it claims that EMI affects only a small number of learners (equal opportunities), and it is costly to operate (exams, qualified teachers including native speaker teachers, and materials and textbooks). New government’s quality assurance measures might even lessen the number of currently run programmes.”

20. Equivocal official backing
Qatar: “[there has been] a switch to EMI in government schools and state university during reform era. And a change back in the last year or so.”

21. Public Opinion on EMI

22. Reasons for public opinion to be in favour

23. Reasons why public opinion is divided

32. Initial conclusions from Phase 1
Long way from a ‘global’ definition (and consensus!) of EMI and its purposes or objectives
Need: a research-driven process approach which consults stake-holders
Introduction of EMI in tertiary is opportunistic & instrumental: effect on secondary

33. Initial conclusions from Phase 1
Trend is towards much more EMI
There is official backing but with some ‘interesting’ exceptions
Public opinion not wholehearted support: ‘controversial’ rather than ‘against’
Concerns relate to: lack of qualified teachers; no stated expectations of English language proficiency; lack of structural or pedagogical guidelines; little EMI content in ITE and TPD courses

34. Problematising the constructs: home language of learners
Taiwan, and to a certain extent China: one main home language, + minority home languages
Hong Kong: influx of Putonghua speakers into what was a majority Cantonese environment
Pakistan: multiple home and official languages
Sri Lanka: two languages, politically charged divisions
South Sudan: 60 languages, no majority language, English the official language
The home language context cannot but have an effect on EMI policies and practices.
Pakistan (where provincial and area education departments can select the medium of instruction up to Class 5 of primary, and for example, a recent Khyber Paktunkhwa provincial law mandating all major languages of the province – Pushto, Hindko, Seraiki, Torwali, Khowar, etc. – will be the medium of instruction where speakers of a language in the majority, but this has not yet taken effect in schools)

35. EMI Oxford Research Agenda
What is the current and predicted uptake of EMI globally?
Who or what is driving EMI implementation?
What are the different forms of EMI currently being developed?
What kind of English? Who owns the language?
What are the implications for teacher education, teacher educators and materials developers?
What are the most sustainable mechanisms of teacher education and development beyond the immediate period of engagement on a course?

36. EMI Oxford Research Agenda
What levels of English competence enable EMI teachers to provide quality instruction?
How would we measure the success of an EMI programme? Is the learning of academic subjects improved by EMI? Will it lead to deeper understanding? If so by which groups of students?
To what extent do language assessment systems need to change (for teachers & students)? Validity of bilingual examinations?

37. EMI Oxford Research Agenda
What are the implications for secondary education resulting from EMI in tertiary education?

38. EMI Oxford Research Agenda
How does classroom interaction change as the medium of instruction changes?
What are the psycholinguistic representations in the mental lexicon of abstract concepts encountered in academic subjects through EMI?
Do abstract concepts result in restructuring of a developing bilingual lexicon?

39. EMI Oxford Research Agenda
What strategies are used by students in EMI classrooms in oral and written comprehension tasks?
What are the psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic effects on students’ home language resulting from EMI used in various phases of education?

40. Department of Education
Thank you for listening!
EMI Oxford
Centre for Research and Development on English as Medium of Instruction
Department of Education
University of Oxford
For further information and particularly if you can help us publicise the
online questionnaire contact: