Keywords

4.1 Introduction – Does the Choice of Pedagogy and Instruction Impact Engagement?

Chapter 3 outlined the evidence from this research that Chinese EMI lecturers in general tended to embrace expository in favour of constructivist teaching. Those in the humanities, social sciences and education academic disciplines were observed as aligning with a constructivist view reflected in problem-oriented instruction compared to those in the STEM disciplines who were consistently observed implementing topic-based instruction. In accordance with this finding, literature indicates (see Chap. 1), that EMI lecturers are more likely to be predisposed to a ‘one-way’ transmission-orientation to their teaching, an approach which is argued by some researchers, as being largely the result of their low English proficiency (Huang, 2018; Lee, 2014; Yip & Tsang, 2007). However, this argument can be contradicted as there is no evidence indicating that EMI lecturers when using their first language (L1) show a clear-cut switch from expository to constructivist views and instruction. That is, lecturers who embrace topic- and teacher-directed approaches are not only those working in EMI contexts. Research supports this argument indicating that faculty lecturers teaching through English as their L1 do not necessarily fully embrace problem-oriented constructivist teaching, particularly at the undergraduate level (Smith et al., 2005). For example, a study conducted in the U.S.A reported that problem-oriented teaching is often introduced in the final year of undergraduate courses, and more notably in the STEM curriculum (Smith et al., 2005). It cannot be assumed that a constructivist pedagogy is being implemented on a large scale in all universities.

Literature is yet to confirm unequivocally that constructivist teaching is more effective than an expository method (Struyven et al., 2010) particularly with reference to student engagement. However, a number of empirical studies have flagged engagement as a key contributor to students’ successful learning outcomes or achievements (Carini et al., 2006; Cross, 2005; Handelsman et al., 2005; Skinner et al., 1998; Smith et al., 2005; Zhao & Ku, 2004). The concept of engagement has also been theorized and debated as having a critical role in teaching and its multifaceted construct in nature (Kahu, 2013). The challenges in measuring engagement have also been an area of interest in past research (Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Mandernach, 2015). In EMI teaching it can be predicted that engagement becomes a particularly complex issue due to the inclusion of English as an additional language. As a more recent area of interest, there is a moderate amount of research (Huang, 2018; Lee, 2014; Yip & Tsang, 2007) reporting on the realities of engagement in EMI classes and lectures.

As a key component of instruction, engagement is addressed in both Merrill’s (2002) First Principles of Instruction and Slavin’s (1995) QAIT Instruction Model. Currently, there are a small number of studies having directly addressed EMI lecturers’ engagement strategies. One study was conducted in a Korean university exploring the reasons why students were not active participants in class. It was found that EMI lecturers did not design learning activities and create interactive opportunities for students, and they were unable to produce meaningful questions when there were occasionally episodes of student engagement (Lee, 2014). Also, in Korea, Lim et al. (2021) conducted a survey of university students seeking opinions on the strategies and methods implemented by their lecturers that supported their engagement and motivation in online EMI classes. A key finding was that when EMI learners perceived care, warmth, encouragement and openness from their lecturers, they were more likely to participate in class. The shortfall in these data is that evidence on how the lecturers imparted these ‘personality’ traits which stimulated an engagement response from the students, is absent. In Europe, a study in Spain, reports a training program for EMI lecturers’ professional development. This research invited the participating EMI lecturers to reflect on how to use semiotic resources to engage students through a proposed ‘Pair/work engagement episodes framework’. Further exploration included how the EMI lecturers created engagement and paved the way towards competency in establishing multimodal interactional learning environments The research findings suggest that this competency will enable the lecturers to support students to move beyond passive learning towards being active classroom participants (Morell et al., 2022). There is potential for this recently developed framework to be implemented in actual EMI classrooms to provide an evidence base on its success or otherwise.

Based on the current literature, this Chapter explores and reports how engagement was enacted in the Chinese EMI lecturers’ classes. Questions raised to guide the data collection were: Are there observable engagement designs in their lectures? If so, how are students specifically engaged? Are there any observable patterns in the lecturers’ strategies for student engagement?

