Keywords

2.1 Introduction

Su Shi (1037–1101), a Song Dynasty poet, once visited Lushan Mountain (in Eastern China) and wrote a poem titled “Ti Xi Lin Bi” (Written on the Wall at West Forest Temple) describing his impression of the mountain. It was later translated by an American, Barton Watson as:Verse

Verse From the side, a whole range; from the end, a single peak; Far, near, high, low, no two parts alike; Why can’t I tell the true shape of Lushan? Because I myself am in the mountain (Su Shi, the author, cited in Watson, 1993)

This poem conveys an enlightened philosophical message. That is, seeing the world from multiple angles positions the viewer above and beyond a direct, straight line to a unilateral view. Enacting a multidimensional viewing platform can reduce biased opinions and generate more objective and complete conclusions. This notion of assigning multiple lenses to view the world can be applied to EMI. From the side, the end, the high and low, each angle enlightens the viewer with one particular aspect of EMI, however a full and complete picture of what constitutes EMI, requires the viewer to appraise and combine multiple meanings to produce a viable and workable understanding of EMI as a concept. Understanding the conceptual meaning of EMI, requires an unpacking of the ‘English’, the ‘Medium’ and the ‘Instruction’. Conceptualizing EMI through this approach has the potential to move EMI boldly forward, towards developing a framework of possibilities for improving successful EMI teaching and learning.

2.2 Conceptualizing ‘ENGLISH’ in EMI

Two theoretical lenses through which to view the ‘English’ in EMI are monolingualism and multilingualism. Monolingual advocates view the ‘English’ in EMI as holding a virtuous, powerful role, synonymous with ‘English only’, and therefore unrelated to any other language operating within the context of EMI teaching and learning. The Chinese equivalent to this monolingual view is quan ying shou ke (quan: absolute, pure; ying: English, shou ke: teaching), or ‘teaching totally in English’. This statement reflects and reinforces the vision of EMI as a monolingual concept. Multilingualism, however, acknowledges educators and learners participating in EMI programs are bilinguals who must navigate and negotiate the relationship between English, their second language (L2) and their first language (L1).

Analogous to English as a Foreign Language (EFL) or English as a Second Language (ESL), EMI is then delegated into the non-native category as it is implemented by teaching professionals from a bi- or multilingual background with English as an additional language. This view does not engage with the notion that, in this circumstance, the English as L2, comprises only part of the language expertise or repertoire of any bi/multilingual teacher. The difference between EMI and EFL/ESL is that the ‘English’ in EMI is not a key learning outcome in and of itself. It is rather a ‘side’ product when compared to the importance of content knowledge and skills. In EMI the English acts primarily as a medium or a communication channel and its functional role can be achieved in the absence of ‘perfect’ English but in the presence of, a variety of Englishes or World Englishes (Kachru & Nelson, 1996). This is not to argue that EMI lecturers should not aspire to presenting their lessons in good quality English; it needs to be acknowledged that student understanding of the content should not be compromised by an over compliance with formal, over exaggerated, grammatically correct English (Coyle, 2007). There needs to be a space to move beyond aspiring to replicate native-English speaking as the norm in EMI teaching and learning.

2.2.1 Should Native English Be the Norm for EMI Lecturers?

Aspirations to achieve native English or ‘Anglo-phone’ English may be highly desirable among EMI lecturers according to the current literature. For lecturers committed to a monolingual view, they may feel compelled to compare their English with that of native Anglophones (Murahata et al., 2016). For them, replicating Anglophone English and simulating pedagogy of an Anglophone education system might be an ideal benchmark from which to define successful EMI teaching. From this perspective, native English would be essential as a model, a goal, or an inspiration (Davies, 1996; Trimbur, 2008). However, EMI lecturers are charged with the responsibility to impart subject knowledge as the key objective and focus, for teaching in an EMI program. In this regard, the content knowledge should receive most emphasis and English, as the means of communication, should not be given the same power (Coyle, 2007). How EMI lecturers balance the dichotomy between teaching content and purity of the English is often a matter related to their ideology. It needs to be recapped that content and subject knowledge should not be sacrificed by an over emphasis on achieving perfect English presentations. Instilling an expectation in EMI lecturers to adhere to a goal of producing native English as the norm in EMI classrooms is neither desirable nor realistically achievable.

