Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction: Perspectives from Global Higher Education Contexts 9781350373259, 1350373257

Table of contents :
Cover
Halftitle page
Also available from Bloomsbury
Title page
Copyright page
Contents
Figures
Tables
List of Contributors
1 Introduction: Bridging Linguistic Gaps and the Interplay of Multilingual Models and Translanguaging in English-Medium Instruction
Chapter structure and summaries
References
Part One Regional Reviews of Translingual and Multi-cultural Practices
2 Translanguaging in GCC English-Medium Higher Education: A Scoping Review
Introduction
The Gulf region: a brief survey
Method
Data analysis
Results
Conclusion
References
Appendix: Reports in the study sample
3 Multilingual Practices and Disciplinary-based Functions of Language in EMI Classrooms in Latin America: Insights from Brazil, Colombia and Mexico
Introduction
Methodology
Results
Discussion
Conclusions and pedagogical implications
Notes
References
Part Two Classroom-based Translingual and Multi-cultural Practices
4 Fostering Translanguaging Pedagogy Environment in Indonesian Higher Education EMI Settings: A Critical Discourse Analysis
Introduction
Literature review
Method
Findings
Discussion
Conclusions
References
5 Translanguaging with Different L1s in a University EMI Course
Introduction: Translanguaging in English-mediuminstruction
Applying translingual practices in diverse EMI classrooms
Attitudes towards EMI and translanguaging in the Basque Country
The study
Results
Discussion
References
6 Translanguaging in EMI Classrooms: Exploring Teacher Educators’ Practices in the Turkish Higher Education Context
Introduction
Pedagogical translanguaging
EMI and translanguaging
EMI in Turkey
Method
Findings
Discussion
Recommendations and conclusion
References
7 The Functions of Codeswitching in English-Medium Instruction in a Japanese Tertiary Context
Introduction
Literature review
L1 use in class
Materials and method
Results
Congruence between lecturer’s attitude towards L1 use and specifi c function of codeswitching
Discussion
Conclusion
Note
References
Appendix
Part Three Teachers’ and Students’ Perspectives Towards Translingual and Multi-cultural Practices
8 Over the Quality Aspects of EMI: The Influence of Lecturers’ Postgraduate Degree from an Inner-Circle University on Multilingual EMI Students’ Academic Success
Introduction
Background to the study
Methodology
Results
Discussion and implications
Conclusions, limitations, and areas for further research
References
9 Promoting Multilingual Pedagogies in Initial English Language Teacher Education: Reflections from Multilingual Turkey
Introduction
Multilingual pedagogies in initial English language teacher education
Methodology
Findings
Discussion and implications
References
10 Lecturers’ Multilingual Practices and Ideologies on Disciplinary Vocabulary: English and Local Languages in Technology
Introduction
Background
Method
Findings
Discussion
Acknowledgements
References
11 Remapping Sociolinguistics Boundaries and Spaces through Translanguaging Science Discourses: Critical Voices from Iraq
Setting the stage
Literature Review
The study
Findings
Discussion
Conclusion
References
12 Plurilingualism and Interculturality from the Perspectives of English Language Teachers
Introduction
Literature review
Methodology
Discussion and conclusion
References
13 Operationalizing an Approach to Multilingualism with Pre-service English as an Additional Language (EAL) Teachers in an EMI Context
Background and context
The multilingual context
Research design
Methodology
Results and discussion
Conclusion
References
Index

Citation preview

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

i

Also available from Bloomsbury English-Medium Instruction Practices in Higher Education: International Perspectives, edited by Jim McKinley and Nicola Galloway English-Medium Instruction in Higher Education in the Middle East and North Africa: Policy, Research and Pedagogy, edited by Samantha Curle, Holi Ibrahim Holi Ali, Awad Alhassan and Sergio Saleem Scatolini

ii

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction Perspectives from Global Higher Education Contexts Edited by Dogan Yuksel, Mehmet Altay and Samantha Curle

iii

BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA 29 Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 2, Ireland BLOOMSBURY, BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2024 Copyright © Dogan Yuksel, Mehmet Altay, Samantha Curle and Contributors, 2024 Dogan Yuksel, Mehmet Altay, Samantha Curle and Contributors have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Editors of this work. Cover design: Grace Ridge Cover image © designer491/Alamy Stock Photo All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN:

HB: 978-1-3503-7324-2 ePDF: 978-1-3503-7325-9 eBook: 978-1-3503-7326-6

Typeset by RefineCatch Limited, Bungay, Suffolk To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

iv

Contents List of Figures List of Tables List of Contributors 1

Introduction: Bridging Linguistic Gaps and the Interplay of Multilingual Models and Translanguaging in English-Medium Instruction Samantha Curle, Mehmet Altay and Dogan Yuksel

vii viii x

1

Part 1 Regional Reviews of Translingual and Multi-cultural Practices 2

3

Translanguaging in GCC English-Medium Higher Education: A Scoping Review Sarah Hopkyns and Sara Hillman

11

Multilingual Practices and Disciplinary-based Functions of Language in EMI Classrooms in Latin America: Insights from Brazil, Colombia and Mexico Mario Molina-Naar

31

Part 2 Classroom-based Translingual and Multi-cultural Practices 4

5

6

7

Fostering Translanguaging Pedagogy Environment in Indonesian Higher Education EMI Settings: A Critical Discourse Analysis Nizamuddin Sadiq and Nurmala Elmin Simbolon

51

Translanguaging with Different L1s in a University EMI Course Beñat Muguruza

77

Translanguaging in EMI Classrooms: Exploring Teacher Educators’ Practices in the Turkish Higher Education Context Serdar Tekin

93

The Functions of Codeswitching in English-Medium Instruction in a Japanese Tertiary Context Samantha Curle, Wanying Xie, Hongdu Huang and Dogan Yuksel

113

v

vi

Contents

Part 3 Teachers’ and Students’ Perspectives towards Translingual and Multi-cultural Practices 8

9

Over the Quality Aspects of EMI: The Influence of Lecturers’ Postgraduate Degree from an Inner-Circle University on Multilingual EMI Students’ Academic Success Mehmet Altay and Dogan Yuksel

141

Promoting Multilingual Pedagogies in Initial English Language Teacher Education: Reflections from Multilingual Turkey Irem Çomoğlu, Ali Öztüfekçi and Kenan Dikilitaş

163

10 Lecturers’ Multilingual Practices and Ideologies on Disciplinary Vocabulary: English and Local Languages in Technology Marta Aguilar-Pérez

181

11 Remapping Sociolinguistics Boundaries and Spaces through Translanguaging Science Discourses: Critical Voices from Iraq Sami Alhasnawi

201

12 Plurilingualism and Interculturality from the Perspectives of English Language Teachers Emine Pehlivan Şişman and Kağan Büyükkarcı

221

13 Operationalizing an Approach to Multilingualism with Pre-service English as an Additional Language (EAL) Teachers in an EMI Context Anna Krulatz, MaryAnn Christison, Yaqiong (Sue) Xu and Dianna Walla

245

Index

267

Figures 2.1

Division of translanguaging in GCC EMI HE studies by publication year 2.2 Division of studies on translanguaging in EMI HE by GCC country 7.1 An overall comparison of the amount of L1 used in all lectures 7.2 A comparison of the amount of L1 used in SOC vs. ENG lectures 7.3 A comparison of the amount of L1 used in Sociolinguistics lectures 7.4 Differences in frequency of functions for codeswitching according to subject 8.1 Histogram of EMI and TMI scores depending on EMI lecturer profiles 8.2 Boxplot of the comparison of the EMI and TMI mean scores within each profile 12.1 Explanatory sequential design

19 20 121 121 122 124 149 150 228

vii

Tables 1.1 2.1

2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.1 7.1 7.2 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 10.1 10.2 10.3

viii

Chapter structure Journals and edited volumes where studies of translanguaging in GCC English-medium higher education appear with quartiles for journals Coding scheme for translanguaging in GCC Englishmedium higher education studies Sub-areas of translanguaging in GCC EMI HE studies Approaches to translanguaging in GCC EMI HE studies Participating universities EMI professors who participated in the study Information about interviews Information about artefacts Programme offered and year of establishment Teachers’ demographic information The language used by teachers in teaching two sessions Languages used by students in the different areas of the course The total frequency and differences between the reported functions of codeswitching in SOC and ENG lectures Current study functions mapped onto Halliday’s matrix of language functions Information of the interview participants from six multilingual EMI engineering subjects Mean scores and standard deviations for EMI and TMI term grades from the two lecturer strata Multivariate and univariate analyses of variance F ratios for EMI and TMI term grades according to lecturer strata EMI students’ success differences between EMI and TMI in the two lecturer strata Participants and courses observed Multilingual instances identified Stimulated recall of technical words and acronyms in English

3

17 18 21 22 32 33 34 36 59 60 62 82 123 128 146 148 149 150 187 190 193

Tables

12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 13.1

Background of the participants Descriptive statistics for PIKS Thematic analysis of interview results Descriptive statistics for PIAS Operationalization of the action research cycle

ix

229 231 232 233 254

List of Contributors Marta Aguilar-Pérez is Associate Professor of English for Specific Purposes and Technical Communication at Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. She has researched on the internationalization in Higher Education, encompassing multilingualism and Englishization from the linguistic, pedagogic and intercultural perspectives. Her recent publications revolve around EnglishMedium Instruction and the use of ESP in internationalized and multilingual universities. Sami Alhasnawi did his PhD at the University of Southampton, UK. He was also a Postdoctoral Fellow at Hacettepe University, Turkey, and a DAAD Research Fellow at the University of Potsdam, Germany. He has participated and delivered his research projects in different international conferences across the world, e.g., US, UK, Germany, Athens, Brazil, Turkey and the Gulf States. He has published in academic journals indexed on Web of Science and Scopus as well as in Iraqi academic journals. His research focuses on Sociolinguistics, Bi/Multilingualism, Multimodality, (Trans-)semiotics, English as lingua franca (ELF), English as a medium of instruction (EMI), Genre/Register-based studies, Teacher Education, Intercultural Communication and Cultural Linguistics. Mehmet Altay is Associate Professor of English Language Teaching in the Faculty of Education at Kocaeli University. His research interests include EMI, ESP/EAP, lexical competence, and corpus linguistics. He has published several book chapters and articles in journals such as System, Applied Linguistics Review and Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching. He is currently writing for publication and also running research projects on these topics. Kağan Büyükkarcı is Associate Professor at Suleyman Demirel University in the Department of English Language Teaching. His research interests focus on foreign language education and language assessment. He has published on language assessment, effects of online tools on language learning and research in English-language teaching.

x

List of Contributors

xi

MaryAnn Christison is Distinguished Professor of Linguistics at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, USA. Her research focuses on multilingualism, second language pragmatic development, content and language integration, and language teacher education. She has been a president of TESOL International Association and serves on the Board of Trustees for the International Research Foundation (ITRF) for English-language education. Irem Çomoğlu is Professor at Dokuz Eylul University in the Department of English Language Teaching. In her research, she focuses on pre-service/inservice teacher learning and development, teacher research, and multilingual pedagogies for pre-service English teachers, mainly from a qualitative stance. Samantha Curle (DPhil, FHEA, FRSA) is Reader in Education (Applied Linguistics), Director of the MRes programme in Advanced Quantitative Research Methods (AQM, University of Bath), Pathway Lead for the ESRC’s AQM South West Doctoral Training Partnership (SWDTP, University of Bath) and Associate Member of the English-Medium Instruction Oxford Research Group (University of Oxford). Her main research interest lies in factors affecting academic achievement in English-medium instruction (EMI) in higher education. She has published four edited books on EMI. Her EMI-related research has been published in journals such as Language Teaching, Applied Linguistics Review, Studies in Higher Education, Journal of Engineering Education, Journal for the Psychology of Language Learning, Journal of English for Academic Purposes and Language Teaching Research and International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Kenan Dikilitaş is Professor of University Pedagogy at the University of Stavanger in Norway. He previously worked in Turkey on graduate and undergraduate programmes. His recent research interests include teacher education and professional development with an emphasis on mentoring action research and bilingual teaching, and he has published related articles and books. Sara Hillman is Instructional Associate Professor of English in the Division of Arts and Sciences at Texas A&M University at Qatar. Her research interests focus on English as a medium of instruction (EMI) and transnational higher education; language policy; language and identity; language ideologies; multilingual pedagogies; and linguistic landscapes. She recently co-edited a special journal issue on ‘The Emotional Landscape of English Medium

xii

List of Contributors

Instruction (EMI) in Higher Education’ (2023) and a chapter entitled ‘Language Policies and Ideologies in Qatar: Is Resistance to English-Medium Instruction the right Resistance?’ (2023). Sarah Hopkyns is Lecturer in TESOL and International Education at the University of St Andrews, UK. Her research interests include English-medium instruction (EMI), global Englishes, language and identity, language policy, translingual practice, linguistic ethnography and linguistic landscapes. She has published widely in journals such as Asian Englishes, Language and Intercultural Communication, Linguistics and Education, Multilingua and World Englishes, and has contributed numerous chapters to edited volumes. Sarah is the author of The Impact of Global English on Cultural Identities in the United Arab Emirates (2020) and the co-editor of Linguistic Identities in the Arab Gulf States (2022). Hongdu Huang is an Economics EMI teacher in China. Her research interests lie in the growing use of English-medium instruction in Chinese higher education; particularly the effect of medium of instruction on student job prospects. Her EMI-related research has recently appeared in journals such as Journal of Education and Work. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8246-0937. Anna Krulatz is Professor of English at the Department of Teacher Education at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim, Norway. She holds a PhD in linguistics from the University of Utah. Her research focuses on multilingualism and multiliteracy with English, pragmatic development in adult language learners, content-based instruction and language teacher education. Mario Molina-Naar teaches at the Department of Languages and Culture at Universidad de los Andes in Bogota, Colombia. He holds a PhD in Education (plurilingual and intercultural education) from the Autonomous University of Barcelona (Spain) and an MA in TESOL from Greensboro College (North Carolina, USA). His research interests currently focus on English-medium instruction, multilingualism and language identity in university settings, and international higher education. Beñat Muguruza is Associate Professor in the Department of Basque Language and Communication at the University of Basque Country (UPV/EHU). His PhD thesis focused on the use of English in the UPV/EHU as a third language, and currently he is doing research on Basque sociolinguistics, namely on the

List of Contributors

xiii

Basque familiar form of address hika. He has published in international journals such as Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, Journal of Language and Linguistic Study and International Journal of Multilingualism, as well as in local journals such as Euskera, Uztaro and Fontes Linguae Vasconum. Ali Öztüfekçi is Assistant Professor in the Department of English Language Teaching at Bahçeşehir University (BAU). He has authored articles and book chapters on bilingualism, world Englishes, and pre-service teacher training. His ongoing research is centred around multilingual teacher education and multilingual instruction. Emine Pehlivan Şişman is Lecturer at Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University in the Department of Foreign Languages. Her research interests include English language teaching, language assessment, and plurilingualism and interculturality in language education. She has written on research in English language teaching, foreign language teachers’ assessment literacy, and English language teachers’ views on plurilingual and intercultural competence. Nizamuddin Sadiq is a government employee assigned to the Department of English Language Education at Universitas Islam Indonesia, and Senior Lecturer in Global Englishes and English-Medium Instruction in the same university. He completed his doctoral degree from the Department of Applied Linguistics for English Language Teaching, University of Southampton, UK. His research interests are related to issues and developments of English as a lingua franca (ELF), Englishwithin-multilingualism, English-medium instruction (EMI), language ideologies, language education policy in higher education, and Formula 33-based learning English. Nurmala Elmin Simbolon is Associate Professor in English Language Teaching at Politeknik Negeri Pontianak, Indonesia. Her research interests focus on English-medium instruction (EMI), English for Specific Purposes (ESP), and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Her recent publication is ‘English Medium Instruction (EMI) in Higher Education: Insights from Indonesian Vocational Lecturers’ (2023). In line with her recent publication, funded by the British Council Indonesia, she conducts a collaborative project with a UK-based university for the design of MOOC-based teacher professional development resources for the Indonesian (vocational) higher education EMI and ESP practitioners.

xiv

List of Contributors

Serdar Tekin is Assistant Professor in Foreign Language Teaching Department at Nevsehir Haci Bektas Veli University, Turkey. He has extensive teaching experience as an EFL teacher at primary and secondary levels. Having earned an MA in TESOL at the University of Nottingham (UK), he finished his PhD in Applied Linguistics at Aston University (UK) in 2021. His main research interests are teaching English to young learners, translanguaging, use of technology in language teaching, and teacher education. Dianna Walla is a PhD candidate in the Department of Teacher Education at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Her research interests include bi-/multilingualism, metalinguistic awareness, and crosslinguistic influence. Her current project focuses on the acquisition of English in Norway by students whose first language is not Norwegian and how those students make use of their multilingual competence in the language classroom. Wanying Xie is an English language teacher in China. Her research interests lie in the growing use of English-Medium Instruction in Chinese universities. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9782-3163. Yaqiong (Sue) Xu is a PhD candidate at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), where she is associated with the project Acquisition of English in the Multilingual Classroom (AcEngMulCla). She worked as a teacher to early English learners in Mainland China and Hong Kong before embarking on her PhD study in Norway. Her PhD project focuses on teacher beliefs towards multilingualism, classroom practices in multilingual settings, and teacher identity engagements in multilingual contexts. Dogan Yuksel is a Postdoctoral Research Associate in the Faculty of Wellbeing, Education and Language Studies at The Open University, UK. Previously, he worked as an Associate Professor of TEFL at Kocaeli University, Turkey. Areas of interest include classroom discourse and English-medium instruction. His EMI-related work has been published in such journals as Linguistics and Education, Journal of English for Specific Purposes, Journal for the Psychology of Language Learning, Applied Linguistics Review, Journal of Engineering Education, Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching and System.