The following section delves into the conceptualization of ‘engagement’ to inform the data analysis.

4.2 Engagement as a Concept

Engagement is a complex concept having been defined by researchers from multiple perspectives. Some refer to engagement as “energy in action” and emphasize it as a “connection between person and activity” (Russell et al., 2005, p. 1), or “a person’s active involvement during a task” (Reeve et al., 2004, p. 147). These definitions foreground ‘active/activity’ involving both physical and mental/psychological states. Others describe engagement as ‘the time’ learners spend undertaking a task and also their willingness to take part in activities (Mandernach, 2015; Stovall, 2003). This multifaceted notion of ‘engagement’ speaks to an agent’s rational decisions around being task-ready and their dedication to follow through to completion. Still other researchers comprehend the concept from the perspective of outcomes achieved by the learners and the quality of the effort put into the learning activities to achieve these outcomes (Chen et al., 2008; Krause & Coates, 2008). To conceptualize the statements above, engagement is the amalgamation of physical and/or mental/cognitive activities situated in and supported by materials and/or people, through feeling, thinking and/or by doing. Engagement is therefore planned, purposeful activities where expected outcomes are a focus within the process.

For practical purposes, scholars have proposed that engagement is an umbrella term consisting of various sub-categories. Mandernach (2015, p. 5) has suggested, “…student engagement is a complex phenomenon that encompasses a range of behavioral, cognitive and affective components of the learning experience”. Defining engagement as consisting of these three interrelated elements appears to be a widely held view in the literature (Fredricks, 2011; Fredricks et al., 2004).

The emotional dimension includes engaging positive feelings such as interest and curiosity about and reactions to academic content; happiness, and excitement when working with teachers and peers; and having a sense of belonging and connectedness to the class group and the institution (Fredricks, 2011; Fredricks et al., 2004). In a similar vein to the emotional/affective components of engagement, the term “psychological engagement” has been proposed when referring to “feelings of identification or belonging” towards one’s school and class, and “relationships with teachers and peers” (Appleton et al., 2006, p. 429).

Cognitive engagement reflects the extent to which learners or participants think about and pay attention to, the learning activity, and how that translates to their attention and focus on the task at hand (Ben-Eliyahu et al., 2018). The processes at play in cognitive engagement have been described as containing internal indicators such as self-regulation and motivation and external indicators such as their academic achievement and performance, all of which reveal a learner’s values, goals and autonomy towards a learning task (Appleton et al., 2006). Some researchers substantiate quality engagement occurs when students enact “higher-order thinking”, “deep understanding of content and knowledge”, “substantive discussion or conversation” and “metalanguage” (Munns et al., 2013, p. 28).

Behavioral engagement refers to people’s physical involvement throughout and at the completion of an activity or task. This type of engagement can be more easily captured through observation. Fredricks et al. (2004) define it as: compliance to institutional and classroom norms such as following rules and policies; the absence of disruptive behaviors; and the presence of positive learning behaviors such as raising hands, asking questions and participating in class activities such as discussions; and attending extracurricular activities.

Engagement in Learning

The interconnectedness of each type of engagement and the subsequent impact on learning, is not without debate. Appleton et al. (2006, p. 431) emphasize the role of behavioral engagement and believe it is strongly connected to students’ cognitive and psychological engagement. It needs to be noted that the ‘activeness’ identified in behavioral engagement does not automatically indicate or transpose to cognitive or emotional engagement. Emotional engagement does not guarantee active cognitive processing of content knowledge related to the learning task. Also, one could be active in thinking about the learning task and be experiencing emotions but may not be exhibiting behavioral engagement. Each type of engagement may operate independently of the other, or in any combination of the three at any one point in time.