2.2.2 Is It ‘English’ or ‘Englishes’ in EMI?

As EMI teaching is implemented around the globe, the EMI lecturers’ L1 may be genetically close to or quite distant from English. This has led to an interest in considering the various effects of an L1 on the use of English in EMI contexts (Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008). Ringbom (2006) proposed three categories of cross-linguistic relationships which can be used to explain the reality for EMI lecturers in terms of the influences between L1 and L2. L1s and English considered to have a ‘similarity relation/ship’ are those derived from the same language origin, for example, Germanic inherited Scandinavian languages and English. An EMI lecturer who operates across such related languages is advantaged by having some shared, similar cognates in crosslinguistic form and meaning. For those whose L1 and English have moderate or little functional and semantic relations such as Sino-Tibetan languages, the L1 can alleviate minor difficulties in EMI teaching. Chinese EMI lecturers’ L1, which is regarded having a ‘zero relation/ship’ (Ringbom, 2006) with English, can still be expected to have some influence on the English in their EMI in phonetic, structural, conceptual and functional areas. Therefore, the ‘English’ in EMI takes on a plural form with variations world-wide depending on the genetic (crosslinguistic) similarities between the users’ L1 and English. As such there is not and cannot be, a universal linguistic framework for EMI.

The ‘English’ of EMI lecturers is not static, evolving into a dynamic existence intertwining with their L1. When teaching, EMI lecturers do not compartmentalize their two languages into separate and parallel spaces. They could be expected to translanguage, or inherently integrate or move between their two (or more) languages based on the needs of their communication with students. The boundary between EMI lecturers’ L1 and English are fluid, as is the case with EFL or ESL lecturers, and there is no clear-cut demarcation between these, but rather a languaging continuum (Garcia, 2009). For EMI lecturers, their L1 would continually supplement their English to assist communication and understanding. It can be that their L1 merges into their English in inventive ways at the language expression level, creation of hybrids and undefined forms for negotiations (Shohamy, 2011). It can also be that L1 is integrated into L2 for assisting cognitive thinking. Following interdependence theory (Cummins, 2001), EMI lecturers’ highly proficient L1 can facilitate their own and perhaps their students’ thinking and comprehension during EMI classes.

2.2.3 Translanguaging – The Nature of EMI Teaching

The dynamic relationship between EMI lecturers’ L1 and English determines the nature of the translanguaging experiences in their EMI classes. Translanguaging as post-structuralist theory, acknowledges that bilingual speakers have repertoires of combined resources including knowledge from two languages along with their associated social and cultural backgrounds from which to engage learners. It challenges the conservative language hegemony of monolingualism, and structuralist views of bilinguals occupying two concurrent monolingual spaces and thus living in two separate language worlds (Canagarajah, 2011; Cummins, 2001; Douglas Fir Group, 2016, p. 35; Kubota, 2013; Roy & Galiev, 2011). When language use can be conceptualized as going beyond the language itself, it opens the dialogue on whether EMI needs an insulated single-language conduit to be successful. Perceiving the integration of languages as a ‘deficit’, itself becomes a deficit from a translanguaging perspective. The conceptualization of translanguaging assigns bi/multilingual teachers or lecturers a legitimate status (García & Li, 2014) within which they are afforded a new teaching and learning reality where the potential resources provided by multiple languages is seen as a significant benefit. This post-structuralist perception allows translanguaging practices to be developed into useful pedagogical practices (Garcia, 2009; Shohamy, 2011). EMI classes are situated in two different, yet interdependent lingual worlds. Hybridity of language use by EMI lecturers has the potential to better facilitate students’ learning as translanguaging empowers a “systematic, strategic, affiliative, and sense-making process” (Gutierrez et al., 2001, p. 128). Therefore, there is merit for translanguaging to be practiced intentionally and purposefully as opposed to randomly – for pedagogical reasons and educational purposes.

2.3 The ‘MEDIUM’ in EMI

Within the current EMI literature, ‘medium’ is a taken for granted concept and is yet to be comprehensively defined. Dearden (2014, p. 4) describes EMI as “the use of the English language to teach academic subjects…”. To dissect this overall description further, the ‘Medium’ could be consigned to the words: “the use of”. However, if the ‘how’ to use is contemplated, then this definition leaves a large open space for people to imagine and interpret. According to Denise Murray (1988, p. 353) in the article “The context of oral and written language: A framework for mode and medium switching”, ‘medium’ is described as the “established methods of communication through language”. With reference to EMI, this would equate to ‘established methods of communication through English’. Figure 2.1 provides an overview of the components of the ‘Medium’ in EMI to assist in understanding its conceputalization.