1

Introduction: Bridging Linguistic Gaps and the Interplay of Multilingual Models and Translanguaging in English-Medium Instruction Samantha Curle, Mehmet Altay and Dogan Yuksel

The trend of globalization and internationalization has led to an upsurge in the use of English as a medium of instruction (EMI) in secondary and higher education. A systematic review by Macaro and co-workers (2018) corroborates this, introducing the concept of EMI as the process of teaching academic subjects in English, even when the majority of students are non-native English speakers. This volume explores the phenomenon of EMI, its variations and its significance in the modern educational landscape. Macaro’s 2022 review offers an enlightening distinction between hard-core EMI (see, for example, chapters four, ten and eleven) and soft EMI (see, for example, chapters six, seven and nine). The former emerges from policy-based decisions and typically involves subjects such as physics, engineering, medicine and law. On the other hand, soft EMI results from language-led decisions and includes subjects such as TESOL, applied linguistics and translation studies. This book comprises chapters from both categories to provide a comprehensive picture of translingual and multilingual practices within diverse EMI contexts. The Multilingual Model is one approach to implementing EMI. According to Kirkpatrick (2017), this involves teaching parts of the curriculum in English and other aspects of the students’ first language. This model’s application varies significantly; for instance, in Turkey, 30 per cent of courses are taught in English and the rest in Turkish. In other cases, it involves alternating between languages during a single lesson so that the students can easily follow EMI courses. The Multilingual EMI Model has been used in various countries including

1

2

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

China, Hong Kong, Japan, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan and Turkey, among others (Dafouz, 2017). This special edited volume includes chapters that examine different variations of implementing a multilingual model of EMI. Countryspecific applications and research-based studies of multilingual and translingual practices in partial and full higher education EMI settings are explored. This volume also aims to be a comprehensive resource for exploring various applications of multilingual EMI, including empirical studies and up-to-date theoretical reviews. Translanguaging presents an alternative approach to a Multilingual Model. Originating in Welsh classrooms aiming to revitalize the language, translanguaging refers to leveraging multiple languages flexibly to create meaning (Williams, 1994). The flexible use of linguistic repertoires aids the knowledge construction process, and translanguaging has been employed as a pedagogical strategy in many EMI settings (Genc et al., 2023). Both translanguaging and the multilingual model contribute to a hybrid use of languages in EMI classes, offering an alternative to an ‘English only’ policy (Curle et al., 2020a). This edited volume encompasses research from contributors across four continents: South America, North America, Europe and Asia. It offers insights into EMI practices in diverse countries, including Colombia, Turkey, Norway, Mexico, Japan, Spain, Brazil, Iraq, Indonesia and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. The high volume of submissions from Turkey reflects the editors’ research focus and interest (Altay et al., 2022; Curle et al., 2020b; Yuksel et al., 2022), leading to a significant number of chapters discussing this multilingual EMI context. The purpose of this volume is to deepen our understanding of the theoretical foundations and practical applications of EMI. It explores the theories underpinning EMI research and examines how these theories are applied in practice. The volume is a crucial resource for EMI tutors, EMI education curriculum designers, higher education EMI researchers, and scholars in the field of educational linguistics, particularly those specializing in English language teaching, content-based instruction, content and language integrated learning, and EMI. Policymakers in higher education, undergraduate and postgraduate students interested in applied linguistics, language education, and English for specific purposes will also find it invaluable. Finally, this volume serves as a helpful guide for EMI practitioners, providing insights into action research methods that can enhance their teaching and learning processes.

Introduction

3

Chapter structure and summaries Chapter structure In order to ensure the coherence of the volume, chapters adopt a shared, similar structure. Where appropriate, chapters contain (1) a description of the project and its setting/context; (2) the study design; (3) a description of the methodology (data collection and data analysis); (4) results; (5) discussion; and (6) a succinct summary. Each of these structural features is described in Table 1.1. Table 1.1 Chapter structure 1. Project overview and context

Includes details about the research project’s substantive focus. Why this topic was explored, within a specific context, and the techniques used to explore it. 2. Research design and Includes how the study was designed. Key constructs and justification concepts are defined; including any theoretical frameworks adopted in the research, followed by the research questions. 3. Methodology in Includes a detailed description and evaluation of how the detail (data collection, research was conducted, and how the data was analysed data analysis) in order to reach the study results. Methods should be described in such detail that a student reader may be able to follow and replicate such a study in their own research endeavours. 4. Results Includes the reporting of the results of data analysed. If purely qualitative, the Results and Discussion sections may be intertwined. 5. Discussion of results Includes a discussion of the main findings of the study. This includes reflection on the results in relation to previous literature, moving beyond simply summarizing the results, but drawing conclusions based on the research findings. 6. A succinct summary Includes the overall conclusions, limitations of the research, and suggestions for future research. Readers should know what next steps to take in order to move this avenue of research forward in their own research projects.

Chapter summaries This book is divided into three sections: Section I: Regional reviews of translingual and multi-cultural practices; Section II: Classroom-based translingual and multicultural practices; and Section III: Teachers’ and students’ perspectives towards

4

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

translingual and multi-cultural practices. The second chapter is a scoping review. It explores the increasing number of studies focusing on translanguaging in EMI higher education in Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) nations. Adopting a systematic review-type approach, this chapter explores translingual instruction, which is popular in GCC colleges as Arabic is the official language with English being used as a lingua franca and common medium of instruction. The ‘translingual turn’ has raised Gulf scholars’ interest in translanguaging research in EMI classrooms. This chapter summarizes studies on translanguaging in this region. Key recommendations for future study directions are provided along with gaps in the existing body of knowledge. Chapter three focuses on three South American EMI contexts: Brazil, Colombia and Mexico. The study presented sought to investigate how multilingual behaviours were influenced by the uses and functions of language in EMI classrooms. The participants (six EMI lecturers) were from diverse disciplines. Semi-structured interviews, course materials/artefacts and sociodemographic surveys were used as data sources. The ROAD-MAPPING Framework (Dafouz & Smit, 2016; 2020) was used for the initial data analysis, followed by qualitative content analysis (QCA). Results revealed that the discipline has a significant impact on how language, specifically English, is used in EMI classrooms. Lecturers and students engaged in multilingual behaviours that involved the use of their first language (L1). The chapter concludes with educational recommendations that include promoting the significance of multilingualism and offering students in EMI programmes discipline-specific language support. The fourth chapter presents an empirical research study that examined translanguaging in an Indonesian EMI higher education context. Analysis of twenty-three EMI class videos and their related transcripts using critical discourse analysis (CDA) revealed that lecturers made use of all their available linguistic resources to engage in translingual discourse in EMI classes. This was used when giving instructions, asking questions, as well as making use of both direct and indirect translation. These techniques maximized comprehension by enabling lecturers to contextualize, present content in relation to local issues, and bring in colloquial phrases to a formal EMI setting. The richness of this translingual behaviour was demonstrated by the use of English, Bahasa Indonesian (the national language), the local dialect, and even Arabic, by the lecturers in EMI classrooms. Chapter five explores the language of assessment. It focuses on language policy at a Basque/Spanish bilingual university where the use of EMI has recently increased. The EMI lecturer in research focus has a flexible language policy,

Introduction

5

encouraging students to utilize either Basque or Spanish in class and on written tasks. This study investigates the translingual behaviours of the students as well as their attitudes and reactions to the usage of Basque in the EMI classroom. Data gathered included that from focus group talks and classroom observations. Results showed that although there were some conflicts surrounding the usage of the minority language between students who speak Basque and those who do not, the authors argue that they should not be viewed as two monolithic groupings. The sixth chapter examines the translingual methods used by teacher educators situated in an EMI Turkish higher education institution. It seeks to shed light on how teacher educators use translanguaging with teacher trainees. Semi-structured interview data was collected. Findings show that participants used a variety of translanguaging techniques, mostly taking into account the comprehension level of the pupils and variables unique to the subject matter. Results also demonstrated that internal (innate desire to retain exclusive L2 use) and external (students’ comprehension) variables significantly influenced language choice. All educators practised translanguaging in their classes, but emotions varied, ranging from a deep sense of guilt to total confidence with the practice. Chapter seven presents a study done in the Japanese EMI higher education context. It explores EMI lecturer codeswitching patterns and attitudes towards codeswitching when teaching both the English language and another academic subject (Sociolinguistics) in a Japanese university. It focuses on the amount of codeswitching that takes place in these EMI lectures, the purposes that codeswitching fulfils, and the lecturer’s attitude towards using the first language (L1, Japanese). A significant difference in codeswitching was revealed by analysis of the video and audio recordings and the semi-structured interview. The L1’s primary purposes were to aid in student comprehension and to give students feedback. The study also covers the pedagogical consequences of using Japanese in an EMI context. The eighth chapter explores the impact of Turkish EMI lecturers’ level of qualification on the academic success of students at a multilingual EMI university in Turkey. Results revealed significant differences in the students’ EMI term grades depending on their lecturers’ holding a postgraduate degree from an Inner-Circle university (North America, Great Britain, etc.) or a Turkish domestic university. Findings from qualitative data provided further evidence for the difference in terms of lecturers being linguistically ‘qualified’, EMI teaching preparedness, and continuing professional development. The ninth chapter focuses on the process of pre-service English language instructors engaging in translanguaging and multilingual pedagogies in Turkey.

6

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

The researchers collected qualitative data from EMI students. Students read articles and discussed and reflected on multilingual pedagogies during ten weeks, then students’ written reflections on their emerging thoughts and understanding of the process of such engagement were collected. Findings showed that students agreed to utilize translanguaging in their future practices. Suggestions of strategies to teach students to be able to use the linguistic resources available to them are provided in this chapter. The tenth chapter focuses on multilingual practices and disciplinary vocabulary ideologies of EMI lecturers. It reports an empirical study that was carried out in a bilingual community (first language (L1) = Catalan, second language (L2) = Spanish) at a European university where the use of EMI is on the rise. Episodes of the use of multiple languages by lecturers were concentrated on three separate Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) courses that were investigated in the L1 (Catalan), the L2 (Spanish) and the L3 (English). To further probe lecturers’ perceptions, stimulated recall interviews were carried out. The result showed that regardless of the language of teaching, the multilingual use of specialized terminology was more prevalent in some STEM courses than others. Lecturers defended their use of the L1 and L2 by citing the technological discipline’s historical and geographical roots as well as the need to economize. Three types of monolingualism emerged from the data: implicit multilingualism between the first and second language, the minoritylanguage teacher outright rejecting EMI, and a pragmatic acceptance of English epistemic monolingualism. Chapter eleven examines Iraqi EMI students’ perceptions and attitudes towards English medium instruction (EMI) and how it may (or may not) interact with their L1 (Arabic) in (re-)constructing their academic discourses. This study creates an opportunity for students to express their linguistic needs and concerns as well as critically analyse binary perspectives towards languages in this setting (English and Arabic). Drawing on interview data, results show that translanguaging is a common academic technique used by students to (re-)map their own sociolinguistic borders and spaces to transmit their disciplinary knowledge, meaning and sense of community. The chapter concludes with EMI-related implications and recommendations to meet students’ ecolinguistics and disciplinary needs and challenges. Chapter twelve explores the opinions of English language instructors on pluralistic approaches to languages and cultures in the Turkish EMI context. Questionnaire and interview data were collected on teacher plurilingual and intercultural competence (PIC). Results revealed that teachers were knowledgeable

Introduction

7

and had a positive attitude towards PIC and that PIC should be further developed in EMI students. The final chapter details an action research experiment that was carried out in a classroom for aspiring English as a Second Language (ESL) teachers at a significant public institution in Norway. Twenty-two pre-service teachers were enrolled in the course ‘Advanced Teaching Approaches in the English Classroom’ in their fifth year of an integrated master’s programme. The course introduced the students to the Multilingual Approach to Diversity in Education (MADE), an instructional model that emphasizes multilingualism as a core resource. The results indicated that the training was successful in equipping aspiring educators to design lessons for EAL classrooms with language and cultural diversity using the MADE model. This volume stands as a comprehensive exploration of the intricacies of English-medium instruction in higher education across the globe. By dissecting the diverse ways of implementing EMI, particularly through hard-core, soft, multilingual models and translanguaging, we aim to provide a thorough understanding of how these practices impact educational experiences. This resource serves not only as a wellspring of information for scholars, policymakers and educators but also as a catalyst for critical thought and potential innovation in EMI implementation. As English continues to assert its dominance as a global lingua franca, it is our hope that this book will inspire future research, influence policy decisions and equip EMI practitioners with valuable insights, promoting effective teaching strategies and enriching student learning experiences across multilingual landscapes.

References Altay, M., Soruç, A., Yuksel, D., & Curle, S. (2022). Investigating academic achievement of English Medium Instruction courses in Turkey: the influence of English proficiency, first language medium, and academic subject. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 12(1), 117–141. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2022.12.1.6 Curle, S., Jablonkai, R., Mittelmeier, J., Sahan, K., & Veitch, A. (2020a). English Medium Part 1: Literature review. In N. Galloway (ed.), English in Higher Education (Report No. 978-0-86355-977–8). British Council. https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/ english-higher-education-%E2%80%93-english-medium-part-1-literature-review Curle, S., Yuksel, D., Soruc, A., & Altay, M. (2020b). Predictors of English Medium Instruction academic success: English proficiency versus First language medium. System, 95, 102378, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102378

8

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Dafouz, E. (2017). English-medium Instruction in Multilingual University Settings: An Opportunity for Developing Language Awareness. In The Routledge Handbook of Language Awareness. New York: Routledge. Dafouz, E., & Smit, U. (2016). Towards a dynamic conceptual framework for Englishmedium education in multilingual university settings. Applied Linguistics, 37(3), 397–415. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu034 Dafouz, E., & Smit, U. (2020). ROAD-MAPPING English Medium Education in the Internationalised University. Cham: Palgrave MacMillan. Genc, E., Yuksel, D., & Curle, S. (2023). Lecturers’ translanguaging practices in Englishtaught lectures in Turkey. Journal of Multilingual Theories and Practices, 4(1), 8–31. Kirkpatrick, A. (2017). The Languages of Higher Education in East and Southeast Asia: Will EMI Lead to Englishisation? In B. Fenton-Smith, P. Humphreys & I. Walkinshaw (eds), English Medium Instruction in Higher Education in Asia-Pacific (pp. 21–36). Cham: Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51976-0_2 Macaro, E. (2018). English Medium Instruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Macaro, E. (2022). English Medium Instruction: What do we know so far and what do we still need to find out? Language Teaching, 55(4), 533–546. Mendoza, A., Hamman-Ortiz, L., Tian, Z., Rajendram, S., Tai, K. W. H., Ho, W. Y. J. and Sah, P. K. (2023), Sustaining critical approaches to translanguaging in education: a contextual framework. TESOL Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3240 Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J., & Dearden, J. (2018). A Systematic Review of English Medium Instruction in Higher Education. Language Teaching, 51(1). https:// doi.org/10.1017/S0261444817000350 Tai, K. W. (2021). Translanguaging as inclusive pedagogical practices in Englishmedium instruction science and mathematics classrooms for linguistically and culturally diverse students. Research in Science Education, 52, 1–38. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11165-021-10018-6 Williams, C. (1994). Arfarniad o Ddulliau Dysgu ac Addysgu yng Nghyd-destun Addysg Uwchradd Ddwyieithog, [An evaluation of teaching and learning methods in the context of bilingual secondary education]. Unpublished doctoral thessis, University of Wales, Bangor. Yuksel, D., Altay, M., & Curle, S. (2022). English Medium Instruction programmes in Turkey: evidence of exponential growth. In S. Curle, H. Ali, A. Alhassan & S. S. Scatolini (eds), English-Medium Instruction in Higher Education in the Middle East and North Africa: Policy, Research and Pedagogy. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Part One

Regional Reviews of Translingual and Multi-cultural Practices

9

10

2

Translanguaging in GCC English-Medium Higher Education: A Scoping Review Sarah Hopkyns and Sara Hillman

Introduction As in many global contexts, English-medium instruction (EMI) in the six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates has ballooned in the last two decades, especially in higher education. The most oft-cited definition for EMI appears in Macaro’s (2018) eponymous book, as ‘the use of the English language to teach academic subjects (other than English itself) in countries or jurisdictions where the first language of the majority of the population is not English’ (p. 1). More recently, EMI has been theorized as only one element of the broader phenomenon of English-medium education (EME). While EMI refers purely to ‘instruction’, many other aspects of university life are also influenced by English, such as internationalization of students and faculty, English as a lingua franca in university social spaces (Jenkins, 2014), linguistic and semiotic landscapes of educational spaces or ‘educationscapes’ (Krompák et al., 2022) and research output. Dafouz and Smit (2020) suggest the conceptually wider term ‘Englishmedium education in multilingual university settings’ (EMEMUS) (p. 3) which includes both teaching and learning rather than prioritizing one over the other. The term also recognizes that English does not exist in a vacuum but rather interacts with other languages in multilingual settings. Within EMEMUS, translanguaging is organic, ‘ordinary’ (Dovchin & Lee, 2019) and ‘second nature’ (Hopkyns et al., 2021) amongst bilingual and multilingual speakers. However, providing a straightforward definition of the term is far from simple. As the opening sentence in Mazak and Carroll’s (2017) book Translanguaging in Higher Education rightly states, ‘Translanguaging is many things’ (p. 1). The term was first coined by Cen Williams (1994) in Welsh 11

12

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

as trawsieithu, and it referred to a teaching strategy to develop both content learning and language which involved bilingual learners reading in one language and responding in another. Ofelia García (2009) theorized the concept further by stressing that translanguaging involved the ‘multiple discursive practices bilinguals engage in to make sense of their bilingual worlds’ (p. 45). Building on this definition, García and Li (2014) began to question the very existence of linguistic boundaries. In this sense, translanguaging represents a poststructuralist focus on hybridity, mobility and fluidity by departing from structuralist and colonial views of individual languages (Makoni & Pennycook, 2007). Translanguaging in EMEMUS takes various forms. Pedagogical translanguaging involves the planning of language use (Cenoz & Gorter, 2022) whereas spontaneous translanguaging represents an openness to the use of full linguistic and semiotic repertoires via translanguaging spaces (García & Li, 2014), for example. This may involve students using full linguistic repertoires to discuss, brainstorm or work on projects (Carroll, 2022). With the ‘translingual turn’ (Horner et al., 2011) occurring in the first decade of the millennium, multiple terms have been associated with translanguaging. Such terms include ‘translingual practices’ (Canagarajah, 2013), ‘metrolingualism’ (Otsuji & Pennycook, 2010), ‘plurilingualism’ (Coste et al., 2009), ‘polylingualism’ (Jorgensen, 2008), linguistic ‘hybridity’ (Bhabha, 1994) and ‘translinguistics’ (Lee & Dovchin, 2020), to name only a few. As Massimiliano Spotti articulates in his jacket-sleeve endorsement for Lee and Dovchin’s (2020) book Translinguistics, ‘rather than a simple turn, we can now firmly talk about a translingual highway in front of us for the study of language and society’. Along with this reasoning, Gulf scholars’ interest in researching translanguaging in EMI classrooms has increased in the last ten years due to awareness of its conceptual importance in the field and as a result of witnessing the phenomenon in their university spaces. While systematic and scoping reviews of attitudes towards English-medium instruction (EMI) (Graham & Eslami, 2019) and world Englishes (Hillman et al., 2021) in the GCC exist, a comprehensive overview of research specifically on translanguaging/translingual practice in the GCC region is notably missing. In this chapter, our scoping review surveys research undertaken in the last decade (2013–2022) in terms of bibliographic characteristics, sub-areas examined and contributions made to the understanding of translanguaging in EMEMUS. This chapter fills a gap in the knowledge base by assessing the literature on translanguaging in Gulf higher education in the last decade to access gaps and new research directions.

