EMI Course Assessment: A Survey Study of the Issues

  • Yu-Ting Kao
  • Wenli TsouEmail author
Part of the English Language Education book series (ELED, volume 8)


Assessment, which can be understood both as periodic sampling and measurement, and as ongoing planning for and provision of feedback, can provide a basis for understanding the characteristics of good practices in EMI courses. As the demand for the development of EMI course assessment increases, more investigation of primary EMI teachers’ current assessment practices within their specific institutional requirements is needed. However, little research has been conducted on issues related to EMI course assessment, or to teachers’ perceptions regarding the criteria for designing assessments, and the means of modification if English is identified as the source of learning difficulty. In order to establish a better view of the current role of EMI course evaluation in Taiwan, this chapter aims to understand EMI teachers’ perceptions on designing course assessments including the format, criteria, and methods of accommodating students’ learning difficulties. This study will first examine the literature from the content and language integrated learning (CLIL) environment, particularly with regard to assessing students’ competence of content knowledge. The study will then present findings from 29 EMI teachers who have taught EMI courses at the tertiary level in Taiwan. Finally, this chapter will suggest a model framework for EMI course assessment.


Assessment Tool Content Knowledge English Proficiency Learning Difficulty Power Supply System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Berbero, T., & Maggi, F. (2011). Assessment and evaluation in CLIL. In D. Marsh & O. Meyer (Eds.), Quality interfaces. Eichstätt: EAP, Eichstaett Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bergman, B., Eriksson, A.-M., Blennow, J., Groot, J., & Hammarstorm, T. (2013). Reflections on an integrated content and language project-based design of a technical communication course for electrical engineering students. Journal of Academic Writing, 3(1), 1–14. doi:
  3. Earl, L., & Katz, S. (2006). Rethinking classroom assessment with purpose in mind. Manitoba: Manitoba Education, Citizenship and Youth.Google Scholar
  4. Gajo, L. (2007). Linguistic knowledge and subject knowledge: How does bilingualism contribute to subject development?. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 563–581. doi:
  5. Humphrey, S., & Sharpe, T. (2015). Peeling the PEEL: Integrating language and literacy in the middle years. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 23(2), 53–62.Google Scholar
  6. Jones, J. (2010). The role of Assessment for Learning in the management of primary to secondary transition: Implications for language teachers. Language Learning Journal, 38(2), 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kiely, R. (2009). CLIL- the question of assessment. .
  8. Maggi, F. (2011). Assessment and evaluation in CLIL. Paper presented at the International conference “ICT for language learning” Florence, Italy.Google Scholar
  9. Massler, U., Stotz, D., & Queisser, C. (2014). Assessment instrument for primary CLIL: The conceptualisation and evaluation of test tasks. The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 137–150. doi: Scholar
  10. Pikinton-Pihko, D. (2013). English-medium instruction: Seeking assessment criteria for spoken professional English. Doctoral dissertation, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
  11. Quartapelle, F. (2012). Assessment and evaluation in CLIL. AECLIL-EACEA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Kaohsiung Normal UniversityKaohsiungTaiwan
  2. 2.Department of Foreign Languages and LiteratureNational Cheng Kung UniversityTainanTaiwan

Personalised recommendations