Fig. 2.1
A chart for the medium in E M I has synchronous oral mode and asynchronous written mode branches. Under the two branches, the mode, field, tenor, and context are mentioned.

Mapping the ‘medium’ in EMI

Full size image

Advancing the concept of ‘medium’ in EMI as the established ‘methods of communication’ through English, with reference to a teaching context, these ‘methods of communication’ could include face-to-face and tele-virtual interactions where teachers and students interact synchronously, or via alternatives such as physical pen and paper or electronic written communication where there may be no immediacy to the interaction – labeled as asynchronous. Although EMI teaching can include the asynchronous written modes (for example, unit modules) it is notable that current EMI research has been focusing on classroom teaching episodes that are delivered in the oral mode through visual and aural channels when lecturers and students are in the same physical or virtual space. The more traditional oral modes of explanation, discussion or speeches appear to dominate the EMI research landscape.

To further comprehend ‘medium’, the contribution of two related terms, ‘channel’ and ‘mode’, are acknowledged. Whilst associated with ‘medium’, ‘channel’ has an element of modality whereas ‘medium’ does not. It has “the pretheoretical sensory modalities” (Murray, 1988, p. 353) such as visual, aural, and tactile channels. For example, written language involves the visual and tactile channels and oral language is processed through the visual and aural channels. Hence medium is a broader term, which includes and relies on an appropriate channel to enable successful communication. Comparatively, ‘mode’ is “specific communication types within a medium” (Murray, 1988, p. 353); it is “a socially shaped and culturally given semiotic resource for making meaning”, such as image, writing, gesture, speech, and soundtrack used in representation and communication (Kress, 2010, p. 79). Thus, medium is the tool or platform through which communication occurs and mode refers to the type of communication itself. For example, the mode through a face-to-face synchronous medium can be oral, including conversation, group discussions or debates, or alternatively one person’s speech, explanation or report. When an asynchronous medium is implemented, the mode could be written, such as email communications, text messages, physical mail, a discussion paper or a document review. In this way, mode is somewhat similar to ‘genre’, yet different in that it does not narrowly align with a specific literary discourse such as narrative, procedure or information report only (Murray, 1988).

2.3.1 Impacts of Medium on Language Use

Synchronous and asynchronous mediums divert or generally divide, communication into oral and written modes. These two modes by themselves are neither alternative nor equivalent to each other. They differ profoundly in function and structure. Synchronous medium supports immediate interaction between communicators thus promoting a consciousness for speakers to be psychologically close to their listeners. It also provides opportunities for audience participation and reactions to be noted, thus flexibility in language use and tailoring the discourse to suit the audience’s needs is possible (Rubin, 1987, p. 9).

A synchronous medium of instruction allows teachers or lecturers to spontaneously construct and refine their presentation (Berger & Iyengar, 2013). Thus redundancy, repetition and paraphrasing may occur. This may be especially the case in EMI teaching when lecturers are using English as their additional language in the classroom. This phenomenon can also be viewed as having a positive function as “orality in language is a primary factor contributing to listenability” (Rubin, 1987, p. 9). Redundancy or repetition in the lecturers’ talk may ease their concern to keep the lesson flowing and the subject matter highlighted. At the same time the students are afforded more time to keep pace with the lesson and process information when the English and/or environmental barriers hamper understanding. That is, this repetition may provide the listeners with a second chance to recover lost meaning.

A synchronous medium of instruction has the potential to lead to more engagement with students but may be less rigorous in content integration (Chafe, 1985; Rubin, 1987). The teachers or lecturers can easily personalize the communication and actively construct and deconstruct the content. Their potential for real-time composing may result in less density when elaborating information or content, and information may be less compressed compared to an asynchronous medium. In general, synchronous communication is context dependent. To analyse EMI lecturers’ classroom teaching, it will be useful to examine how or whether the lecturers involve the students through the type of personal and emotive language incorporated, how they unpack the information and to what extent they integrate the teaching content.

2.3.2 Medium in Relation to Mode, Field, Tenor and Context

The mode or the specific type of communication enacted within the medium is influenced by field, tenor and context (Halliday, 1999; Kress, 2010; Murray, 1988). Field is the discipline or subject matter including its processes or activities within which the language is embedded. In an EMI class, it can be predicted that the subject matter has necessitated a more formal academic spoken or written mode. Thus, the characteristics of the field contribute to the choice of mode within the medium. In reverse, an example that medium or mode impacts on field would be when the same message is forwarded to the same person via a text message and also via a printed letter. In this instance, the linguistic choice is adjustable due to the characteristics of the two different fields and modes.