Translanguaging in GCC English-Medium Higher Education

13

The introduction to this chapter has discussed the key concepts of EMI, EMEMUS and translanguaging (and related terms). In the following section, we provide an overview of research on this topic in the Gulf region. We then focus our review on three key areas: where this research is being published and by whom; which sub-areas and theoretical approaches are used; and how existing studies advance our understanding of translingual practice in Gulf EMEMUS. The chapter then analyses the findings and highlights potential gaps in the literature and future research directions.

The Gulf region: a brief survey Six countries located on the Arabian Peninsula (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates) formed the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in 1981. Being part of the GCC links the countries together through shared goals related to legislation, religion, trade, tourism and economic plans (Macaro, 2018). The GCC countries’ objectives have been influenced by oilwealth, which was discovered in the mid-twentieth century, and resultant fastpaced development. Such development required waves of transnational skilled and unskilled workers to take residence in the Gulf states. As a result, multiculturalism and multilingualism are defining features of the Gulf due to a high percentage of transnational residents in each country. Qatar and the UAE have the largest proportion of foreign residents per total population at approximately 89 per cent and 88.5 per cent respectively (GLMM, 2016). Saudi Arabia and Oman have the smallest percentage of transnational workers at approximately 33 per cent and 45 per cent respectively, but this is still a relatively high number globally (Hopkyns, 2022). In the domain of education, the GCC countries have followed a trend of frequent policy changes relating to a general increase in the amount of Englishmedium instruction. Although Arabic is the official language of GCC countries, English is ubiquitous, especially in the mega cities of Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Doha (Hillman & Eibenschutz, 2017; Hopkyns, 2020a; Piller, 2018). English is used as a de facto lingua franca amongst multilingual residents and citizens, as well as being a medium of instruction (MOI) in many schools and universities, either fully or partially. Arabic, as a multiglossic language, includes Classical Arabic (CA) of the Quran, Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) taught in schools, and dialects which are used for communication in mostly informal interactions (Carroll, 2022; Hillman, 2019; Hopkyns, 2020a). Although the Gulf region

14

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

provides different types of university experience through public universities (which serve mainly local students, but hire international faculty), private universities and international branch campuses, English is either the or a language of instruction at many of them (Al-Issa, 2006; Abou-El-Kheir & MacLeod, 2017; Dashti, 2015; Graham et al., 2021; Hopkyns, 2020a, 2023; Ryhan, 2014). Behind the swell of English in internationalized universities are neoliberal ideologies and the framing of English as a commodity. The Gulf universities are no exception to this global trend of business-like approaches to education whereby emphasis is placed on competing in global ranking systems and attracting the ‘best’ faculty and students. Often EMI is framed as synonymous to educational prestige, social mobility in a globalized world and employment success upon graduation. Although high hopes for the benefits of EMI are clearly voiced in Gulf university mission statements, research has revealed that EMI in the Gulf has a notable ‘dark side’, as is also the case in other global contexts (Block, 2022; Block & Khan, 2021). For example, concerns have been raised over the effects of EMI on attainment levels, identities and self-esteem in Gulf higher education (Al-Bakri, 2013; Barnawi, 2018; Hillman & Eibenschutz, 2017; Hopkyns, 2020b). Lack of choice over medium of instruction has also been cause for concern, especially in the UAE where EMI dominates and only a few degree programmes are offered in Arabic (Hopkyns, 2020a). In Qatar, such concerns led to a switch back to Arabic-medium instruction in the largest national university in 2012 (Ellili-Cherif & Alkhateeb, 2015), although some programmes are still taught in the medium of English. EMI and high stakes English tests can often serve as gatekeepers to academic success in the region and cause students to suffer hardships in the classroom. The hiring of mainly foreign faculty, many of whom are non-Arabic speakers, can further influence the university experience in terms of levels of belonging and lack of shared linguistic resources affecting teacher/student rapport (Hopkyns, 2022). Embracing translanguaging in Gulf EMEMUS has been advocated as a way to offset some of the reported difficulties associated with EMI. Translanguaging, it is argued, allows bilingual students to authentically use their full linguistic repertoires in university spaces and classrooms to strengthen identities and learning outcomes. Equally, other Gulf studies have argued that translanguaging should not be celebrated uncritically, rather benefits should be assessed according to context. For example, in international branch campuses, translanguaging which is dominated by English and the country’s official language may exclude international students who do not speak the latter language (Hillman et al.,

Translanguaging in GCC English-Medium Higher Education

15

2019). Furthermore, monolingual ideologies of stakeholders can result in emotions such as shame and guilt around tranglanguaging (Hillman, 2022; Manan et al., 2022), which in turn can influence levels of acceptance by students and teachers themselves. Issues around translingual practice in GCC higher education are thus complex and multidimensional. As EMI is rapidly expanding in the Gulf region and translingual practice is an ordinary part of plurilingual speakers’ identities, there is a need to take stock of research on this topic thus far to aid the direction and focus of future research. With this in mind, our scoping review addresses three key research questions: 1. What are the bibliographic characteristics of studies on translanguaging in Gulf EMEMUS? 2. Which sub-areas and theoretical approaches are examined in studies on translanguaging in Gulf EMEMUS? 3. How do the included studies contribute to understandings of translanguaging in Gulf EMEMUS?

Method Scoping review Our research design uses the method of a scoping review (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). The scoping review is a rigorous method for mapping areas of research and seeks to convey the breadth and depth of a field or topic (Hillman et al., 2021). Rather than focusing on a synthesized answer to one research question or assessing the quality of included studies, scoping reviews summarize the ‘volume, nature, and characteristics’ (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005, p. 30) of included studies as well as identifying potential gaps in the existing literature. As the Gulf region is considered an emerging research context for studies of translanguaging in EMI higher education, we identified a scoping review as being most appropriate and useful. The method we followed for our scoping review is adapted from other scoping review studies in applied linguistics (Hillman et al., 2021; Visonà & Plonsky, 2020).

Identifying relevant studies and study selection We first identified three initial research questions and discussed our inclusion and exclusion criteria for our scoping review sample. Our main inclusion criteria were that the broader context of the studies had to be GCC English-medium

16

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

higher education, and the studies needed to draw on translingual theoretical approaches. We engaged in several critical discussions about what fit under the scope of EMI higher education. For example, some studies referred to their contexts as EFL, but through a closer examination we determined them to be fully or partially EMI contexts. It was also challenging at times to decide what should be included as taking a translingual theoretical approach. For example, in one case, a study had ‘translanguaging’ in its title, but was really more about descriptive features of language rather than language as a meaning-making resource. We did not end up including such studies in our final sample, relying on seminal work in translanguaging such as García and Li (2014), Horner et al. (2011) and Mazak and Carroll (2017) to select articles that we agreed fit within the broader translingual practice paradigm. Articles that focused primarily on codeswitching, or more structural and functional analyses of alternation between languages, were not included. While Hillman et al.’s (2021) scoping review only included peer-reviewed journal articles as a form of quality assessment, we chose to include journal articles from respectable peer-reviewed journals as well as book chapters from reputable publishers (see Table 2.1). This decision was made because many Gulf scholars publish their work in edited volumes. Similar to Hillman et al. (2021) we took part in an ‘iterative process of searching for articles, refining our search strategies, and reviewing articles for study inclusion’ (p. 161). Given that studies on EMI in higher education and studies about translingual practices have proliferated in the past decade, we focused on studies published between 2013 and 2022. The earliest study within this time frame we found that met our inclusion criteria was only from 2015. After discussing inclusion and exclusion criteria, our first step was to conduct a broad search. We did this by entering unrestrictive key topic words together with our geographical area such as ‘translingual practice AND UAE’ or ‘translanguaging AND higher education in the Gulf ’ into the scholarly databases of Scopus, Web of Science, Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA), Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), Journal Storage (JSTOR), Google Scholar, ResearchGate and Academia.edu. Our initial search yielded twenty-six studies. We then did a closer analysis of whether the studies were situated in EMI higher education/EMEMUS and whether they took a translingual approach. During this phase of the analysis, we regularly shared with each other our justifications about why a study should be included or not. As part of the iterative process regarding which studies to include, we decided to further exclude six studies, reducing the final sample size to twenty journal articles and

Translanguaging in GCC English-Medium Higher Education

17

Table 2.1 Journals and edited volumes where studies of translanguaging in GCC English-medium higher education appear with quartiles for journals (N/A for book chapters) Name of journal or edited volume

Ka

Quartile

Applied Linguistics Review System World Englishes International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism Asian Englishes Language Awareness English Teaching & Learning International Multilingual Research Journal Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development Heliyon Asian EFL Journal Journal of Language and Linguistic Study International Journal of Higher Education Universal Journal of Educational Research Policy Development in TESOL and Multilingualism Emerging Writing Research from the Middle East Translanguaging in Higher Education Linguistic Identities in the Arab Gulf States: Waves of Change Language and Identity in the Arab World The Complexity of Identity and Interaction in Language Education

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q2 Q2 Q4 Q4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Ka = number of study reports.

book chapters. Our rigorous and systematic search of the literature ensured a representative sample of studies on translanguaging in EMI higher education in the GCC during the past decade.

Data analysis We used a coding system based on our research questions and modelled after Hillman et al. (2021). The coding instrument (see Table 2.2) includes bibliographic and design and analysis features, more substantive features related to sub-areas of translingual practice and theoretical approaches, and open variables related to the significance or contribution of the study. We divided the

18

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

studies by sub-regional areas and each independently coded our sub-regions. We then did a second coding on a subset of the sample to make sure we had a high percentage of agreement. Following Visonà and Plonsky’s (2020) scoping review analysis, we calculated frequencies and percentages from the values of the coding scheme variables in order to provide a numerical summary analysis, and we also conducted a thematic analysis of the open variables related to study significance. In the following section, we report our findings under three headings which match our research questions. We use tables and charts to show numerical summary analyses and discuss key themes to emerge from the data. Table 2.2 Coding scheme for translanguaging in GCC English-medium higher education studies Variable Bibliographic features Author(s) Year Title Publication type Design and Analysis features Type of study Geographical context Research context Participant(s) Analysis type Instrument(s) Substantive features Translingual sub-areas

Translingual theoretical approach

Values Open Within 2013–2022 Open Peer-reviewed journal article or book chapter in respected venue Conceptual/Nonempirical, Empirical Within six GCC countries Within EMI in higher education Open Qualitative, Quantitative, Mixed Methods Open Open (e.g., translanguaging in education; translanguaging as a pedagogy; translanguaging and creativity; translanguaging and intercultural communication; translanguaging and humour; translingual writing; translingual beliefs and practices) Open (e.g., translanguaging as theory; translanguaging as pedagogy; translanguaging space; translanguaging as creativity; translingual practice) Open

Significance of study to translingual practice in EMI higher education in GCC Weaknesses of study Open

Translanguaging in GCC English-Medium Higher Education

19

Results RQ1: What are the bibliographic characteristics of studies on translanguaging in Gulf EMEMUS? As seen in Table 2.1, our final sample consisted of twenty articles including fourteen journal articles published in fourteen different journals and six book chapters published in six different edited volumes. Most of the journal articles were published in Q1 journals (k = 10 or 72 per cent) followed by Q2 (k = 2 or 14 per cent) and Q4 (k = 2 or 14 per cent) journals. The topics of the journals included bilingual and multilingual research and education, world Englishes, teaching and learning, higher education and educational research. The six book chapters were published in edited volumes with a Gulf / Middle East focus (k = 3 or 50 per cent) or international focus (k = 3 or 50 per cent). The books were published by respected international publishers such as Routledge (k = 3 or 50 per cent), Multilingual Matters (k = 2 or 33 per cent), Springer (k = 1 or 17 per cent) and Colorado University Press (k = 1 or 17 per cent). The topics of the books differed from the journals due to a primary focus on language and identity, translanguaging in higher education, multilingualism and writing research. Figure 2.1 shows the division of translanguaging in GCC EMI HE studies by publication year. It is striking to see that during the ten years (2013–2022), there are over five times as many papers published in the last half of the decade (k = 17 or 85 per cent in 2018–2022) than the first half (k = 3 or 15 per cent in 2013–2017). These findings indicate that there is increasing interest in the topic of translanguaging in GCC EMI HE / EMEMUS, which has quintupled since 2018. From the sample, the last three years (2020–2022) included the highest number of papers per year.

Figure 2.1 Division of translanguaging in GCC EMI HE studies by publication year.

20

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Figure 2.2 Division of studies on translanguaging in EMI HE by GCC country

Figure 2.2 illustrates the number of studies in the sample according to GCC country. We found that the majority of the studies took place in the UAE (k = 8 or 40 per cent), Qatar (k = 5 or 25 per cent) and Saudi Arabia (k = 4 or 20 per cent). In contrast, we only found one study which fitted our criteria in Kuwait and none for Oman or Bahrain. Two of the papers provided an overview of translanguaging in EMI HE across the GCC countries (Carroll, 2022; Hopkyns, 2022) with a sub-focus on practical implications of translanguaging pedagogy and translanguaging as it relates to ideologies and linguistic identities, respectively. For the papers in the UAE and Qatari contexts, six authors wrote or co-wrote two or more papers in the sample which demonstrates that certain scholars have a deep interest in the topic spanning over years. In some cases the same study is analysed from different angles. For example, Al-Bataineh and Gallagher’s (2018) study explores the attitudes and ideologies of twenty-two Emirati university students while creating translingual storybooks as a class project. In their following paper, Gallagher and Al-Bataineh (2019) analyse the content of these translingual storybooks in terms of linguistic and cultural elements. It should be noted that although there were very few/no studies specifically on ‘translanguaging in EMI HE’ in Kuwait, Oman and Bahrain, related research on translingual identities and sociolinguistic realities is emerging, albeit not in the context of EMI universities. For example, Al-Alawi (2022) explores the concept of ‘Chicken nuggets’ in Bahrain, which refers to typically private-school-educated youth who use an excessive and exaggerated amount of English in their otherwise Arabic communication. Taking a chronotopic scalar approach, Al-Alawi’s (2022) study shows how translingual identities are enacted and perceived differently according

Translanguaging in GCC English-Medium Higher Education

21

to time, space and scale. Similarly, in Kuwait, Hayat and Al-Bader (2022) investigate the ‘McChicken Phenomenon’ among Kuwaiti youths, which relates to translingual identities in general rather than in the context of EMI HE. Both the ‘chicken nugget’ and ‘McChicken’ phenomena would be valuable to explore further in relation to EMEMUS.

RQ2: Which sub-areas and theoretical approaches are examined in studies on translanguaging in Gulf EMEMUS? Our second research question was concerned with mapping the sub-areas (Table 2.3) and theoretical approaches (Table 2.4) taken across our sample of twenty papers. In some cases, more than one sub-area was explored within a single paper. As can be seen in Table 2.3, the most common sub-area was translanguaging as pedagogy (k = 9 or 45 per cent). In addition to a general focus on pedagogy, some papers also had specific focuses on reading development, academic writing and creative classroom projects. The second most common sub-area was attitudes and ideologies around translanguaging (k = 8 or 40 per cent). This included exploring both Gulf university students’ perspectives as well as university faculty perspectives. Translingual identities within EMI HE was the third most common sub-area (k = 5 or 25 per cent) together with translingual patterns across task types, subjects and domains (k = 5 or 25 per cent). Table 2.3 Sub-areas of translanguaging in GCC EMI HE studies Sub-area

Ka

Translanguaging as pedagogy (including for teacher education) Ideologies and attitudes towards translanguaging Translingual identities Translanguaging patterns across different task types / subjects / domains Translingual creative class projects and cross-linguistic challenges Translanguaging and reading development Multimodal digital translanguaging and creativity Translanguaging for social justice Translanguaging in relation to medium of instruction Translanguaging and intercultural communication Translanguaging and humour Translanguaging in academic writing

9 8 5 5 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

22

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

As can be seen in Table 2.4, the papers within our sample mainly drew on theories relating to the use of translanguaging as a pedagogical tool (k = 11 or 55 per cent), which included discussions on the use of translanguaging spaces (García & Li 2014) and linguistic repertoires for classroom activities (Conteh, 2018). Other papers discussed translanguaging as a way to promote social justice and strengthen identities of learners in EMEMUS. This included the use of translanguaging to improve classroom environments and improve rapport. Other studies in the sample focused on the gap between monolingual ideologies in the region and translingual practice. One study used Dafouz and Smit’s (2020) ROAD-MAPPING framework, which stands for ‘Roles of English, academic disciplines, management, agents, practices and processes and internationalization and globalization’ to look holistically at translanguaging in Qatari higher education (Graham et al., 2021).