Other researchers believe that emotional engagement is the key, and positive emotions lead to more positive behavioral and cognitive engagement, and an ensuing higher level of academic achievement (Frisby & Martin, 2010; Frisby & Myers, 2008; Glazier, 2016). Conversely “negative emotional information can overload and obstruct working memory, deteriorating attention to cognitive cues” (Douglas Fir Group, 2016, p. 35). It has also been expressed that a lack of emotional engagement can cause detachment from the ongoing activity, negatively impacting learning (Ben-Eliyahu & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2013; Pekrun et al., 2009). However, there is also an opposing viewpoint that a propensity of emotional engagement can cause student complacency to the detriment of learning progress and could then be responsible for a compromized learning result (Carver & Scheier, 1990). Debates over the interconnection or disparity between behavioral, emotional and cognitive engagement reveal the concept’s complicated nature.

The following section returns to the data collected in this research to investigate the Chinese lecturers’ actual states of engagement in their EMI teaching.

4.3 Data – EMI Teaching and Engagement

Findings from the analysis of observation and field notes data, identified four categories of engagement strategies: cognitive, emotional, behavior (as proposed in much of the literature), and also managerial engagement. Cognitive engagement was most frequently used by the EMI lecturers, supplemented by the others. The STEM lecturers were observed engaging students logically with the content, through facilitating their cognitive thinking for the majority, if not all, of the available lecture time. EMI lecturers in the social sciences, humanities, and education utilized cognitive engagement strategies less frequently. However, across all disciplines, the time and effort dedicated to emotional, behavioral and managerial engagement was significantly less. Data from the stimulated recall interviews with EMI lecturers conducted immediately after the observations of their lectures has informed the explanation for this dominance of cognitive engagement strategies.

4.3.1 Cognitive Strategies – Chinese EMI Lecturers’ Strength

Cognitive engagement activities were observed throughout the EMI lecturers’ presentations, powerpoints and lecture time. As an overall observation this gave the impression that the EMI classes were rational, logical and inductive. Specific cognitive engagement strategies identified were memory association techniques, mind/concept mapping, deduction/induction, and providing cues and pauses to prompt and allow thinking time.

Memory association techniques provided sensory stimuli to connect students with the items or ideas that were being taught, for example when presenting new knowledge, some lecturers used diagrams and power point summaries to ‘travel’ back and stimulate the students’ memory. Concept mapping was a strategy implemented frequently by these lecturers. During their presentations, the lecturers often wrote key ideas or concepts as the central term/word on a diagram and then radiating out from the center was the list of other related terms. This strategy consolidated cognitive learning by demonstrating how ideas and facts are related. There was an explicit intention on the part of the lecturers to map the connection between concepts visually, in order to help students better understand and recollect information. Deduction/induction through linguistic facilitation was another popular engagement strategy used by most of the lecturers (see also Chap. 6 Pragmatic Transfer). Concept mapping and memory association strategies were often accompanied by cues and pauses when the lecturers noticed that some students looked puzzled or were without a response. In such situations, the lecturers were not prone to ‘giving’ the answers but offered prompts to engage the student’s thinking towards a solution. These were observed as successful cognitive engagement strategies demonstrated by the lecturers during their presentations. To a lesser extent cognitive questioning and cognitive feedback were observed as engagement strategies by a few lecturers. Examples of the observed strategies are listed in Table 4.1 below.

Table 4.1 Cognitive strategies demonstrated by EMI lecturers
Full size table

Cognitive questioning and feedback were the two engagement strategies that were not used extensively or efficiently during the observed lectures. Cognitive questioning most notably occurred when the EMI lecturers intended to activate students’ existing knowledge before delivering the new learning. Lower-order questioning such as ‘what …where..’ were posed in order to check students’ immediate recall, however very few lecturers delivered higher-order questioning such as ‘why’ and ‘how’ questions, which position students with the responsibility to provide a comprehensive answer. Chin (2006) describes the notion of a ‘cognitive ladder’ to scaffold student understanding by progressing from lower-order to higher-order questioning. When engaging students with new content, lower-order questioning such as recall might be used; additionally, higher-order questioning could be followed when students’ cognitive levels have increased or to guide them in that direction. However, this was not the case in these observed lectures. Across either lower/higher-order questioning, lecturers provided very little scaffolding such as elaboration or rephrasing questions to facilitate students’ comprehension during times when they were confused and/or failed to respond. The lack of scaffolding in the questioning strategies of these EMI lecturers could be explained from two perspectives: lecturers’ capability to elaborate questions was being impacted by their English as the L2; as the majority of the Chinese lecturers implemented expository teaching, passing the responsibility for learning to students through advanced questioning was not a priority.