Tenor or the interpersonal relationship between speaker and audience affects mode. The choice or switch of mode can reflect how the speaker views and positions the audience and how s/he wants to be viewed by the audience (Halliday, 1999; Traugott & Romaine, 1985). Tenor in language exchanges can provide evidence of the relative power relationship between participants. In an EMI class, some lecturers may aspire to teach from a position of power and authority in the teacher/student relationship and consequently may prefer to use language with a formal (enforces a distance from the students), direct lecturing style. Tenor displayed this way may also be reinforced by the institutional identities and policies and may also align with the field being taught.

Contexts, particularly at the macro level, are often considered to be quite stable. Take a specific educational institution as an example. In that context, lecturers become very adept at adjusting the language mode of their teaching in response to established institutional support or constraints and broader community needs and expectations. However, for EMI programs around the globe, EMI lecturers from different countries are situated in varied contexts – that differ in institutional, cultural, social, and political ideologies. These different contexts will influence how the EMI lecturers will cross languages and culture, and switch language codes according to their contexts. For EMI research, the context, including individuals, classrooms, institutions and countries all impact as significant factors when exploring medium in EMI programs.

In summary, whilst analysing the ‘medium’ in EMI, it is important to investigate its relationship to, and how it is constituted by mode, field, tenor and context. Decisions on what will constitute the ‘medium’ in EMI lectures will depend on the interaction among the desired attributes from each of the categories. A shift in the medium or mode of communication impacts on the other contributors (field, tenor and context) and vice versa.

2.4 The ‘INSTRUCTION’ in EMI

Similar to ‘Medium’, there is scant literature contributing to an understanding of ‘instruction’ within the realm of EMI. To consider Dearden’s (2014, p. 3) definition of EMI where ‘instruction’ is explained as “to teach academic subjects”, to clarify the nature, meaning and characteristics of “to teach…” may help establish EMI’s pedagogical domain and distinguish it from language-focused ESL or EAL teaching. Research into EMI teaching needs to be enhanced by examining the underlying instructional system and its prevailing pedagogical principles – a current void.

Positivist advocates believe instruction is a set of subject/content-oriented rules or principles that should be followed in practice. It is described as collective techniques of selection, sequence, pacing, evaluation criteria and “the discursive rules which characterize the practice” (Morais, 1999, p. 40). According to Hyun (2006, p. 137, 144) such rules, if they could be, should be “timeless truths” and “laws” for delivering knowledge. By following such a direct process, teachers or lecturers are able to manipulate the environment of an individual learner so that “his [sic] [learning] behavior is changed in a specified way” (Tennyson & Merrill, 1971, p. 28). A teaching effort can then “lead the learner in a certain direction to achieve planned goals and objectives” (Hyun, 2006, p. 137). It is thus a mechanical, lock step, linear process (Eisner, 1994). Such views of instruction appear to align the classroom teaching of students to conducting experiments in laboratories. In contrast, pedagogy includes “something extra” (Biesta & Miedema, 2002, p. 177).

In actual teaching and learning contexts, instruction goes beyond the objective/s of delivering a lesson itself. Lecturers plan their lectures with due consideration to their students as well as their own teaching ideology and pedagogical preference. From the perspective of learning theory, Slavin (1995, p. 166) argues that educators must attend to and adapt “instruction to students’ levels of knowledge”, motivating and monitoring their learning, and managing their behavior. He proposed the QAIT (Quality, Appropriateness, Incentive, Time) model of instruction for achieving effective learning outcomes. By Quality of Instruction, he refers to the degree to which information or skills are presented whereby students are able to comprehend new knowledge; Appropriate Levels of Instruction is concerned with how best to structure “the instruction to the range of the students’ levels of prior knowledge and learning rates” (p. 168); Incentive refers to the motivational strategies implemented in order to keep students on-task; and the Time element to instruction is concerned with appropriate pacing of the instruction and how to allocate time to cover all lesson components for example, introduction, revision, new knowledge and engagement activities.