RQ3: How do the included studies contribute to understandings of translanguaging in Gulf EMEMUS? From analysing sub-areas covered and theoretical approaches used (Tables 2.3 and 2.4), we were able to identify several ways in which the sample studies contribute to understandings of translanguaging in EMI HE. Many of the studies highlighted the prominence of monolingual ideologies in both students (Al-Bataineh & Gallagher, 2018; Gallagher & Al-Bataineh, 2019; Palfreyman & Al-Bataineh, 2018) and teachers (Akbar & Taqi, 2020; Alqahtani, 2022). Especially, teachers’ monolingual ideologies act as a deterrent for

Table 2.4 Approaches to translanguaging in GCC EMI HE studies Translanguaging approach

Ka

Translanguaging as a pedagogical tool, including use of translanguaging spaces and linguistic repertoires Translanguaging for social justice / empowerment / strengthened identities / improving classroom environment / rapport Language policy and practice (monolingual ideologies vs plurilingual practice) ROAD-MAPPING framework (Dafouz & Smit, 2020) Schneider’s (2007) dynamic model of postcolonial Englishes Interculturality and complexities in translingual identities

11 4 3 1 1 1

Translanguaging in GCC English-Medium Higher Education

23

translanguaging research in GCC HE. For example, Carroll and van den Hoven (2017) state that they faced restrictions conducting research on the translingual practices of teachers in a UAE higher education institute due to teachers not wanting to admit to embracing translanguaging in their classrooms because it clashed with EMI policies. Some feared admitting to such practice could jeopardize their teaching positions. Although many of the studies argue that the gap between EMI ‘English-only’ expectations/policies and translingual practice needs to be lessened (Carroll & van den Hoven, 2017; Hillman et al., 2019; Hopkyns et al., 2021), there is recognition that both ideological barriers and practical barriers exist (Hillman et al., 2019; Hopkyns, 2022). To combat monolingual ideologies amongst teachers and students, the importance of including translingual pedagogy in teacher training programmes is stressed (Carroll, 2022), along with including creative translanguaging projects in classrooms which spark awareness of language attitudes, beliefs and translingual identities (Gallagher & Al-Bataineh, 2019). In the study sample, there is evidence of teachers and students embracing translanguaging in EMEMUS but mainly in more informal contexts such as during virtual office hours (Alasmari et al., 2022; Carroll & van den Hoven, 2017) and conversations with students just before and after the official class period (Hillman et al., 2019). Translanguaging was also seen as more useful / acceptable by students for certain subjects and tasks like history and political science over maths, and for certain tasks like discussions over assignments (Graham et al., 2021). Only a few studies within the sample looked directly at the effects of translanguaging on learning. Such studies found no significant improvement to language learning based on reading tasks (Qureshi & Aljanadbah, 2021; Akbar & Taqi, 2020). However, the latter study found that translanguaging aided deeper understanding and processing. Both studies were small in scale and recommend further investigation. Many of the papers in the sample reflected on GCC universities as being embedded in the larger sociolinguist context of multilingualism and multiculturalism. It was stressed that translanguaging in EMI HE is important for strengthening bilingual/multilingual identities and increasing rapport. Recommendations on ways to do this included the use of humour through translanguaging to enhance linguistic output (Theodoropoulou, 2021) and utilizing multimodal translanguaging spaces whereby students strategically mix photographs, drawings, emojis and language(s) to create meanings, identities and relationships (Albawardi & Jones, 2020).

24

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Conclusion The purpose of this scoping review was to understand the current state of translanguaging research in GCC EMI HE. Due to the ‘translingual turn’ (Horner et al., 2011), which has arguably turned into a ‘translingual highway’, research on translanguaging has increased globally. GCC research on this area has grown especially in the last five years, in positive alignment with global trends. However, there is an imbalance in terms of the number of papers being published amongst the Gulf countries, with the UAE having the most representation and Oman and Bahrain having the least. Also, the GCC is still a relatively under-researched area compared to other global contexts. One reason for a relative dearth of translanguaging research in GCC EMI HE settings could be related to societal monolingual ideologies. As identified in the sample papers, although there is some support for translanguaging amongst stakeholders, there are also ideological and practical barriers due to neoliberal discourses surrounding EMI policies (Jenkins & Mauranen, 2019) and language purity beliefs. Translanguaging in GCC EMI HE could therefore be viewed as a controversial topic which some researchers feel discouraged to approach. For example, as Carroll and van den Hoven’s (2017) research revealed, recruiting teacher participants to openly discuss their translingual practice proved difficult due to the notion that such practice was ‘taboo’ or transgressive. This may be a reason for the relative scarcity or absence of studies in GCC countries. As many of the sample papers suggest, greater awareness of translingual pedagogy can come from including it as part of teacher training. Most of the existing papers on translanguaging in GCC EMI HE focus on classroom-based research and stakeholders’ attitudes and ideologies around translingual practice. Fewer papers concentrate on translanguaging in broader EMEMUS in terms of university spaces outside instruction in classrooms. As students’ whole university experience is important to consider, we call for a widening of the research arena to include not only classroom spaces but also university social and digital spaces. For example, there has yet to be a study looking at translanguaging in semiotic and linguistic landscapes or ‘educationscapes’ (Krompák et al., 2022) in GCC universities. In addition, in many global contexts, studies have concentrated on the affordances digital spaces provide for translingual communication and identities (Dovchin, 2020). Comparatively few GCC studies look at digital spaces as a way for students to use multimodal translanguaging for the expression of authentic identities (Albawardi & Jones, 2020). Research on social and digital translanguaging in

Translanguaging in GCC English-Medium Higher Education

25

university spaces would further our understanding of language use in EMEMUS, beyond the classroom. A final future direction we have identified is the need for a wider variety of theoretical approaches in GCC research on translanguaging in EMI HE. We would like to see, for example, studies focusing on the theory of co-learning (Li, 2013), translanguaging as a decolonizing tool (Fang et al., 2022) and theorizing of emotions and belonging (Dovchin, 2021) surrounding EMEMUS. We hope this scoping review will inspire future research which builds on and expands the existing studies surveyed in this chapter. As translanguaging is an integral part of bilingual and multilingual speakers’ identities, the need to continue researching its inclusion in EMEMUS is essential.

References Abou-El-Kheir, A., & MacLeod, P. (2017). Qatar’s English education policy in K-12 and higher education: Rapid development, radical reform and transition to a new way forward. In R. Kirkpatrick (ed.), English Education Policy in the Middle East and North Africa (pp. 9–32). Cham: Springer. Al-Alawi, W. (2022). English at the center of the periphery: ‘Chicken nuggets’, chronotopes, and scaling English in Bahraini youth. Language in Society, 52, 1–23. http://doi.org/10.1017/S004740452200015X Alasmari, M., Qasem, F., Ahmed, R., & Alrayes, M. (2022). Bilingual teachers’ translanguaging practices and ideologies in online classrooms in Saudi Arabia. Heliyon, 8(9). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10537 Al-Bakri, S. (2013). Problematizing English medium instruction in Oman. International Journal of Bilingual and Multilingual Teachers of English, 1(2), 55–69. Al-Bataineh, A. & Gallagher, K. (2018). Attitudes towards translanguaging: How future teachers perceive the meshing of Arabic and English in children’s story books. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24(3), 386–400. Albawardi, A., & Jones, H. R. (2020). Vernacular mobile literacies: Multimodality, creativity and cultural identity. Applied Linguistics Review, 11(4), 649–676. Al-Issa, A. (2006). The cultural and economic policies of English language teaching in the Sultanate of Oman. Asian EFL Journal, 8(1), 194–218. Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice, 8, 19–32. Barnawi, O. Z. (2018). Neoliberalism and English Language Education Policies in the Arabian Gulf. New York: Routledge. Benesch, S. (2017). Emotions and English Language Teaching: Exploring Teachers’ Emotion Labor. New York: Routledge.

26

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The Location of Culture. London: Routledge. Block, D. (2022). The dark side of EMI? A telling case for questioning assumptions about EMI in HE. Educational Linguistics, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/eduling-2021-0007 Block, D., & Khan, S. (2021). The secret life of English-medium instruction in higher education. In D. Block & S. Khan (eds.), The Secret Life of English-medium Instruction in Higher Education (pp. 1–18). London: Routledge. Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Realities. London: Routledge. Carroll, K. S. (2022). Translanguaging for transformation: Resisting monolingual ideologies. In S. Hopkyns & W. Zoghbor (eds.) Linguistic Identities in the Arab Gulf States: Waves of Change (pp. 183–197). New York: Routledge. Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2022). Pedagogical translanguaging and its application to language classes. RELC Journal, 53(2), 342–354. Conteh, J. (2018). Key concepts in ELT: Translanguaging. ELT Journal, 72, 445–447. Coste, D., Moore, S., & Zarate, G. (2009). Pluralism and Pluricultural Competence. Council of Europe. Dafouz, E., & Smit, U. (2020). ROAD-MAPPING English Medium Education in the Internationalized University. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Dafouz, E., Huettner, J., & Smit, U. (2016). University teachers’ beliefs of language and content integration in English-medium education in multilingual university settings. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore & U. Smit (eds), Conceptualising Integration in CLIL and Multilingual Education (pp. 123–144). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Dashti, A. (2015). The role and status of the English language in Kuwait. English Today, 31(3), 28–33. Dovchin, S. (ed.) (2020). Digital Communication, Linguistic Diversity, and Education. Oxford: Peter Lang. Dovchin, S. (2021). Translanguaging, emotionality, and English as a second language immigrants: Mongolian background women in Australia. TESOL Quarterly, 55(2), 839–865. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3015 Dovchin, S., & Lee, J. W. (2019). Introduction to special issue: ‘The ordinariness of translinguistics’. International Journal of Multilingualism, 16(2), 105–111. Fang, F., Zhang, L. J., & Sah, P. K. (2022). Translanguaging in language teaching and learning: Current practices and future directions. RELC Journal, 53(2), 305–312. Gallagher, K. & Al-Bataineh, A. (2019). An investigation into the linguistic landscape of translingual storybook for Arabic-English bilingual children. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 41(2), 1–20. http://doi.org/10.1080 /01434632.2019.1621326 García, O. (2009). Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century. In A. Mohanty, M. Panda, R. Phillipson, & T. Skutnabb-Kangas (eds), Multilingual Education for Social Justice: Globalizing the Local (pp. 140–158). New Delhi: Orient Blackswan.

Translanguaging in GCC English-Medium Higher Education

27

García, O., & Li (2014). Translanguaging: Implications for Language, Bilingualism and Education. London: Palgrave MacMillan. GLMM (Gulf Labour Markets, Migration and Population Programme) (2016). Gulf Research Center. Retrieved from: https://gulfmigration.org/gcc-total-populationpercentage-nationals-foreign-nationals-gcc-countries-national-statistics-2010-2016numbers/ Graham, K. M., & Eslami, Z. R. (2019). Attitudes toward EMI in East Asia and the Gulf: A systematic review. Language Problems and Language Planning, 43(1), 8–13. Graham, K. M., Eslami, Z. R., & Hillman, S. (2021). From English as a medium to English as medium: Perspectives of EMI students in Qatar. System, 99. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102508 Hayat, N. A., & Al-Bader, Y. B. (2022). The McChicken Phenomenon: How has English become a prevalent language among Kuwaiti youths. World Journal of English Language, 12(6), 59–70. Hillman. S. (2019). ‘I’m a heritage speaker of Damascene dialect of Arabic’: Negotiating the identity label of Arabic heritage language learner. Heritage Language Journal, 16(3), 296–317. Hillman, S. (2022). Navigating identity and belonging as international branch campus students: The role of linguistic shame. In S. Hopkyns & W. Zoghbor (eds), Linguistic Identities in the Arab States of the Gulf: Waves of Change (pp. 215–230). New York: Routledge. Hillman, S., & Eibenschutz, E. O. (2017). English, super-diversity, and identity in the state of Qatar. World Englishes, 37(2), 228–247. Hillman, S., Graham, K. M., & Eslami, Z. R. (2019). Teachers’ translanguaging ideologies and practices at an international branch campus in Qatar. English Teaching and Learning, 43, 41–63. Hillman, S., Selvi, A. F., & Yazan, B. (2021). A scoping review of world Englishes in the Middle East and North Africa. World Englishes, 40(2), 159–175. Hopkyns, S. (2020a). The Impact of Global English on Cultural Identities in the United Arab Emirates. London: Routledge. Hopkyns, S. (2020b). Dancing between English and Arabic: Complexities in Emirati Cultural Identities. In N. Randolph, A. F. Selvi, & B. Yazan (eds), The Complexity of Identity and Interaction in Language Education (pp. 249–265). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Hopkyns, S. (2022). Translanguaging in Gulf English-medium instruction higher education. In F. Al-Rashidi & S. Mehta (eds), Language and Identity in the Arab World (pp. 76–92). London: Routledge. Hopkyns, S. (2023). English-medium instruction in the United Arab Emirates: The importance of choice and agency. In M. Wyatt and G. El Gamal (eds), English Medium Instruction on the Arabian Peninsula. London: Routledge. Hopkyns, S., Zoghbor, W., & Hassall, P. (2021). The use of English and linguistic hybridity among Emirati millennials. World Englishes, 40(2), 176–190.

28

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Horner, B., Lu, M., Royster, J. J., & Trimbur, J. (2011). Language difference in writing: Toward a translingual approach. College English, 73(3), 303–321. Jenkins, J. (2014). English as a Lingua Franca in the International University. London: Routledge. Jenkins, J., & Mauranen, A. (eds) (2019). Linguistic Diversity on the EMI Campus. New York: Routledge. Jorgensen, J. N. (2008). Polylingual languaging around and among children and adolescents. International Journal of Multilingualism, 5, 161–176. Krompák, E., Fernández-Mallat, V., & Meyer, S. (2022). The symbolic value of educationscapes – Expanding the intersection between linguistic landscape and education. In E. Krompák, V. Fernández-Mallat, & S. Meyer (eds), Linguistic Landscapes and Educational Spaces (pp. 1–27). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Lee, J. W., & Dovchin, S. (eds) (2020). Translinguistics: Negotiating Innovation and Ordinariness. New York: Routledge. Li, W. (2013). Who’s teaching whom? Co-learning in multilingual classrooms. In S. May (ed.), The Multilingual Turn. New York: Routledge. Macaro, E. (2018). English Medium Instruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Makoni S., & Pennycook, A. (2007). Disinventing and reconstituting langauages. In S. Makoni & A. Pennycook (eds), Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages (pp. 1–41). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Manan, S. A., Channa, L. A., & Haidar, S. (2022). Celebratory or guilty multilingualism? English medium instruction challenges, pedagogical choices, and teacher agency in Pakistan. Teaching in Higher Education, 27(4), 530–545. Mazak, C. M., & Carroll, K. S. (eds) (2017). Translanguaging in Higher Education: Beyond Monolingual Ideologies. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Otsuji, E., & Pennycook, A. (2010). Metrolingualism: Fixity, fluidity and language flux. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7, 240–254. Piller, I. (2018). Dubai: Language in the ethnocratic, corporate and mobile city. In D. Smakman & P. Heinrich (eds), Urban Sociolinguistics (pp. 77–94). New York: Routledge. Ryhan, E. (2014). The role and impact of English as a medium of instruction in Saudi higher education institutions: Students-instructors perspective. Studies in English Language Teaching, 2(2), 140–148. Schneider, E. W. (2007). Postcolonial English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Visonà, M. W., & Plonsky, L. (2020). Arabic as a heritage language: A scoping review. International Journal of Bilingualism, 24(4), 599–615. Williams, C. (1994). Arfarniad o Ddulliau Dysgu ac Addysgu yng Nghyd-destun Addysg Uwchradd Ddwyieithog [An evaluation of teaching and learning methods in the context of bilingual secondary education]. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Wales, Bangor.