Cognitive feedback to students occurred very occasionally. In the observed lectures students were not provided with many opportunities to speak or perform. These EMI lecturers tended to provide general and brief feedback such as “alright” “ok” or “yeah”. The observation data reveal that in-depth feedback that expanded the details of a student’s answer was rare. Follow-up questioning and elaborate feedback can help stimulate and build students’ various cognitive processes (Chin, 2006; Smart & Marshall, 2013). The interview data also indicate that the EMI lecturer’s perceptions of their English L2 and the available lecture time impacted their use of cognitive engagement strategies, as demonstrated in the following excerpts.

I don’t have a lot of time and I need to cover the topics to introduce them to a complete course. Sometimes, you feel like asking students to work on things themselves but then you’ve lost time and can’t finish as planned … Many things I could do but I choose not to because the class time is very limited (An Engineering Lecturer)

EMI limits my freedom of teaching. I am much slower when explaining things in English. To put things together in the right words and right expressions is a burden. Sometimes I feel a terrible expression is worse than no explanation. (A Medical Science Lecturer)

4.3.2 Emotional Engagement – Distancing Students for Complex Reasons

Throughout the observations of the EMI lecturers’ teaching, field notes focussing on the learning environments were recorded. Most of the EMI lecturers established learning environments that were more rational than emotional, more intense than relaxed, and more uninspired than exciting. Greetings can be a starting point to engage students emotionally. Data reveal that very few lecturers welcomed students with greetings such as “how are you?” to relax the atmosphere or to exhibit a sense of caring for students. Lectures typically commenced with, “ok, today, I am going to introduce you to …”. The tone was calm and flat, and no excitement or emotional connection or rapport was observed as a concerted effort being made on the part of the lecturers. However, there were a few lecturers who utilized more inclusive expressions such as ‘Today, we are going to learn…’. Whether consciously or subconsciously, the use of “I” in the main position for the action “teach” or “introduce”, delegates passivity to the students as they are in the secondary position in relation to the action. Psychologically, the use of ‘I’ denotes a division between the lecturers and their students. In this way teachers are positioning themselves as the knowledge holders, further signifying their commitment to expository teaching and topic-based knowledge dissemination. This finding confers with Han and Han’s (2019) research that Chinese teachers were predisposed to establishing an hierarchical relationship with students.

The establishment or distancing of lecturer and student via the language expressed has been discussed in Chap. 3 as indicative of tenor in communication. Tenor is identifiable and, in this research, almost all the lecturers distanced themselves from their students by using formal, impersonal language and at the onset, established themselves as the expert. In addition to the tenor in the communication itself other strategies also contribute to student/lecturer relationships. Initiating positive feedback also has a key role. Cognitive feedback, or the lack thereof in this research, was discussed in the section ‘Cognitive Engagement’ above in terms of its potential to improve learning and raised again here to consider the opportunity afforded feedback to establish rapport and a positive connection with students. The feedback delivered by the EMI lecturers was observed to be perfunctory when responding to students who were performing well and at the same time, little sympathy was shown to those students offering incorrect answers or struggling with understanding. The responses were brief and general with no further details or praise for students. Feedback such as “correct”, “good” or “yes” were common. For underperforming students, most of the lecturers either said “No!” or simply ignored that student and turned to another. Little emotional support or encouragement were observed. Rewarding the ‘right’ and punishing the ‘wrong’ in response to students’ performance is the type of feedback promoted decades ago in the West (Langer, 2011). This model continues into current practice for Chinese teachers. In Han and Yao’s (2013) study, a divergence in feedback identified was that Western (Australian local) teachers tended to provide genuine feedback, focussing on the issue or the answer, and acknowledged effort; comparatively Chinese background teachers tended to show no compassion to students’ poor performance. This issue was discussed with the participating EMI lecturers in this research at the conclusion of the observed lectures and a sample of their opinions are recorded below:

… Being nice to them is not always helpful for their learning. Once you start to be lenient, it’s the time they are getting relaxed and less pressured. But life is tough and I have to train them to be tough. (A Mechanic Engineering lecturer)

When they answered the question wrong, that means they didn’t review their lesson properly, and why would you want to make them comfortable? (An International Relationship Lecturer)

I have too much to cover throughout this subject and I am only given certain hours to complete it. On many occasions, I have to be in a rush and cannot dwell on things other than the content. They are adults and they understand this. (A Physics Lecturer)

The excerpts provided by these lecturers exposed a predisposition towards ‘tough love’ in their teaching. Some lecturers reinforced their power in the learning environment through less sympathetic and less encouraging language however their intention was to influence the students towards self-disciplined learning with successful outcomes, even if this meant ‘stressing’ the students. Whilst, literature reports positive emotional engagement and establishing rapport with students can relax students and provide an environment conducive to learning, these Chinese lecturers, believed negative or no emotional interaction can motivate students to apply themselves and achieve the desired outcomes. Anecdotally this view appears to be widely shared amongst Chinese teacher communities. For other lecturers, the crowded curriculum accounts for the fact that interaction and engagement is viewed as extraneous to the key business of teaching – desirable but extravagant in practice.

4.3.2.1 Rare Engagement Through Humor and Personal Narratives

Research across various fields of study signals the use of humor and sharing of personal stories as useful strategies for emotional engagement (Heyward, 2010; Hoad et al., 2013). These can reduce tension in classrooms and positively improve students’ cognitive learning. In this research the use of humor was not observed and there was a permeating strict and stern phenomenon operating in most of the observed classes. This research appears to parallel notions such as “humor has been traditionally given little respect in Chinese culture mainly due to the Confucian emphasis on keeping proper manners in social interactions” (Yue, 2010, p. 403, cited in Wu & Chan, 2013, p. 1050).

Similarly, sharing personal narratives was not a common strategy, however one example was noted. A Computer Science lecturer included a personal account as an engagement strategy with her second-year students. At the commencement of her lecture a typical Western style greeting was offered. She then requested the students’ permission to sit down for the lecture as she had a painful ankle. Students expressed understanding with many suggesting she should sit immediately. Sharing her personal experience with students established her as sincere and approachable contributing to an harmonious atmosphere. It was also noticeable that she had already established a positive rapport with the group. In the stimulated recall interview after her teaching, she explained that she received three degrees in Canada including her PhD degree which may help explain her successful strategies to engage students. This strategy was a rarity in the lectures observed.

4.3.2.2 Emotional Engagement Through Moral Education

A more prevalent strategy of emotional engagement was when the EMI lecturers used ‘moral education’ to make connections with students. An example being one lecturer who raised “jia guo qing huai” (translation: the love and affection attached to one’s nation and country), appealing to students’ nationalistic pride. He encouraged students to study hard, to compete with peers in the U.S.A., to secure President Xi Jinping’s pride. The students were noted to respond with interest, watching and listening carefully. Western teacher-student or lecturer-students’ emotional engagement is situated in a context of a more equitable relationship, whereas the Chinese EMI lecturer-students’ emotional engagement, to some extent, had overtones of a relationship akin to that of a parent, role model and authority figure. There is literature reporting this phenomenon throughout the different sectors of Chinese education (Han, 2020; Li & Du, 2013).

4.3.3 Limited Behavioral and Managerial Engagement

In terms of the physical dynamics within the lecture rooms, in this study, the majority were static and passive with minimal movement. The lecturers not only distanced the students in terms of the tenor of the communication, but this was reinforced by an accompanying physical distance. Lecturers were not observed freely moving in and around the room. Instead, they mostly stood next to the lectern, where the IT was set up and close to the PPT screen. Some consistently referred to and read notes associated with the PPT slides whereas the instruction of others was to read from the PPT slides, totally, for the duration of the lecture. This lecturing style was also accompanied by moments when they focused their gaze away from the screen to a point in the room or into the air. No eye contact with students was observed. From their oral English it was deduced that English as the medium caused a cognitive overload – that language translation was at the forefront of their thoughts reflected in their actions. This deduction was supported by the observation of those who also provided the same lecture in Chinese to a different student cohort. During these lectures there was noticeably more physical movement and behavioral engagement on the part of the lecturers.

