english-medium instruction at a dutch university: what have we learned from a quarter of a century...
TRANSCRIPT
English-medium instruction at a Dutch university:What have we learned from a quarter of a century of experience?
Robert Wilkinson
Maastricht University, Netherlands
Language Centre
EMI at a Dutch university: overview
• Evaluating 25 years of experience– EMI perspectives and phases– EMI and domain loss (national vs. local)– Curriculum & course design– Teaching quality– Collaboration– Conclusions
Language Centre
EMI: perspectives
• Globalization & demographics• Domain loss• Trading practices in HE
Language Centre
Evaluating: phases of EMICross-border1987
Motivations
Practical
Idealist
Educational
Survival
Financial
Consolidation1995
European-ization1991
Globaliz-ation2002
Monetization 2007
geography
multi-lingualism
new programmes
recruitment (internat. & exch. students)
new programmes
home market (small/saturated)
international.-at-home
profile (bilingual)
cost of biling. options
recruitment (student expertise)
new programmes
profile (internat.)
recruitment (money)
profile (rankings)
recruitment (bring in money)
Language Centre
Domain loss
• EMI → domain loss for L1 (e.g. Ammon, 2008; Brock-Utne, 2007; Phillipson, 2003; etc.)
• EMI: prestige functions of social communication
• Spread to other social spheres (e.g. Janssens & Marynissen, 2005)
• Reduced creativity in L1
Language Centre
Domain loss
• Favourable treatment of English/inequitable treatment of L1 (e.g. Brock-Utne, 2007; van Parijs, 2004)
• Employability issues: can EMI graduates function in L1? (e.g. Melis, 2010)
Language Centre
Domain loss
• Arises because of hegemony of nation-state (e.g. Brutt-Griffler, 2008)
• Nation-states promote advance of English (foreign language teaching in schools) (e.g. Grin, 2002)
• National vs. individual institution
Language Centre
An individual Dutch university: EMI
• Attractiveness to students• Strengthening of revenue stream• Widening recruitment pool• Success breeds success• Recognition • Students: positioning themselves for job
market• Students: quality of programme & teaching
Language Centre
Curriculum & course design
• Course design: – rationale/philosophy, learning goals, content
selection, teaching/learning methods, learner factors (e.g. motivation), learning context
• Content selection:– Is programme new or conversion from L1
programme? (EPH or Economics)– Are disciplines nationally culturally determined or
relatively independent of national culture? (ES or KE)
Language Centre
Curriculum & course design: EMI
• Broad themes• In-depth study for student• No explicit demand to seek material
other than in English• General theories, principles• General applications irrespective of
national context• Narrow depth vs. shallow breadth
Language Centre
Teaching quality: EMI
• Lecturing puts onus on teaching staff– Pronunciation– Lack of clarity– Linguistic flexibility, nuances– Spontaneous exemplification– (e.g. Vinke, 1995, 2010; Klaassen, 2001)
• Language: no long-term effect on learning
Language Centre
Teaching quality: EMI
• Student-centred learning, e.g. PBL– Emphasis on students’ responsibility for
own learning• Plan learning, determine interaction, research
& assess own learning
– Active language use– Lessens reliance of staff language ability– Development vs. stabilization or
fossilization
Language Centre
Collaboration between content & EAP staff
• Expectations – Students: quality of content, content
knowledge & language development– Content staff: stimulate learning of subject
matter; not develop language ability
Language Centre
Collaboration between content & EAP staff
• EAP staff: monitor, support, instruct– Academic literacies (esp. writing)– Language enhancement– Knowledge of content curriculum
(knowledge structure)– Team-teaching → parallel/adjunct teaching
Language Centre
Quality: EMI
• EMI: initial negative effect on understanding, no long-term effect
• No effect on learning outcomes• Signs of positive effect on learning process• Slight negative effect on teachers’ teaching, no
relation with student outcomes• Time-consuming and tiring on teaching staff • Quality of students’ English related to amount of
time in English• Minor pronunciation problems can lead to strong
negative reactions from students• (Vinke, 2010; de Bot, 2011)
Language Centre
Conclusions
• EMI – positive outcomes if well designed
• EMI – economic benefits to institution and to student (e.g. Grin, 2002; van Parijs, 2004)
• English as commodity• Differentiation need will grow
Language Centre
Conclusions
• EMI at national level– Domain loss or domain adaptation– Funding issues: taxpayer revolt?– Need for full economic analysis
• Political/social level– Risk of social division – elite (haves/have-
nots)– Ghettoization
Language Centre
Thank you
• Robert Wilkinson• [email protected]
Advance information
Planned ICLHE conference(Integrating Content & Language in Higher Education)
Maastricht, April 2013