Translanguaging in GCC English-Medium Higher Education

29

Appendix: Reports in the study sample Alasmari, M., Qasem, F., Ahmed, R., & Alrayes, M. (2022). Bilingual teachers’ translanguaging practices and ideologies in online classrooms in Saudi Arabia. Heliyon, 8(9). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10537 Al-Bataineh, A., & Gallagher, K. (2018). Attitudes towards translanguaging: how future teachers perceive the meshing of Arabic and English in children’s story books. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24(3), 386–400. Albawardi, A., & Jones, H. R. (2020). Vernacular mobile literacies: Multimodality, creativity and cultural identity. Applied Linguistics Review, 11(4), 649–676. Alqahtani, M. H. (2022). The Saudi 2030 vision and translanguaging in language learning in Saudi Arabia: Looking for concord in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 18(1), 556–568. Akbar, R. S. S., & Taqi, H. A. (2020). Translanguaging as an ESL learning strategy: A case study in Kuwait. International Journal of Higher Education, 9(6), 54–63. Carroll, K. S. (2022). Translanguaging for transformation: Resisting monolingual ideologies. In S. Hopkyns & W. Zoghbor (eds), Linguistic Identities in the Arab Gulf States: Waves of Change (183–197). New York: Routledge. Carroll, K. S. & van den Hoven, M. (2017). Translanguaging within higher education in the United Arab Emirates. In C. M. Mazak & K. S. Carroll (eds), Translanguaging in Higher Education (pp. 141–156). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Elashab, S. (2020). The impact of translanguaging on the EFL competence development of Arabic speaking learners. Asian EFL Journal, 27(3), 393–413. Ellili-Cherif, M., & Alkhateeb, H. (2015). College students’ attitude toward the medium of instruction: Arabic versus English dilemma. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 3(3), 207–213. Gallagher, K. & Al-Bataineh, A. (2019). An investigation into the linguistic landscape of translingual storybooks for Arabic-English bilingual children. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 41(2), 1–20. DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2019.1621326 Graham, K. M., Eslami, Z. R., & Hillman, S. (2021). From English as a medium to English as medium: Perspectives of EMI students in Qatar. System, 99. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102508 Hillman, S., Graham, K. M., & Eslami, Z. R. (2019). Teachers’ translanguaging ideologies and practices at an international branch campus in Qatar. English Teaching and Learning, 43, 41–63. Hopkyns, S. (2020). Dancing between English and Arabic: Complexities in Emirati cultural identities. In N. Randolph, A. F. Selvi & B. Yazan (eds), The Complexity of Identity and Interaction in Language Education (pp. 249–265). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

30

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Hopkyns, S. (2022). Translanguaging in Gulf English-medium instruction higher education. In F. Al-Rashidi & S. Mehta (eds), Language and Identity in the Arab World (pp. 76–92). London: Routledge. Hopkyns, S., Zoghbor, W., & Hassall, P. J. (2018). Creative hybridity over linguistic purity: the status of English in the United Arab Emirates. Asian Englishes, 20(2), 158–169. Hopkyns, S., Zoghbor, W., & Hassall, P. J. (2020). The use of English and linguistic hybridity among Emirati millennials. World Englishes, 40(2), 176–190. Nebel, A. (2017). Linguistic superdiversity and English-medium higher education in Qatar. In L. R. Arnold, A. Nebel & L. Ronesi (eds), Emerging Writing Research from the Middle East (pp. 27–40). Denver: University Press of Colorado. Palfreyman, D., & Al-Bataineh, A. (2018). ‘This is my life style, Arabic and English’: students’ attitudes to (trans)languaging in a bilingual university context. Language Awareness, 27, 79–95. Qureshi, M. A., & Aljanadbah, A. (2021). Translanguaging and reading comprehension in a second language. International Multilingual Research Journal, 16(4), 247–257. DOI: 10.1080/19313152.2021.2009158 Theodoropoulou, I. (2021). Humoristic translanguaging in intercultural communication in Qatar: Merits, limitations, and its potential contribution to policy development. In K. Raza, C. Coombe & D. Reynolds (eds), Policy Development in TESOL and Multilingualism (pp. 161–175). Singapore: Springer.

3

Multilingual Practices and Disciplinary-based Functions of Language in EMI Classrooms in Latin America: Insights from Brazil, Colombia and Mexico Mario Molina-Naar

Introduction Twenty-first-century universities are considered multilingual spaces in which various forms of multilingualism occur (Dafouz & Smit, 2016; Smit, 2018). At the turn of the new millennium, English as a medium of instruction (EMI) began to set foot in multilingual university settings across the globe. This is confirmed by numerous studies conducted in Asia (see Bradford & Brown, 2017; Rose & McKinley, 2018), Europe (see Dalziel & Guarda, 2021; Escobar Urmeneta, 2020) and the Middle East (see Soruç et al., 2021; Yuksel et al., 2022). Nonetheless, the phenomenon is still considered to be at a stage of infancy (Galloway & Rose, 2021), and this appears to be a more legitimate concern in Latin America (Martinez, 2016; Tejada-Sanchez & Molina-Naar, 2020) where, compared to other world regions, very few studies on tertiary English-mediated education have been published during the past few years. Some of the existing research studies conducted in Latin American EMI university contexts have focused on critically analysing the lack of an EMI policy in Brazilian universities (see Martinez & Palma, 2022), profiling EMI practices and policies in Colombian universities (Miranda & Molina-Naar, 2022) and discussing professional development opportunities for faculty members in Mexican universities (see Escalona Sibaja, 2020). This chapter, in the first place, attempts to continue to fill in this research gap in the region. In the second place, the chapter aims to contribute to the field in terms of how EMI lecturers embrace multilingual practices to enhance teaching and learning 31

32

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

processes in the classroom and how language is used across the various disciplinary cultures and literacies in which EMI is implemented. While tertiary EMI teachers’ attitudes and beliefs have been examined in light of their fields of study (see Roothooft, 2022; Zuaro, 2022), research on disciplinary differences in language use in EMI contexts is, to date, scarce (see Kuteeva & Airey, 2014). This chapter aims to address this gap by targeting the following research questions (RQ): 1. What functions does language fulfil in the EMI classroom? (RQ1) 2. How do multilingual practices (L1 and L2) support teaching and learning in the EMI classroom? (RQ2)

Methodology This qualitative multi-site study was replicated in three universities. In this section, the three participating universities and informants will be described together with the data collection and data analysis procedures.

Participating universities The study was conducted in three Latin American universities: one in Brazil, one in Colombia and one in Mexico. The participating institutions had to offer the following elements which were established after conducting a thorough literature review: (a) English-mediated instruction (Macaro, 2018); (b) curricula that integrated the international and intercultural dimensions (Beelen & Jones, 2015); and (c) various forms of multilingualism (Smit, 2018). Table 3.1 shows general information about each university: Table 3.1 Participating universities U=University

Location

Type

Foundation

Brazilian University (U1.BR) Colombian University (U2.CO) Mexican University (U3.MX)

São Paulo Bogota Querétaro

Public Private Private

1930s 1940s 1960s

Access to these institutions was gained through gatekeepers who facilitated data collection. The universities were located in important cities of countries where the official language of the majority of the population was either Portuguese

Multilingual Practices and Disciplinary-Based Functions of Language

33

(U1.BR) or Spanish (U2.CO and U3.MX). One of the universities was public (U1.BR) and the other two were private (U2.CO and U3.MX). All three institutions were founded less than 100 years ago.

Participants: professors Six participants, two from each university, were invited to take part in the study via email. Participants were professors belonging to different disciplines. Because these individuals were expected to provide information-rich data about the phenomena under study in each university, they had to have the following characteristics: (a) be full-time faculty members with a permanent contract; (b) teach English-medium courses at the time of the study and, at least, one semester prior to this; and (c) be familiar with internationalization initiatives in their institutions. Once they accepted to take part in the study, each participant was asked to sign an informed consent form. Table 3.2 shows detailed information about each participant. Table 3.2 EMI professors who participated in the study P=Participant

Discipline

EMI experience

Humanities Accounting History Law Business Management Engineering

15 years 5 years 1 ½ years 21 years 2 years 1 ½ years

U=University P1.U1 P2.U1 P3.U2 P4.U2 P5.U3 P6.U3

Patton (1990) suggests that ‘a small sample of great diversity’ may produce ‘important shared patterns that cut across cases and derive their significance from having emerged out of heterogeneity’ (p. 172). The participants worked in three different universities located in countries which are not so culturally distant, yet they are thousands of kilometres away from each other and have very different sociohistorical and sociopolitical developments. In addition, their universities pursue distinct EMI policies which range from centralized and mandatory (U2.CO and U3.MX) to decentralized and optional (U1.BR). Most importantly, each participant belonged to a different discipline and embraced different academic literacies, practices and cultures; this led to various similarities

34

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

and differences that resulted in a plethora of relevant findings for the study. Finally, EMI experience ranged from a couple of years to more than two decades, which added variety to the research results.

Data collection Two primary sources of data were used: semi-structured interviews1 and course materials or artefacts. As secondary sources, sociodemographic questionnaires were used to collect basic information about the participants; these sociodemographic data were partially reported in the previous section. Further information about data collection tools and procedures will be provided next.

Semi-structured interviews Following Brinkmann and Kvale’s (2018) principle of semi-structured interviews as in-depth sources of experiences or opinions in qualitative research, participants were interviewed in order to delve into their views on the uses and functions of language in the EMI classroom and how these influenced their pedagogical practices, including multilingual approaches to teaching and learning. Table 3.3 shows information about the interviews. Table 3.3 Information about interviews Participant

Language

Type

P1.U1 P2.U1 P3.U2 P4.U2 P5.U3 P6.U3

English English English Spanish Spanish Spanish

face-to-face face-to-face face-to-face face-to-face video-conference video-conference

Length 73′ 57′ 50′ 60′ 60′ 60′

Each participant was interviewed once, so there were six interviews in total: three in English and three in Spanish. A bilingual interview guide was used; relevant interview excerpts in Spanish were carefully translated into English. Since this was a cross-cultural research study involving more than one language, guaranteeing that meaning would not be lost in translation was of prime importance (Regmi et al., 2010). The interviews at the Brazilian and Colombian universities were carried out face-to-face while the interviews at the Mexican university were held through a video conference. All interviews were recorded

Multilingual Practices and Disciplinary-Based Functions of Language

35

to preserve everything that was said and transcribed verbatim to conduct a more rigorous analysis (Merriam, 1998). The six interviews made up 360 hours of conversational data altogether.

Artefacts (classroom materials) Ary et al. (2010) discuss the importance of using artefacts (e.g., textbooks, journals or videos) in educational research in order ‘to gain an understanding of the phenomenon under study’ (p. 442). Additionally, Yin (2016) argues that handouts and student samples help to understand how learning is happening in the classroom. The present study followed this principle; hence, classroom materials designed or adapted by the EMI professors were used. These offered concrete evidence of the disciplinary-based functions of language in the participants’ classrooms. In total, twenty-eight artefacts in printed and electronic format were collected; each participant provided between four and five resources including course syllabi. Nonetheless, for the purpose of this chapter, only twelve of them, two from each participant, were analysed in depth; all of them were electronic. Table 3.3 shows detailed information about the artefacts. As shown in the table, artefacts had a variety of purposes and reflected the nature of each discipline, which helped to shape the study findings. It is important to mention that all participants also provided their course syllabi; while these were not included in the in-depth analysis conducted, they did reveal valuable insights that often clarified inconclusive information from artefacts.

Sociodemographic questionnaires Each participant was asked to fill out an electronic sociodemographic questionnaire with questions about their educational background, work history and teaching experience, including teaching in EMI contexts. They were also asked to report on their first, second and additional languages. This information played a pivotal role in shaping and interpreting the research results. In order to ensure the participants’ anonymity and the principle of confidentiality, however, no personal information will be revealed in this chapter.

Data analysis The ROAD-MAPPING framework (Dafouz & Smit, 2020) played an important role in the data analysis process adopted for this multi-site study as the model can ‘function as a comprehensive conceptual framework . . . when aiming for analyses

36

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Table 3.4 Information about artefacts Artefact (P=Participant)

Type

P1.Art1

Digital presentation

P1.Art2 P2.Art1

P2.Art2

P3.Art1

P3.Art2

P4.Art1 P4.Art2 P5.Art1

P5.Art2 P6.Art1

P6.Art2

Goal

To discuss certain features of literary non-fiction as well as the job of a translator Peer-assessment To present the criteria to collaborate with rubric a group Ethical dilemma To outline the steps to participate in directions ethical dilemmas related to their professions Student selfTo show students how to self-assess their assessment form performance and level of engagement in class Reading guide/ To guide students on the analysis and writing directions synthesis of sources which will be used in writing tasks Directions for a To learn how to take a position and debate provide arguments to defend one’s point of view Guidelines for written To illustrate how to develop legal research assignments skills and answer questions thoroughly Take-home exam To assess analysis, research and argumentation skills Case-study analysis To analyse and answer questions about a case related to a situation in the world of business Speaking and writing To evaluate oral presentations and critical rubrics essays about relevant course topics Oral presentation To explain how to prepare and present an rubric executive presentation about a company Digital presentation To introduce concepts which are of relevance for the class and attainment of objectives

across sites’ (p. 77). For the past few years, the framework, which consists of six different dimensions, has been used to examine the development of Englishmedium education in multilingual universities in Europe (Dafouz et al., 2016), Asia (Bradford & Brown, 2017) and, more recently, Latin America (Molina-Naar, 2022). Two of the dimensions, Roles of English (in relation to other languages) and Practices and Processes, were initially used in the interview transcripts and

Multilingual Practices and Disciplinary-Based Functions of Language

37

artefacts as ‘a starting point for initial top-down codes that require further development and specification in relation to either other theoretical frameworks and/or bottom-up codes that emerge during the iterative rounds of coding’ (Dafouz & Smit, 2020, pp. 81–82). Subsequently, qualitative content analysis (QCA) (Selvi, 2020) was used; QCA was an appropriate method for this multisite study as it allowed for the refinement of emerging codes that had been first classified under the two ROAD-MAPPING dimensions. In addition, the use of QCA led to systematic and context-dependent interpretations (Mayring, 2014; Schreier, 2014) whose aim was to understand the diverse realities present in the three researched contexts through the participant’s eyes (Cho & Lee, 2014).

Results Results for each RQ will be presented separately as they emerged from different sources of data. The functions that language fulfils in the EMI classroom (RQ1) were more clearly seen in the artefacts while the multilingual practices that support teaching and learning (RQ2) were discussed by participants in the interviews.

Functions of language in the EMI classroom (RQ1) The analysis of the twelve artefacts suggests that the functions of language and more specifically the functions or roles that English has in the EMI classroom heavily depend on the discipline. Thus, results will be presented by considering the six participants’ main fields of study. Information from course syllabi will be discussed when it clarifies the content of the artefact. In the Humanities, language is used to create things. Particularly, in this translation class, translation allows for the creation of different versions of the original, thus, paving the way for interpretation and imagination. Students should, hence, bear in mind that it is ‘meaningless’ to seek an ‘equivalence’ between the original and its translation (P1.Art1). Also, in this class, language is used for interactions. While discussing their translations, students must actively participate, ‘posing solutions to problems and having a positive attitude’. When appropriate, they must also offer ‘detailed, constructive feedback to peers’ (P1. Art2). None of the artefacts specifies which language students are expected to use, but they are written using a combination of English and Portuguese. In Accounting, language is used to take part in discussions in which students analyse cases and ethical dilemmas as well as provide solutions to potential

38

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

problems that may arise in their profession (P2.Art1). As per the syllabus, in this class, ‘discussion is an essential element of learning’ since most students ‘will become financial managers in corporations’ and, for this reason, ‘thoughtful listening, questioning and discussion skills are crucial’. The syllabus is written in English, thus, suggesting that English is the working language for the class. In the self-assessment form (P2.Art2), students must reflect on the quality of their contributions; this indicates that they must take responsibility for their learning and pay attention to their communication skills. In History, language is used to understand and analyse facts and situations; in this class, students are exposed to various sources (e.g., essays, documentaries, etc.), so they must interpret, summarize and synthesize information. As stated in the syllabus, the working language for the course is English, and, as such, all materials are available in this language. Students’ oral and written production is expected to be entirely in English, too. Activities include writing comparisons about the life of students in certain historical periods with their lives at present (P3.Art1) and participating in debates about historical events in which they must take a position and support it with evidence (P3.Art2). No reference to the quality of the language that students must produce is made. In Law, language must be skilfully used to conduct research as students must analyse various sources in order to respond to legal issues thoroughly (P4.Art2). Hence, language is not only used to demonstrate knowledge and understanding but also analysis, interpretation and argumentation skills (P4.Art1). Both artefacts suggest that students must produce significant amounts of written work in English (e.g., 1,000 words) in which clarity and coherence are important. While ‘no points will be deducted for bad or incorrect English . . . the format, presentation, grammar, and style . . . need to be adequate, clear and to the point, without unnecessary errors’ (P4.Art1). There is no evidence of spoken interactions in this class, but students can take exams in pairs (P4.Art2). In Business Management, language is used for case study analysis, oral presentations and written assignments. This suggests that, particularly for this class, communication skills in English are of prime importance. Students are prompted to analyse cases from the world of business and demonstrate problemsolving skills (P5.Art1). Interestingly, case study analysis is also framed as a reading comprehension activity, thus eliciting students’ abilities to explain the meaning of phrases in English and provide synonyms. Correct language use seems to have a major role in the evaluation system of this business class. In essays, for example, students are expected to use ‘correct grammar, spelling, punctuation and sentence structure’ (P5.Art2).

Multilingual Practices and Disciplinary-Based Functions of Language

39

In Engineering, language is used to understand key concepts, and then, apply them to executive presentations and written assignments. While presenting the key concepts in class, the use of diagrams (e.g., flow charts) and text features (e.g., bolded and italicized words) seem to aim at supporting student comprehension of the course content (P6.Art2). Interestingly, while the working language of the course is English, the syllabus is written in Spanish. No reference to the quality of language used in oral presentations is made in the syllabus, but the oral presentation rubric says that students must show ‘very good presentation skills’ and ‘correct handling of questions from the panel’ (P6.Art2).

Multilingual practices in the EMI classroom (RQ2) After analysing the interviews, various forms of multilingual practices used in the EMI classroom were identified. These practices were often found to depend on the discipline to which the course belonged as well as on the need to use course materials in languages other than English and compensation strategies when English represented a communication barrier for students and instructors. Once again, the field of study frequently seems to determine the participants’ views on the use of English as well as other languages in the classroom. P1.U1, who belongs in the field of humanities, stated: ‘the hard sciences . . . buy into it much more than the humanities . . . I do see a very big challenge in expressing philosophical thoughts in a second language.’ The participant, who teaches a translation class to students majoring in different languages, added that, as long as the use of various languages enriches the lesson, the students are free to use them in the classroom: ‘they will be doing it [the discussion] in Portuguese, and bring elements from the languages . . . in a translation class, this is very rich because it helps to move away from literal translation’. On the other hand, the views of P2.U1, who belongs to the field of accounting, are totally different: ‘Considering that accounting is the language of business . . . English is the language that they [the students] have to know. . . . If the students don’t have English, they can’t take the course . . . we say: “You know the whole course is gonna be taught in English.” ’ The participant added that this is an elective, so the students are not obligated to take it. In addition, the participant explained that this English-medium course is the product of a partnership with a university in the United States; hence, they have to follow a protocol which does not seem to offer much flexibility in terms of using languages other than English in the classroom.