The data also reveal a modest use of managerial engagement, such as the lecturers organizing the students through instructions such as “Now you can have a discussion with the person next to you.” It was noticeable that the students did not always respond to the lecturers’ questions as illustrated in the data excerpts below. In the stimulated recall interviews, conducted after the observed lectures, some lecturers expressed their frustration at the students’ silences to questioning, as they could not gauge the students understanding or progress through the lecture. For example:

  • T: “Did you read the two articles I sent you?”

  • S: …. (Silence).

  • T: “Did you? Did you?”

  • S: …. (No answer). (International Relationship lecture)

  • T: “Do you follow me?”

  • S: …. (No answer)

  • T. “Do you follow me?”

  • S: …. (No answer)

  • T: “So you cannot follow me?... Just speak out if you can’t. It doesn’t matter.”

  • S: …. (No answer). (Physics lecture)

This research found that within the four types of engagement, the most commonly implemented was cognitive engagement. The lecturers demonstrated multiple strategies to engage students cognitively to scaffold their understanding of content learning. However, strategies for emotional, behavioral and managerial/administrative engagement were underdeveloped and/or believed less important in contributing to learning.

4.4 Linguistic Features in Engagement Activities

Some linguistic features were identified within the EMI lecturers’ engagement language. Firstly, some lecturers showed ‘weak instructional signs’. In these instances, there was a tendency to use auxiliary verbs and thinking verbs when requesting or expecting an action. For example, “you can…” and “I think…” were common as sentence starters (Table 4.2: Column A). These expressions could have confused students as the use of auxiliary verbs alluded to a choice in willingness and softened the obligations on students to commence the actions or activities. In contrast there were lecturers, albeit a few, who were aware of the need to start a request with an action verb, for example, “now turn to …” and “now explain…” (Table 4.2: Column B). Instructional signs need to be very clear, specific action verbs in EMI lectures to circumvent students not responding as intended by the lecturers.

Table 4.2 Instructional signs
Full size table

Secondly, the use of personal pronouns in the lecturers’ expressions tended to establish a division between lecturer and student as mentioned earlier. In attempting to verify students’ understanding , some allocated the students to the subject position. Examples were “Are you clear?” or “Do you understand?”; others framed themselves as the subject, evident in the expressions, “Have I confused you?” or “Am I clear?”. Both signify who is responsible for the problem solving. The excerpts in Table 4.3: Column A indicate the students are the owner of problems implying they are responsible for their problems or confusion. The examples quoted in Table 4.3: Column B indicates that the lecturers have created the problem and need to take responsibility to provide further clarification. This differential use of pronouns in the instructional language signifies the type of relationship the EMI lecturers prefer to establish with their students. It reflects their pedagogical view which directed them to use teacher-centered or learner-centered instruction.

Table 4.3 Divisiveness in the use of pronouns
Full size table

Thirdly, the overuse of an interpersonal pronoun by some lecturers was noted when experiential themes were addressed. Specifically, when some lecturers explained subject knowledge, or an issue, matter or concept, there was a tendency to add a personal pronoun as the starting point and subject of the sentence. For example, starting the sentence with “We, You, I”, rather than having a verb to start a request for action, resulted in expressions such as, “I would like you to…”. Another example of the overuse of pronouns was one lecturer’s statement: “If we add fine chemicals in our food, our food will not go bad quickly” when it could have been more simply put, ‘fine chemicals can preserve the food’. The inclusion of additional interpersonal vocabulary can extend and complicate the communication and may disrupt students from comprehending the targeted content. In the stimulated recall interviews, some lecturers expressed that they were not aware of the use of personal pronouns as a means to engage students and had been concerned to include them in order to construct grammatically correct sentences following the subject-verb structure.