From a constructivist perspective, Merrill (2002) acknowledges the interdependence between instruction and pedagogy and proposed “the First Principles of Instruction” (Merrill, 2002, p. 43). In this model he incorporates five steps or guiding principles. By ‘principle’ Merrill refers to the critical necessity of acknowledging the relationship between teacher-learners, based in and around learning materials and resources. Merrill (2002) argues these principles are the basis of an instructional design, from which effective and efficient learning can be anticipated. Merrill (2002) proposes authentic learning will occur when:

  • “learners are engaged in solving real-world problems” (problem-solving).

  • “existing knowledge is activated as a foundation for new knowledge” (using learner’s prior knowledge).

  • “new knowledge is demonstrated to the learner” (teacher applying knowledge in practice).

  • “new knowledge is applied by the learner” (learner receiving opportunity to apply knowledge in practice).

  • “new knowledge is integrated into the learner’s world” (using learned knowledge in the real world) (Merrill, 2002, pp. 44–45).

Merrill’s model reflects a constructivist pedagogical approach transformed into an instructional design. His principles can be implemented in any educational system as they are related to teachers and students co-“creating learning environments and products rather than describing how learners acquire knowledge and skill from these environments or products” (Merrill, 2002, p. 44).

With reference to the research undertaken for this book, examining the EMI lecturers’ classroom instruction in terms of these two models of instruction has potential. Both models emphasize student-centered instruction in favour of the more traditional teacher-directed, subject matter-driven instruction where students are confined to being passive recipients of knowledge or information. Both enable an examination of whether the EMI lecturers are positioning students at the centre of the learning supported by instruction that aims to impart the knowledge and skills to solve real world problems. With reference to these models questions arose that have provided a framework for observations and data analysis for this book. These include: Does the EMI lecturers’ instruction demonstrate that the information is presented in a way that students can easily follow, for example, in an organized and orderly way, with notable transitions to new topics, clear and simple language, and facilitated with images and examples? Do they attempt to accommodate instruction to the range of the students’ levels of prior knowledge and diverse needs? Do they attempt to engage students through various strategies such as using real world problem-based instruction and/or arousing student curiosity through creating intrinsic interest in the material to be taught? Do they allow opportunities for students to discover learning through applying what has been learned into practical, real-life contexts? Do they allow students to share the responsibility for learning time? Finally, do they encourage students to take control of and be accountable for, their own learning during lectures and assessments?

Whilst all three concepts within EMI – the ‘English’, the ‘Medium’, and the ‘Instruction’ are important to gain an understanding of EMI as it is implemented, the importance of ‘Instruction’ is paramount. It reveals the lecturers’ ideologies and pedagogical preferences which in turn reflects the degree of control and power shared between the lecturers and their students ultimately contributing to the success or otherwise of their EMI units and courses.

2.5 Conclusion

This Chapter has provided a conceptual understanding of English as a Medium of Instruction. By unpacking the individual words within EMI, it attempts to move beyond the general descriptive accounts of EMI as teaching a subject/course/program in English, with the intention to provide an understanding of what English, Medium and Instruction mean for EMI lecturers’ actual teaching and for students’ learning. Firstly, the ‘English’ in EMI is conceptualized from a multilingual theoretical base questioning the notions that EMI is the sole business of monolingual Anglophones. The argument proposed is that there is not one universal English in EMI, but rather ‘Englishes’ as a Medium of Instruction. The implication is that native English should not be the norm for EMI lecturers to the detriment of translanguaging, which is the nature and reality for many EMI classes. Secondly the conceptualization of ‘Medium’ is beyond an interpretation that EMI is English as a ‘method’ of Instruction. ‘Medium’ is a ‘channel’ through which teaching is delivered and it is often embedded in or blended with multimedia technology thus can be synchronous and asynchronous. It influences and is influenced by mode, field, tenor and context. Careful consideration and deconstruction of the ‘Medium’ is necessary to understand EMI lecturers’ use of their version of ‘English’. Lastly, the ‘Instruction’ in EMI should not be synonymous with a set of objective rules or principles that can stand universally as those with a positivist perspective would suggest and promote. It is not a mechanical, lock step, linear process akin to experiments conducted in a laboratory. Instead, instruction can be represented as a set of principles based on an individual educators’ pedagogical positioning and her/his view of students’ needs. Effective instructional design should address students’ prior knowledge, their cognitive levels, and enable students to be engaged and motivated in their learning. Based on this conceptualization of EMI, the following Chapters delve into the specific examples and analysis of actual EMI teaching.