40

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Another factor that allows for multilingual practices in the EMI classroom is the availability of bibliographic materials; depending on the topic, it might be easier or more appropriate to make room for texts or materials written in languages other than English. Regarding this, P4.U1 claimed: ‘When we teach Colombian history, there are certain topics for which it is difficult to find literature in English, so we must use literature that is not in English.’ Along these lines, P6.U3 argued that, in order to maintain the authenticity of materials, it is best to use them in the language in which they were originally produced: ‘Recently, I gave them [the students] a case study in Spanish, and I asked them to read it in Spanish. I just didn’t want to change any words or distort the message.’ The participant clarified that all students had Spanish as their L1, and that the discussion of the case study happened in English. Languages other than English (often the students’ L1) are also invited to the EMI classroom whenever they can be used as part of a compendium of compensation strategies that aim to scaffold the students’ learning. According to P6.U3, students turn to Spanish when they need to check their comprehension or work in small groups: ‘Several students often ask questions in Spanish when they feel like it’s important to understand something about the class. Perhaps, when they are working in groups, they have the urge to use Spanish, too.’ Similarly, P3.U2 claimed: ‘I give them lots of exercises to do in groups . . . they speak Spanish, which is fine, I don’t care . . . and that’s the way people participate more actively in class.’ In this case, the students’ use of their L1 (Spanish) seems to represent a way to lower their affective filter and enhance their motivation and engagement in class. The use of the L1 as a compensation strategy is also used by some of the participants while teaching their lessons. P5.U3, for instance, claimed that doing mathematical operations in English represents a big challenge, so turning to Spanish during the presentation of some complex topics is of significant help: ‘If we are going to talk about budgeting or finances, I find it hard to talk about quantities, thousands, and things like that. It’s hard . . . So, when the topic is really tough, I use Spanish.’ P5.U3 might also be trying to safeguard student learning engagement and avoid confusion among them. Some participants associate the idea of having international students in the classroom with a monolithic view of EMI. P1.U1, who is in favour of letting the students speak ‘in their language of choice’, also claimed: ‘because I have some foreign students, Chinese for example, there are groups that are forced to speak in English’. P1.U1 refers to small group discussions in which students who share the same L1 opt to use it to better express and elaborate on their ideas, something that P3.U2 and P6.U3 also reported. Additionally, P6.U3 stated that instructors

Multilingual Practices and Disciplinary-Based Functions of Language

41

who have international students in the classroom are ‘forced to use English only so that the foreign students will not feel excluded’. The fact that both participants used the word ‘forced’ is, indeed, interesting and worth analysing in more detail.

Discussion While EMI in multilingual universities is said to be at a stage of infancy (Galloway & Rose, 2021), efforts to document the functions of language in EMI classrooms have been made during the past years. Scholars have reported on how student participation in EMI has an effect on their language skills, specifically in their writing and grammar skills (Ament & Pérez-Vidal, 2015), oral production (Wubalem, 2022) and vocabulary acquisition (Reynolds et al., 2022). Other studies have established a connection between language-related issues, including linguistic gains, and the students’ academic disciplines (Soruç et al., 2021; Zhang & Pladevall-Ballester, 2021) as well as comparisons about teachers’ attitudes and beliefs depending on their disciplines or areas of expertise (Roothooft, 2022; Zuaro, 2022). At present, however, there is a dearth of research on the concrete ways in which language is used for teaching and learning purposes across the various disciplinary cultures and literacies naturally present in EMI university settings. In a study conducted at a Swedish university, Kuteeva and Airey (2014) found that language, and more specifically English as an additional language in higher education contexts, ‘is used in different ways and for different purposes depending on the nature and knowledge-making practices of the academic discipline’. Hence, acknowledging discipline-based differences in EMI multilingual university settings worldwide is becoming of high relevance. The present study confirmed Kuteeva and Airey’s research findings in Europe as it showed that the functions that language fulfils in EMI classrooms are related to the course discipline in Latin American higher education institutions as well. In the humanities (e.g., translation studies) and the social sciences (e.g., history and law) language is used to analyse and interpret sources, thus eliciting the students’ critical thinking and argumentation skills. Conversely, language in business studies (e.g., accounting and business management) and STEM (e.g., engineering) is used for problem-solving and communicating results, which requires a high command of spoken and written language not only regarding lexico-grammatical competencies but also in terms of style, tone and level of discourse.

42

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Concomitantly, this study revealed that multilingual classroom practices, which mostly entail the use of the students’ and teachers’ L1, are also a reality in EMI Latin American contexts. According to Lasagabaster (2022), ‘stating that a course is EMI does not necessarily mean that English is spoken all the time . . . there is wide evidence that lecturers and students code switch and translanguage both inside and outside the classroom’ (p. 32). Half of the participants in this research reported that their students use their L1 (Spanish or Portuguese) during small group discussions or when they need clarification or further information about class content that they deem important. These findings align with Dalziel and Guarda’s study (2021) in which students from various nationalities drew on their linguistic repertoires and used flexible forms of communication, or translanguaged, when working in small groups or when assistance was needed. One of the participants also claimed to use his L1 (Spanish) during teaching, especially as a way to compensate for a lack of skills in doing mathematical operations in English. Sahan and Rose (2021) stated that, since students and teachers are not English-only monolinguals, EMI classrooms are, by nature, bi/ multilingual spaces, so the compensation strategy used by the participant appears to be nothing out of the ordinary. The benefits of the L1 in EMI settings have been documented by various authors. Muguruza et al. (2020), for example, argued that the adoption of a flexible language approach in EMI resulted in students feeling more comfortable in class and increasing their possibilities of successful content learning. It is important to clarify that the use of the L1 in EMI higher education settings has not always been reported as a positive practice in research studies; Kuteeva (2020) found that using the L1 in multilingual classrooms may yield to exclusion and inequality when there are international students who do not speak the local language. This is something that some of the participants of this study seem to be aware of; as these individuals stated in the interviews, they or their students are often ‘forced’ to use an English-only approach when there is the presence of international students in the classroom. Last, at least two participants also acknowledged the importance of using non-English materials in their courses, especially if they are connected to the local context or are primary sources. They also reported using materials in the local language as a way to preserve the original message; in these cases, all students shared the same L1, so translating the materials to English was seen as nonsense. While one of the motivations to adopt EMI is precisely a desire to expose students to the knowledge produced in the so-called language of science

Multilingual Practices and Disciplinary-Based Functions of Language

43

and technology (Dearden & Macaro, 2016), little has been said about the importance and benefits of using L1 materials in EMI contexts. Siu and Lin (2022) recommended the use of a multimodality approach in which various types of printed and multimedia resources promote students’ agency and creativity while they explore content in their L1 and engage in bilingual production at the spoken and written level. To some extent, the results of the present study confirm Siu and Lin’s findings as well.

Conclusions and pedagogical implications This multi-site research study conducted in three Latin American universities aimed to gain an understanding of how multilingual practices are incorporated into EMI classrooms in order to support teaching and learning. In addition, it focused on delving into the various functions that language fulfils across disciplines in EMI settings. As in other world regions, the study led to the conclusion that an English-only approach in the EMI classroom is utopian in the Latin American context. In addition, the study confirmed the idea that disciplinary cultures and literacies play a crucial role in English-mediated instruction, so they determine the type of language that is produced by students. These findings have important pedagogical implications for Latin America, a region where EMI is on the rise, but where research studies that depict the development of the phenomenon in its higher education systems are still scarce. First, universities that adopt EMI should embrace a multilingual approach rather than an English-only policy in their English-medium programmes and courses. In this way, not only professors and students would feel at ease from the beginning, but language diversity would be valued and the hegemony of English as ‘the’ language of globalization and international higher education would be abandoned. After all, numerous studies have confirmed that translanguaging is a powerful pedagogical practice in English-medium settings. Second, the importance of discipline-specific cultures and literacies should be acknowledged in both existing and future EMI programmes; hence, professors from different fields of study would not feel obligated to incorporate certain academic genres into their course programmes. Likewise, by considering disciplinary heterogeneity, universities could aim for the provision of discipline-specific language support for students from various fields of study who take part in EMI initiatives.

44

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Notes 1 Some of the interview excerpts reported in this chapter were taken from the researcher’s doctoral thesis.

References Ament, J. R., & Pérez-Vidal, C. (2015). Linguistic Outcomes of English Medium Instruction Programmes in Higher Education: A study on Economics Undergraduates at a Catalan University. Higher Learning Research Communications, 5(1). www.HLRCJournal.com Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to Research in Education (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage. Beelen, J., & Jones, E. (2015). Redefining Internationalization at Home. In A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi & P. Scott (eds), The European Higher Education Area (pp. 59–72). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/9783-319-20877-0_5 Bradford, A., & Brown, H. (2017). ROAD-MAPPING English-medium instruction in Japan. In A. Bradford & H. Brown (eds), English-Medium Instruction in Japanese Higher Education: Policy, Challenges and Outcomes (pp. 3–13). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783098958-004 Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2018). Doing interviews. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529716665 Cho, J., & Lee, E.-H. (2014). Reducing confusion about grounded theory and qualitative content analysis: Similarities and differences. The Qualitative Report, 19(32), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2014.1028 Dafouz, E., & Smit, U. (2016). Towards a dynamic conceptual framework for Englishmedium education in multilingual university settings. Applied Linguistics, 37(3), 397–415. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu034 Dafouz, E., & Smit, U. (2020). ROAD-MAPPING English Medium Education in the Internationalised University. Cham: Palgrave MacMillan. Dafouz, E., Hüttner, J., & Smit, U. (2016). University teachers’ beliefs of language and content integration in English-medium education in multilingual university settings. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore & U. Smit (eds), Conceptualising Integration in CLIL and Multilingual Education (pp. 123–143). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783096145-009 Dalziel, F., & Guarda, M. (2021). Student translanguaging practices in the EMI classroom: A study of Italian higher education. In B. Paulsrud, Z. Tian & J. Toth (eds), English-medium Instruction and Translanguaging (pp. 124–140). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Multilingual Practices and Disciplinary-Based Functions of Language

45

Dearden, J., & Macaro, E. (2016). Higher education teachers’ attitudes towards English medium instruction: A three-country comparison. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(3), 455–486. https://doi.org/10.14746/sllt.2016.6.3.5 Escalona Sibaja, M. (2020). Professional Development for EMI Faculty in Mexico. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429329418 Escobar Urmeneta, C. (2020). From EMI to ICLHE. In Teacher Training for EnglishMedium Instruction in Higher Education (pp. 179–204). Sánchez Pérez, María del Mar. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-2318-6.ch009 Galloway, N., & Rose, H. (2021). English medium instruction and the English language practitioner. ELT Journal, 75(1), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccaa063 Kuteeva, M. (2020). Revisiting the ‘E’ in EMI: students’ perceptions of standard English, lingua franca and translingual practices. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(3), 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2019.1637395 Kuteeva, M., & Airey, J. (2014). Disciplinary differences in the use of English in higher education: reflections on recent language policy developments. Higher Education, 67(5), 533–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9660-6 Lasagabaster, D. (2022). English-medium Instruction in Higher Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Macaro, E. (2018). English Medium Instruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Martinez, R. (2016). English as a medium of instruction (EMI) in Brazilian higher education: Challenges and opportunities. In K. Finardi (ed.), English in Brazil: Views, Policies and Programs (pp. 191–228). Londrina: SciELO-EDUEL. Martinez, R., & Palma, A. C. (2022). Brazil trying English-medium instruction on for size: Emerging trends and policy. In J. McKinley & N. Galloway (eds), EnglishMedium Instruction Practices in Higher Education (pp. 25–34). London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350167889.ch-002 Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative Content Analysis. Theoretical Foundation, Basic Procedures and Software Solution. GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Miranda, N., & Molina-Naar, M. (2022). Profiling English-medium instruction in Colombian universities: Policies and practices. In J. McKinley & N. Galloway (eds), English-Medium Instruction Practices in Higher Education International Perspectives. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350167889.ch-009 Molina-Naar, M. (2022). Roles of English in English-medium instruction (EMI) university settings in Latin America: A transnational multiple-case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Muguruza, B., Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2020). Implementing translanguaging pedagogies in an English medium instruction course. International Journal of Multilingualism, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2020.1822848 Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

46

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Regmi, K., Naidoo, J., & Pilkington, P. (2010). Understanding the processes of translation and transliteration in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 9(1), 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691000900103 Reynolds, B. L., Xie, X. (Serina), & Pham, Q. H. P. (2022). Incidental vocabulary acquisition from listening to English teacher education lectures: A case study from Macau higher education. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.993445 Roothooft, H. (2022). Spanish lecturers’ beliefs about English medium instruction: STEM versus Humanities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25(2), 627–640. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2019.1707768 Rose, H., & McKinley, J. (2018). Japan’s English-medium instruction initiatives and the globalization of higher education. Higher Education, 75(1), 111–129. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10734-017-0125-1 Sahan, K., & Rose, H. (2021). Problematising the E in EMI: Translanguaging as a pedagogic alternative to English-only hegemony in university contexts. In B. Paulsrud, Z. Tian & J. Toth (eds), English-medium Instruction and Translanguaging (pp. 1–14). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Schreier, M. (2014). Qualitative content analysis. In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis (pp. 170–183). London: SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi. org/10.4135/9781446282243.n12 Selvi, A. F. (2020). Qualitative content analysis. In The Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in Applied Linguistics (pp. 440–452). London: Routledge. Siu, P., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2022). Translanguaging and trans-semiotizing in Englishmedium instruction tertiary classrooms in Hong Kong: Creativity and transemiotic agency. In J. McKinley & N. Galloway (eds), English-medium Instruction Practices in Higher Education: International Perspectives (pp. 199–211). London: Bloomsbury. Smit, U. (2018). Beyond monolingualism in higher education: A language policy account. In J. Jenkins, W. Baker & M. Dewey (eds), The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca (1st ed., pp. 387–399). London: Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9781315717173 Soruç, A., Altay, M., Curle, S., & Yuksel, D. (2021). Students’ academic language-related challenges in English medium instruction: The role of English proficiency and language gain. System, 103, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102651 Tejada-Sanchez, I., & Molina-Naar, M. (2020). English Medium Instruction and the Internationalization of Higher Education in Latin America: A Case Study from a Colombian University. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 13(2), 339–367. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2020.13.2.8 Uchihara, T., & Harada, T. (2018). Roles of vocabulary knowledge for success in English-medium instruction: Self-perceptions and academic outcomes of Japanese undergraduates. TESOL Quarterly, 52(3), 564–587. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.453 Wubalem, A. Y. (2022). Enhancing oral academic English as a medium of instruction (EMI) through self-regulated listening to authentic educational podcast. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 24(2), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.14483/22487085.17789

Multilingual Practices and Disciplinary-Based Functions of Language

47

Yin, R. K. (2016). Qualitative Research from Start to Finish (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcsr.12144 Yuksel, D., Altay, M., & Curle, S. (2022). EMI programmes in Turkey: Evidence of exponential growth. In S. Curle, I. H. Holi, A. Alhassan & S. S. Scatolini (eds), English-Medium Instruction in Higher Education in the Middle East and North Africa. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Zhang, M., & Pladevall-Ballester, E. (2021). Discipline-specific language learning outcomes in EMI programs in the People’s Republic of China. Language and Education, 35(4), 357–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2021.1895827 Zuaro, B. (2022). English-medium Instruction through the lens of discipline and culture. Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies, 16(1), 113–131. https://doi. org/10.47862/apples.110215

48

Part Two

Classroom-based Translingual and Multi-cultural Practices

49

50

4

Fostering Translanguaging Pedagogy Environment in Indonesian Higher Education EMI Settings: A Critical Discourse Analysis Nizamuddin Sadiq and Nurmala Elmin Simbolon

Introduction The global adoption of English-medium instruction (EMI) in all levels of education has been well documented (Rafi & Morgan, 2022; Wang & CurdtChristiansen, 2019; Zhang & Chan, 2021). Most of this adoption is intended as one of the strategies to promote a milestone of pursuing world-class universities or marketing through internalization programmes, particularly in countries where English is not their first language. The development of EMI is led by Europe (Maiworm & Wachter, 2002) and Asia-Pacific regions (see Fenton-Smith et al., 2017). In Europe, the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, France and Denmark are examples of countries where EMI has been established massively. In the Middle East, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are very ambitious in offering EMI. Meanwhile, the representation of Asia, such as the Peoples’ Republic of China, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea are front liners in offering English-medium content instruction classes (Macaro et al., 2018). Considering the rapid development of this programme, Indonesia, through the Ministry of Education and Culture, Research and Technology (MoECRT), commenced providing teaching content through English as a national programme in 2016. Although this programme, called International Undergraduate Program (IUP), is required for state universities that have been approved for status as a university with legal entities, private universities could also establish it. Since the initiative by the MoECRT, the number of Indonesian higher education institutions (HEIs) that offer EMI programmes has increased significantly (Lamb et al., 2021). A Decree, No. 3 in the Year of 2021 issued recently by MoECRT, Research and