4.5 Discussion – Engagement, Language and Tenor?

Scholars of engagement studies have also elaborated the importance of quality engagement across all categories and within all learning contexts (Ben-Eliyahu et al., 2018; Munns et al., 2013). Other research has particularly promoted the role of emotional engagement in cognition (Ben-Eliyahu & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2013; Douglas Fir Group, 2016; Okon-Singer et al., 2015). Studies focusing on emotional engagement indicate that emotional cues, emotional states, and emotional traits may strongly influence information processing, attention, working memory, and cognitive control (Okon-Singer et al., 2015). Under the concept of rapport, emotional connection and well-established rapport is endorsed as a strategy to reduce anxiety, encourage interaction and increase student participation (Frisby & Martin, 2010). It is believed to have “a strong, significant, and consistently positive effect in helping students to learn” (Glazier, 2016, p. 438). It is also argued that students who are emotionally connected well with the teacher, tend to concentrate better in class and more often have a down-to-earth attitude to learning (Frisby & Martin, 2010; Frisby & Myers, 2008).

Such research findings contend high quality emotional engagement assists students to think capably and creatively, feel contentment when at school and be motivated to achieve the desired learning goals. This engagement literature can be seen to generate two assumptions: quality engagement necessarily requires lecturers or teachers to engage students with each type of engagement (cognition, emotion, and behavioral, and/or management); the importance of emotional engagement cannot be understated and is needed for genuine learning to take place. In addition, a third assumption is specific to EMI research which claims that quality engagement is lacking in EMI programs due to the EMI lecturers’ English proficiency (Huang, 2018; Yip & Tsang, 2007).

The findings from this research do not reinforce these assumptions. Through analyzing the observations of actual teaching/lecturing episodes and the interview data, it was found that all of the lecturers utilized cognitive engagement substantially, whereas very few enacted emotional, behavioral and managerial engagement. Their lectures followed a rational format and squarely focused on the objectives to instil the discipline knowledge and content in the most efficient manner possible. As this was observably teacher-directed through the various strategies of cognitive engagement enacted, it further strengthens the finding that most EMI lecturers embraced expository teaching. In contrast they did not demonstrate rich strategies of emotional engagement. The EMI learning environment for the students could be described as dull and at times stressful. There was no excitement around the teaching and learning observed on the part of either the lecturers or the students. However, this is not to argue that a lack of emotional engagement necessarily equates to low learning performance. This study did not aim to assess, if or how, emotional engagement impacts on cognitive learning in terms of students’ achieving their current unit learning outcomes and seeking the student perspective was beyond the scope of this research. Interview data captured the perspectives of EMI lecturers that Chinese students should be trained to be ‘tough’ and stress resistant, and able to concentrate on cognitive learning in the absence of emotional engagement.

This perspective does seem to impact negatively on the world stage as even though Chinese classes are reported as demonstrating limited teacher-student rapport and emotional engagement, as with the findings in this study, students’ learning outcomes are as competitive or leading, in measures of academic outcomes around the globe. This echoes some researchers’ arguments: it is common that Chinese students can develop a high tolerance for stress, anxiety, and other negative emotions (Lu et al., 2015), and negative emotions such as stress can have positive impact on some mature aged students’ learning outcomes (Bisson, 2017). In the context of mature learners, it is arguably the case that successful learning does not necessarily rely on emotional engagement.

4.6 Conclusion

This Chapter analyzed the engagement features demonstrated by the participating EMI lecturers during their subject teaching. The conclusion drawn from the data is that Chinese EMI lecturers did not develop and give equal priority to each type of engagement. On the contrary, they were all observed to focus on cognitive engagement with very little evidence of emotional, behavior and managerial engagement. It is proposed that this finding is an outcome of the discipline area in which they taught as well as a reflection of the teaching ideology of the lecturers, the majority of whom are committed to an expository pedagogical perspective. English as the language of instruction contributed in a lesser way to the lack of concern for behavioral, emotional and managerial engagement.