51

52

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Technology (Kepmendikbud Nomor 3/M/2021), has increased the number of EMI programmes, especially by mentioning collaboration of institutions and lecturers and their overseas partners, where universities in QS 100 World rankings are specified. It Is known that these particular categories of universities are in English-speaking countries. Such collaboration could be in the form of staff and student exchange and research and curricula collaboration. To date, the practices of international programmes are somewhat diverse (Lamb et al., 2021; Rafi & Morgan, 2022). Sadiq (2021) reported that language education policy at the meso-level is still heavily influenced by English-only as the policy. This policy is responded to differently from one teacher to another when they teach in their classrooms. Sadiq further points out that different teachers’ responses to this policy make English and other languages practised diversely. One salient issue these teachers raise is whether they need to speak English-only or use other linguistic resources as a language of instruction in the EMI classrooms. In other words, one of the classroom practices that is getting more attention among practitioners and researchers in this area is translanguaging, which is the focus of this reported study. A plethora of studies showcases empirical evidence in research of translanguaging in higher education contexts. Rafi and Morgan’s (2022) study, for example, examines the macro, meso and micro levels of policy decisions and implementation of EMI at institutions and in classroom practice in four universities in Bangladesh. Their study employed classroom observation towards translanguaging pedagogical interventions in language learning and content learning classrooms. They also conducted semi-structured interviews with the teachers and focus group discussions (FGD) with students. They found no consensus between macro-level language policy and actual practice at the meso and micro levels within universities. An explicit method of instruction (MOI) policy for Bangladeshi higher education is not available – a shared assumption of the use of English. At the institutional level there is no specific guide to arrange the implementation of EMI. Teachers’ practices vary from no practice of translanguaging into using switching between languages based on cultural and linguistic aspects. Some lecturers claim to focus on supporting students’ content learning. In addition, Mazak and Herbas-Donoso’s (2014) study focuses on investigating the use of Spanish and English in college science classrooms at a land-grant university in Puerto Rico. To collect data, they observed fifteen classrooms and interviewed fifteen professors. Using an ecology of languages framework, and particularly drawing on Hornberger’s (2003) Continua of Biliteracy for the study of learning in bilingual contexts, the results showed that professors used multiple

Fostering Translanguaging Pedagogy Environment

53

classroom translanguaging practices to teach Science. In the meantime, the professors held firmly to the ideology of English as the language of Science and believed it was important for all science students to use English. They conclude that professors’ practices and ideologies rested on opposing ends of the context continua of biliteracy. Similarly, Zhang and Chan (2021) explore the translanguaging practices of two EFL teachers in a Xinjiang university, where English and Mandarin Chinese are predominant. However, Uyghur is minoritized as a medium of instruction context. They analyse teacher talk by observing two EFL lecturers using the interactional Sociolinguistics approach. They assert that translanguaging occurs when the two Uyghur teachers translanguage across the three languages (i.e., English, Mandarin Chinese and Uyghur), teach English words, which are similar to their mother tongue (i.e. Uyghur), and explain the usage of antonyms. This practice is also used in teaching grammar – the teacher’s pedagogical translanguaging, which is intended to support student learning. This strategy is not used when teaching listening or reading. Using the mother tongue is helpful, and the discouragement of using the mother tongue (in the Uyghur context) implies several concerns in the umbrella sociopolitical aspects. In the context of Indonesia higher education (HE), studies regarding EMI have been well-documented. Dewi (2017) explores teachers’ perceptions regarding adopting EMI in Indonesian HE. Employing questionnaires and interviews, she recruited 36 university teachers as participants, including 16 English teachers and 20 teachers of other subjects. The findings of this study are the position of EMI in Indonesian tertiary curricula, English and national identity, and English and the West. Although implementing EMI in Indonesia is a challenging task on political and ideological grounds, the finding shows that participants view the presence of English in tertiary education positively by using English in EMI classrooms. English is supported to be taught in higher education curricula because it is needed to interact in the international academic sphere and compete in the job market. Therefore, they make use of English only as a medium of instruction. In addition, Lee, Lee, and Drajati (2019) explored pre-service English teachers’ perceptions of English as an international language (EIL). In addition, Pritasari, Reinaldo and Watson’s (2018) study looks more at students’ English proficiency in one prominent business school in Indonesia. However, none of the studies cited above focus on how EMI teachers in Indonesian higher education use multilingual practices. This reported study aims to investigate multilingual practices in the sense of translanguaging practised by Indonesian higher education EMI teachers. This study’s findings

54

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

may contribute to enacting language education policy in a country where English is not the native language. Therefore, the present study addresses the following questions: 1. How multilingual is the EMI environment in Indonesian higher education? 2. How can translanguaging pedagogy be fostered in EMI settings?

Literature review Defining translanguaging The notion of translanguaging: has been defined as the intended and systematic use of two languages in the same classroom (Lewis et al., 2012). The term translanguaging was globally popularized through Baker’s book Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (2011) and García’s (2009) book Bilingual Education in the Twenty-First Century. Since then, scholars from diverse fields have adopted translanguaging to promote multilingual practices and explore the purposes of these practices in education (Otheguy et al., 2015). Baker (as cited in Lewis et al., 2012, p. 655) considered translanguaging as an approach of ‘making meaning, shaping experiences, gaining understanding and knowledge through the use of two languages’. García (2009) further conceptualized translanguaging as a dynamic approach to multilingualism that ‘allows the simultaneous coexistence of different languages in communication’ and ‘supports the development of multiple linguistic identities’ (p. 119). Specifically, García and Wei (2014) defined translanguaging as an approach to language use from which bilingual language activities are not considered as two independent language systems but as a single linguistic repertoire with social features. As the definition of translanguaging evolves, translanguaging as an approach to multilingual practices is employed to investigate these practices in the classroom or employed as a pedagogical practice and therefore the notion of translanguaging is considered as translanguaging pedagogy (Lewis et al., 2012). For this purpose, Schissel, De Korne and López-Gopar (2021, p. 341) propose two essential key aspects to emphasize when integrating translanguaging within language teacher education. The first aspect is translanguaging as a sociolinguistic phenomenon in multilingual communities. The second is translanguaging as pedagogical practices, i.e. the process teachers and students use to make meaning in the

Fostering Translanguaging Pedagogy Environment

55

classroom and negotiate different language practices, such as those that students bring with them and those desired in formal school settings.

Translanguaging as a means of multilingual speakers’ communication tools As EMI is often characterized as a phenomenon focused on heteroglossic environments (Pecorari and Malmström, 2018), the term translanguaging embodies the globally growing EMI-education reality (see Coleman et al., 2018). In multilingual settings, translanguaging is a purposeful means of communication in receptive and productive and spoken and written language uses (Baker 2011). Particularly, Creese and Blackledge (2010, p. 112) propose the characteristics of translanguaging among classroom participants for their communication tools, including: (1) searching, duplicating and using language for translation; (2) reaching audiences through translanguaging; (3) creating opposing and institutional values identity positions; (4) recognizing that languages do not fit into simple bounded categories; (5) developing simultaneous literacies and languages to keep the pedagogical mission moving; (6) recognizing using languages skilfully for specific functional goals like narration and explanation; (7) annotating texts, improving access to content, and achieving lessons. Schissel et al. (2021) point out that when people communicate daily, they use translanguaging spontaneously and plan, consciously and unconsciously. This translanguaging is usually across modalities, which accommodate the dynamic linguistic repertoires of each global-local context. Schissel et al. (2021) further explicate this dynamic code-switching by giving an example: an adolescent in Oaxaca communicates with their grandparents by speaking an Indigenous language, reading English advertisements in the city, hearing formal Spanish in school and writing texts to their peers that may include all three languages as well as textspeak (e.g. thx u r gr8) and images. This practice is a salient example of how translanguaging is a communication tool for multilingual speakers. Bearing this idea in mind, multilingual speakers need to develop a translingual repertoire to be competent communicators in their multilingual speech community. The use of translanguaging in this sense is seen as an asset that, along with the linguistic heterogeneity, which is often perceived and defined as autonomous language varieties (Canagarajah, 2013), could be forming the linguistic repertoire of their community settings. Therefore, translanguaging enables multilingual speakers to create meaningful communication using their multilingual settings’ repertoire.

56

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Translanguaging as a means of scaffolding for understanding Some studies focus on investigating another role of translanguaging practice, which is a scaffolding tool for student learning. The studies vary in using translanguaging practice in particular sections and emphasize the focus on supporting students’ understanding of the content. Lasagabaster and García (2014) presented the importance of translanguaging in supporting students’ learning of academic content. They showcased teacher–student talk in a social studies class in a high school in a suburban area in New York City. By allowing students to read a text about the earthquake and the teacher providing the meaning in students’ L1 Spanish, the teacher intended to scaffold students’ learning. The teacher focused on promoting bilingual practice by addressing students’ learning needs (academic skills). A study by Zhang and Chan (2021) presented a different angle of support given to the students. Their study investigated the translanguaging practice of two EFL Uyghur teachers in classes where all students are Minkaomin Uyghur, with limited Mandarin and English. The study used classroom observation and interviews to collect data and found that the teachers used three languages (English, Mandarin and Uyghur) in teaching vocabulary and grammar. The study showed that a planned strategy of using languages could support students’ language learning, especially in English vocabulary and grammar. The study also suggested considering a broader sociopolitical context where policy needs to be reviewed. Their study highlights the teachers’ challenges in complying with the regulation of restricted use of students’ mother tongue (Uyghur) as a medium of instruction. While the study by Zhang and Chan (2021) focused on the language components, Mbirimi-Hungwe’s (2016) study took on students’ language skills (reading). Mbirimi-Hungwe specifically examined teachers’ strategies in translanguaging practice through group work in a reading class at a university in South Africa. Two groups of students had reading activities: an intervention and a control group. Both were asked to read an English text individually and discuss it in their group. While in the first group, no specific mention of instruction was given to students to use their languages in their discussion, in the second group this instruction was provided. The results showed that translanguaging and collaboration matched usefully in supporting students’ learning, particularly when encountering unfamiliar concepts. In the intervention group, students had limited interaction and used dictionaries. On the other hand, the students in the control group had some chances to negotiate to use their existing knowledge (Grabe & Stoller, 2011).

Fostering Translanguaging Pedagogy Environment

57

Translanguaging as a form of English language enrichment Studies by Mazak and Herbas-Donoso (2014) and Wang and Curdt-Christiansen (2019) focused on lecturers’ use of translanguaging to enrich students’ English language learning. Mazak and Herbas-Donoso conducted a study in a university in Puerto Rico. Fifteen classroom observations and interviews with the lecturers were done to examine the use of the Spanish and English languages. The study used the framework of Hornberger’s (2003) Continua of Biliteracy, where there are two continua of bilingual practice – from traditionally less powerful to traditionally more powerful. The research found several key findings of lecturers’ translanguaging practice. First, key terminology was given in English and an explanation was provided in Spanish. Second, a lecture was presented in English and PowerPoint slides were in English and Spanish. Lastly, textbooks were preferred to be in English and Spanish when discussing the text. This finding showed that, using students’ first language, the translanguaging practice was used to enrich their English learning. A study by Wang and Curdt-Christiansen (2019) supported the translanguaging practice in a way that students changed the meaning-making process. Examining the practices of bilingual education in an undergraduate Business Management Programme at one university in China, Wang and Curdt-Christiansen reported that students who were immersed in an English environment could improve their learning of English as a foreign language. They assert that their study contributes to the scholarship of translanguaging in which this practice could be helpful for English enrichment. In addition, Wang and Curd-Christiansen were convinced that translanguaging as pedagogy evolves their attention to content learning or meaning construction rather than focusing on correctness or standardness in language use.

Analysing data of the teacher talk through critical discourse analysis Data in the form of the teachers’ talks while teaching that has been transcribed are analysed using notions of power in discourse of Mullet’s (2018) framework for critical discourse analysis (CDA) in educational settings and various classroom discourse analysis tools (Cazden, 2001; Rymes, 2015). Grounded in the qualitative analytic approach, CDA, as framed by Fairclough (2013), could be widely employed for diverse research fields and for investigating power shapes; meanwhile, Kress (1997) emphasizes that CDA is shaped by language, along with multimodality in communication. With this in mind, Fairclough

58

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

(2013) considers language and other communication forms as a social practice; therefore, communication cannot be divorced from political, social and cultural aspects (Mullet, 2018). Considering this matter, Mullet claims that CDA can also be used across educational discourses to uncover classroom inequalities and power structures. In analysing teacher talk through critical discourse analysis, Fairclough’s (2013) power in and power behind discourses are fundamental frameworks and tools for analysis of classroom interactions and relations. The manifestation of power in conversations is between people of various groups and positionalities and the mass media; meanwhile, the power behind discourse emphasizes the role of power relation in shaping and constituting discourse orders as dimensions of the social orders of social institutions such as education. English hegemony in schools as the legitimized standard language is a salient example of the power behind discourse. Therefore, it is viable that power in and power behind discourse emerge in an English-medium (EMI) classroom where multilingual learners attend this class. The practices of translanguaging are still considered as challenging of a monolingual bias in schools, societies and countries where standard-English norms are the ultimate language education policy. In this study, the power behind discourse is seen from ideological and institutional structures and tensions. In addition, power in discourse can be reflected in the content of discourse (or what participants say or do), the relations or the social relationships of the participants (such as professional, familial or subordinate) and the subject positions of participants (i.e., student/teacher, parent/child) (Fairclough, 2013). Wei, Murphy and Firetto (2018) point out that the power relations in the EMI setting, particularly in the relationship between teacher and student(s), can reinforce the features of translanguaging discourse, including latching (immediate utterance following someone else’s utterance), teacher talk time, forms of questioning, and direct translations. Completing Fairclough’s (2013) notions of power, the CDA employed in this study adopts Mullet’s (2018) sevenstage methodological approach to analyse power dynamics in educational settings: (1) selecting discourse, (2) preparing data sources, (3) gathering information about the background of the texts, (4) coding for themes located through systematic analysis of the texts, (5) analysing of internal relations between the aims, representation of social context, and speaker positionality, (6) identifying of linguistic features and text structures that represent power and social relations, and (7) interpreting the data.

Fostering Translanguaging Pedagogy Environment

59

Method Context The study involved three nationally accredited Indonesian universities: one state university in Semarang and two private universities in Yogyakarta. The main reason for involving these universities is practical, as these universities have already established the International Undergraduate Programme (IUP). Although they are international programmes (IP), they share the same curriculum as the regular class, which practices the Indonesian language as the medium of instruction. The salient difference is that the IUP employs EMI. Another reason is that IUP may provide international mobility or international academic exposure with many programmes, including a credit transfer, a double degree, a student exchange and a short-term academic programme. University 3 create a bridging programme with English academic support for students. The name of the programme and year of establishment is displayed in Table 4.1.

Participants Indonesian EMI teachers from three universities were recruited for this study. The recruitment process began by sending an electronic mail to each Head of Department requesting permission to contact teachers. Upon their approval, I (the first author) contacted the teachers personally by email along with a participant information sheet and an informed consent form. Out of 200 teachers, twelve agreed to be observed for their teachings and to participate in follow-up interviews. Table 4.2 shows detailed demographic information of the participants. Table 4.1 Programme offered and year of establishment Name of university

International programme

University 1

GOV (Government Affairs) IPIEF (Islamic and Economic Finance) IMaBs (Management and Business) IP Economics IP Law IP International Relations IP Communication Studies Accountings

University 2

University 3

Established 2004 2009 2016 1996 2001 2018 2018 2018

60

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Table 4.2 Teachers’ demographic information Participant

Description

1

● ● ●

2

● ● ●

3

● ● ●

4

● ● ●

5

● ● ●

6

● ● ●

7

● ● ●

8

● ● ●

9

● ● ●

10

● ● ●

11

● ● ●

12

● ● ●

Holds a PhD degree from an overseas university Speaks English, Bahasa Indonesian, Javanese Teaches 1st year (≤ 30, accounting students) Holds an MA degree from a home university Speaks English, Bahasa Indonesian, Javanese Teaches 1st year (≤ 30, accounting students) Holds a PhD degree from a home university Speaks English, Bahasa Indonesian, Javanese Teaches 2nd year (≤ 10, economic students) Holds an MA degree from an overseas university Speaks English, Bahasa Indonesian, Javanese, Estonian Teaches 1st year (≤ 20, communication science students) Holds an MA from a home university Speaks English, Bahasa Indonesian Teaches 1st year (≤ 20, international relation students) Holds a PhD degree from an overseas university Speaks English, Bahasa Indonesian, Javanese Teaches 2nd year (≤ 20, law students) Holds an M.A degree from a home university Speaks English, Bahasa Indonesian, Javanese, Arabic Teaches 2nd year (≤ 30, law students) Holds a PhD degree from an overseas university Speaks English, Bahasa Indonesian, Javanese Teaches 2nd year (≤ 10, management students) Holds a PhD degree from a home university Speaks English, Bahasa Indonesian, Javanese Teaches 2nd year (≤ 10, management students) Holds an MA degree from an overseas university Speaks English, Bahasa Indonesian, Javanese Teaches 1st year (≤ 30, international relation students) Holds an MA degree from an overseas university Speaks English, Bahasa Indonesian, Javanese, Palembang Teaches 2nd year (≤ 10, economic students) Holds a PhD degree from an overseas university Speaks English, Bahasa Indonesian, Javanese, Thai Teaches 2nd year (≤ 20, economic students)

Fostering Translanguaging Pedagogy Environment

61

Data collection Datasets include twenty-three recordings of 30-to-120-minute classroom observations and corresponding transcriptions. Observation notes record the participants’ routines and behaviours related to the use of English, multilingual practices and situations when they used the languages. Instead of a ‘highly structured observation’, utilizing a detailed checklist or rating scale (Mackey & Gass, 2005, p. 175; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), the observation used a ‘less structured’ approach to serve to document a detailed description of the EMI classrooms.

Data analysis Prior to formal data analysis, recordings of twenty-three sessions of teacher talks were transcribed. After selecting and preparing data and gathering information background, we coded for specific translanguaging teacher discourse features. The coding process is essential to verify initial anecdotal patterns. After that, we analysed internal relations between the aims, representation of social context and speaker positionality, including the verification from observation notes about teacher translanguaging moments. We then identified linguistic features and text structures representing power and social relations. Drawing on Fairclough (2013) and Mullet (2018), we examined a close linguistic analysis of transcriptions to explore features of teacher translanguaging discourse (Boyd & Markarian, 2015; Cazden, 2001; Rymes, 2015). We wrote analytic memos and consulted ethnographic data to build final interpretations during this stage.

Findings Language used by teachers To measure the average percentage of languages used, we used the quantification method proposed by Duff and Polio (1990) by examining teachers’ talk every fifteen seconds. Data analysis from teachers’ talks while teaching reveals how Indonesian EMI HE teachers use English predominantly from the start to the end of the class. Detailed information on the quantification of languages used is presented in Table 4.3.

62

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Table 4.3 The language used by teachers in teaching two sessions Teacher

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12

English

English mixed with other languages

99.6% 99.7% 99.5% 97.9% 77.3% 90.7% 95% 96.7% 99.5% 79.2% 96.4% 91%

0.4% 0.3% 0.5% 2.8% 22.4% 9% 4.6% 2.7% 0.3% 14.7% 3.3% 9%

Bahasa Arabic mixed Indonesian with English mixed with other languages – – – – – – – – – 5.8% – –

– – – 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.6% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2

Table 4.3 shows that the average percentage of teachers’ use of English is very high. Almost all teachers speak only English which is above 90 per cent. When these data are further elaborated, the percentages can be categorized into three groups. The first group is Teachers who speak English very frequently (almost 100 per cent), T1, T2, T3 and T9 represent this group. Another group of teachers who speak English frequently (90–97 per cent) is represented by T4, T6, T7, T8, T11 and T12. The last group, which T5 and T10 represent, speak English below 80 per cent when they teach. Although the percentage of speaking English only is very high, the first group of teachers mixed English with Bahasa Indonesian, Arabic and local language (T1), Arabic (T2 and T3), and Bahasa Indonesian and Arabic (T9). The second group of teachers mixed English with Bahasa Indonesian and Arabic (T4, T6, T7, T8), plus Malay (T11), and local language and Thai (T12). Interestingly, only T10 speaks Bahasa Indonesian in quite a significant percentage while she teaches. One essential language that teachers frequently use is Arabic. Although only T7 can speak Arabic fluently, nine of twelve teachers use Arabic mixed with English and vice versa for greetings, callings and praying when they open the class and closing, thanking, greetings and praying when they end the class.

Fostering Translanguaging Pedagogy Environment

63

Translanguaging discourse in teaching content: from scaffolding to understanding to language enrichment In teaching content in non-Anglophone countries, including Indonesia, context and contextual meaning are critical in delivering content. In her teachings, the teacher attempts to contextualize terms commonly used in home countries. In her explanation in lines 1 and 4, T12 mentions UMP (upah minimum provinsi [regional minimum wage]), and SUN (surat utang negara [government bonds]) in line 8. What T12 has done by providing two context-specific terms in her teaching allows students to contextualize the discussed topic and the specific terms that economists in their home country usually use. She expresses her talk in the following excerpt. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

T: So that is why, inflation increasing. Why UMP probably increase in the next year? Yes because of the consumption rate is increasing. So, when, we are an economist, Pak Jokowi or the president will announce, our UMP will be higher. You are an economist, you think. OK. There will be two choices, then. Inflation, increasing or tax. Sometimes. Ya, economist. Sometimes, I, too, think. I say okay, government already sell SUN. What is that SUN? (T12–verbatim transcription)

By the same token, T12, T8 also contextualizes his teaching by using typical terms of Indonesian spirit, bakso seller in lines 9, 10 and 11. Bakso is very common in Indonesian cuisine and is one of the favourite foods sellers offer in the form of permanent restaurants or street vendors. Because of this commonality, it is evident that teachers use a typical term that reflects the Indonesian spirit. Excerpt data is presented below. 9. If you are see ya, bakso seller becomes rich, ya. Every time you 10. see bakso seller. He is rich, for example. Then, of course, you 11. want to be a bakso seller, ya? (T18–verbatim transcription)

Likewise, T9 reflects more integrated strategies in providing students with a translanguaging environment. He chooses to use specific local terms such as PLN (lines 12, 13, 14 and 15) (Perusahaan Listrik Negara – State Electricity Company), and Kereta Api (train) (lines 12 and 15) without repeating it with English terms. However, he directly translates to other terms such as athletic well (line 16), which he repeats in the Bahasa Indonesia term Sumur atletis, and barrier to entry (lines 21–22), followed by the Bahasa Indonesia term Pembatas, halangan untuk masuk in line 22. All strategies that T9 does in her teachings

64

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

show that she provides a translanguaging pedagogy environment from which understanding content is geared toward contextualizing terms in English and Bahasa Indonesia. Through contextualizing these terms, the materials the teachers explained can be well understood by students. Detailed accounts are presented below: 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

Ya. In the case of PLN, iya. Firm for profit is Kereta Api [train]. PLN probably ya, for the aaa large scale, ya. There is no competitor except PLN. PLN is the only supplier of the electricity. Kereta Api is yaa. But we can [not clear]. Actually in some places, they call it athletic well, ya. Sumur atletis. In some places, ya. Private. Private individual, actually. Supply athletic well. The well that cheaply, cheaply. That’s why if you have valuable skills, ya, which is hard to imitate, you become a monopolist, too. Because you have that skills, ya. The fundamental cost of monopoly is barrier to entry. Barrier to entry. Pembatas, halangan untuk masuk. Every time there is aa significant barrier to entry, aaa which difficult for new entrance to come in. (T9–verbatim transcription)

Teachers’ use of specific-context terms using L1 can facilitate students’ speedy understanding of the texts following the term. Interestingly, T8 does not provide the English version of bakso (i.e., meatball). The teacher could intentionally use those terms to arouse emotional bonds between him and his students. When the translation is given, the way teachers provide it can vary. For example, T10 provides a translation from English into L1 by elaborating the text’s meaning, such as ‘Would you have this experience? No. It is not pleasure experience, ya? Kan gak enak ya sepuluh lima belas tahun nunggu dieksekusi.’ In this respect, T10 continued his explanation of ‘not pleasure experience’ with additional information referring to an unpleasant experience, ‘not pleased to wait for 10–15 years to be executed’. T5 makes use of her mother tongue to give a deeper understanding of the context, and she speaks both English and Bahasa Indonesian to introduce some key terms such as illegal (line 30), beggar (line 33) and displaced ethnic (lines 38–39). The teacher gives a lecture in L1 to put the ground context of the critical idea that will be introduced. By giving this context in her teachings, T5 promotes the notion of nationality and identity. This suggestion can be elaborated on in her accounts below: 25. They should’ve been. They should’ve been part of Burmese, 26. right? But the Burmese government won’t recognize them as

Fostering Translanguaging Pedagogy Environment 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.

65

part of their nation. Tau enggak kalau enggak diakui. Pemerintah Myanmar bilangnya orang Rohingnya itu adalah imigran yang datang pada tahun 1950an atau sekitar itu secara tidak, secara illegal masuk ke Myanmar. That’s why they don’t call Rohingnya, Rohingnya. Kalau pemerintah Myanmar manggil orang Rohingnya itu beggar. Why? Because they accused them as those illegal immigrant coming from Bangladesh. Bangladesh protes. Itu-itu kan sudah dari dulu sudah disana. Nah, they are not part of us, kata Bangladesh. Tapi, oke kita terima nih ngungsi. Diterima di Bangladesh semuanya. Kurdi juga gitu. We should report about Kurdi. Itu one of most displaced ethnic. (T5–verbatim transcription)

The above accounts also show that the teacher provides some issues surrounding the Rohingya ethnicity. Almost all people in this class know this case. The Rohingya calls for attention from the globe to be aware that the Government of Burma has not accepted the presence of this ethnic group in their country. As T5 teaches students from the Department of International Relations, she gave an example related to international issues at that time. To give a background insight into the Rohingya ethnicity, T5 uses her mother tongue mixed with English. Meanwhile, in many of his talks, T7 does direct translations for the specific meaning he underlies. In his account, such as ‘Natural law theory’ was meant to refer to the universe or earth. The universe ‘Alam semesta’ or ‘The, the, sorry, the absolute jurisdiction of ICC is four. Number one is genocide. Number two is crime against humanity. Number three war crime, or “kejahatan perang”. And then a crime of aggression’, T7 has the same way of creating translanguaging space. In the first accounts, after saying universe, he directly put its translation in his L1, Alam semesta. Likewise, in the second account, the phrase war crime in English is directly followed by kejahatan perang as part of his way of creating translanguaging practices. The same thing is done by T11 to strengthen the discourse he delivers. In line 41, he mentions SK, Surat Keputusan and continues by saying the term in English, The permit. He repeats it again in line 46, where he says monopoli surat keputusan and then does a direct translation for it by saying Monopoly because of SK. Interestingly, in the English version, he makes it by mixing English monopoly because of with one term in Bahasa Indonesian, SK. His complex expressions are presented in the accounts below:

66

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47.

And then the second, government gives a single firm to supply or produce some SK, Surat Keputusan. The permit ya. For example, the government gives only one company. The permit to import, to produce certain goods. For example, aa import of rice, ya. Government gives permit only to one importer. This importer becomes monopoly. We call this in Indonesian, monopoli surat keputusan. Monopoly because of SK (T11–verbatim transcription)

In addition, direct translation methods of giving a translation environment to students are practiced by T3. In lines 49 and 50, T3 speaks an English term, natural monopoly, followed by its translation in Bahasa Indonesian, monopoli alamiah. Interestingly, other expressions are said in Bahasa Indonesian first, kereta api, kereta api (line 51), and the English terms are spoken in the subsequent two sentences by repeating the translation in English, Railway network, railway station (line 52). The excerpts are presented below: 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53.

Monopoly that aa result from the cost and the third, ya, resources are called natural monopoly. Natural monopoly. Monopli alamiah. Because the cost of production is huge. Aaa the same as true of aaa kereta api, kereta api. The real network is very costly. Railway network, railway station. (T3–verbatim transcription).

Furthermore, as a discursive practice, translanguaging is not switching from one to another code because the students are insufficient to speak English. T6 has practiced translanguaging when he gives instructions, like advice to give students an opportunity to access broader learning resources they need. On one occasion, talking about the latest verdict of the European Court of Human Rights about the humiliation of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) (lines 61–66), T6 advises the students to browse the materials. Detailed information about what students need to know is spoken in Bahasa Indonesian mixed with English. Speaking this way, T6 needs to ensure that the group’s exploration materials are explicit. The following excerpt concludes what T6 speaks: 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59.

T: Group six will be about European and inter-american right? So the question? Keputusan apapun boleh asal keputusan itu, yang penting keputusan itu dibuat pengadilan HAM Eropa atau pengadilan HAM inter-amerika. Kalau bisa diakses, putusan, if you can access the verdict I think the latest verdict of European court of human right in, about the humiliation of Prophet Muhammad

Fostering Translanguaging Pedagogy Environment 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66.

67

between Australia and apa? Saya lupa Namanya, I think it’s very good. Nanti cari aja googling dulu Bahasa Indonesianya, judulnya pengadilan eropa tentang penghinaan nabi Muhammad, nah nanti ditelusuri keputusannya nomor berapa nanti masuk ke websitenya-websitenya-websitenya pengadilan HAM Eropa, nanti dicari di downloadnya, it’s so good, uh case. (T6–verbatim transcription)

To engage students, T4 uses L1 to transfer to the L2 term. In the classroom, T4 introduces L1 first by asking the class the English term for the word like merugikan [disadvantage] (line72/73), mempolisikan [make a legal report to the police] (line 76). This practice engages students as some responded to merugikan with a disadvantage. This issue can be further elaborated in the account below: 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79.

T: Even you aaaa said that . . . No no I will not (?) to PT Angkasapura, but realize or not realize, you will give benefit to PT Angkasapura. In contrast, aaaa aaa you will ehmm refresh or you will make aaaa person, make a community to has conflict, who has conflict with PT Angkasapura hmmm what to say, what to say ehmm merugikan in English? hmm S: Disadvantage. T: Disadvantage. You will not disadvantage to the community that have conflict with PT Angkasapura. That’s right. T: Aaaa and then the aaaaa what to say mempolisikan in English? Make yaa . . . aaaaa . . . legal report to the police aaaa department, police officer to do a legal, legal aaaa legal action. (T4–verbatim transcription)

T7 does another way to engage students by delivering questions to introduce specific terms. T7 uses questions such as Have you heard? towards specific terms like Mahkamah Agung [Supreme Court] (lines 80/81) or Peninjauan kembali [Judicial review] (lines 83–85). Delivering questions to introduce specific terms can stimulate student engagement in learning. Sample expressions that T7 delivered in his teachings can be further examined in the following excerpts: 80. Do you know the function of the Supreme Court? Have you ever 81. heard about the Supreme Court? Mahkamah Agung, ya? 82. (T7–verbatim transcription) 83. What is judicial review? Judicial review in Bahasa Indonesian is 84. translated into Peninjauan kembali. Have you heard this term 85. before? (T7–verbatim transcription)

68

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

T1 responded to students in L1 when the students engaged in his teachings. On one occasion of his teaching, T1 talks about private savings and suggests that his students not be confused with public savings. Responding to this, one of the students comments on this by mixing English and Bahasa Indonesian, public savings itu kayak asuransi [public savings is like insurance] (line 88). As the student comments using mixed language, T1 answers back in Bahasa Indonesian Asuransi? Asuransi gimana? [Insurance? like what insurance?] (line 89). The student explains that Kalau asuransi itukan kitakan kayak nabung gitukan. Jadi, kalau saat-saat tertentu misalnya kecelakaan, uangnya bisa diambil [What we do when we take insurance, we save our money. When we need it in emergency time, we can take it back] (lines 90–91). T1’s feedback is English but the teacher could respond well again in Bahasa Indonesian. Details of his teaching can be further elaborated in the excerpt below. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101.

T: Yes, private savings, you are correct. Okay, now what about public savings? Don’t be confused with the public savings. S: public savings itu kayak asuransi. T: Asuransi? Asuransi gimana? S: Kalau asuransi itukan kitakan kayak nabung gitukan. Jadi, kalau saat-saat tertentu misalnya kecelakaan, uangnya bisa diambil. T: Good. Okay, ya. What is the example of public savings? S: BPJS (Badan Penyelenggara Jaminan Sosial Kesehatan [Social Security Agency of Health]) T: Be-Pe-Je-Es. Oh you have to. . .divide it! T: That’s one public savings like BPJS. BPJS is not only (?) but also bank (?). And national savings. National savings is relation between private savings and public savings for national income that is not used, for consumption or govern (T1–verbatim transcription)

T2 uses Bahasa Indonesian to ensure students understand what he is saying. In lines 104–106, he repeats his confirmation to students three times, once in lines 109/110, and another once in line 120. The systematic effort to confirm whether his students understand or not gives us the situation from which T2 concerns the acceptance of students toward his explanation. The detailed account is presented below. 102. If your country or government you are an actor and a 103. government then you can do that. You can make another

Fostering Translanguaging Pedagogy Environment 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122.

69

country use your currency. Are you follow me so far? Ngerti enggak? Paham enggak? Paham ya? Kalau enggak paham, nanya lho! [Do you understand? Got it? You get the point, right? If you don’t understand, please ask me!]. A country or a government will try to develop their existence, especially in economy. Then, the government will intervene. Tau intervene gak? [do you know the intervene?] Ikut campur. Kalau minimal state tadi, kan tadi fungsinya sebagai penjaga malam kan? Penjaga malam kira-kira dalam negara fungsinya mempengaruhi kebijakan ekonomi enggak? Enggak. Cuman memastikan bahwa semua sehat, gak ada kemalingan, gak ada yang dicopet, gak ada yang sakit tapi (?) mereka they do more than just security. Contohnya misalnya make sure that misalnya menambah investment, membuka investasi asing misalnya, yang bisa bikin kayak gitu hanya negara. Kalau private company paling kan Cuma obi-lobi. So, that’s the difference. Main different. Paham ya? [Do you understand?] Ada involvement in economy. In minimum state they don’t do that. (T2–verbatim transcription)

Discussion Regarding the language used by EMI university teachers in Indonesia, in which English and other languages are spoken in their teaching, the context of Indonesian EMI pedagogy is characterized as a heteroglossic environment (Pecorari & Malmström, 2018). By using typical and contextualizing terms, the teachers practice the linguistic repertoires of their community (Canagarajah, 2013). In this respect, Indonesian university EMI teachers make use of their linguistic resources as an asset for multilingual speakers to create meaningful communication using their multilingual settings’ repertoire. When using typical and contextualizing terms in their teachings, Indonesian university EMI teachers focus on content learning, or meaning construction (Wang & CurdtChristiansen, 2019). Rather than on grammatically correct language use, Schissel, De Korne and López-Gopar (2021) use these typical and contextualizing terms as a form of translanguaging, reflecting a sociolinguistic phenomenon in multilingual communities. However, what has been done by Indonesian university EMI teachers shows their lectures have a minimum response from

70

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

students. Although the responses can be highlighted, the number of those responses is insufficient. Therefore, translanguaging practices cannot uncover classroom inequalities and power structures (Mullet, 2018). Besides using typical and contextualizing terms, Indonesian university EMI teachers provide translation or direct translations, use L1 to transfer to the L2 term, use their mother tongue, and respond to students in L1. In line with Zhang and Chan (2021), providing translation or direct translation demonstrates that all teachers make use of mixed English with Bahasa Indonesian, Arabic and local language (T1), Arabic (T2 and T3), Bahasa Indonesian and Arabic (T9), Bahasa Indonesian and Arabic (T4, T6, T7, T8), plus Malay (T11), and local language and Thai (T12). In addition to using all linguistic sources, the findings also advocate Mazak and Herbas-Donoso’s (2014) research. The key terminology was given in English, and an explanation was provided in Bahasa Indonesian or vice versa. Although it was predominant, English was presented to deliver lectures. Malak and Herbas-Donoso (2014) assert that using students’ first language was evidence of translanguaging practice to enrich students’ English learning. However, English as the legitimized standard language is a salient example of the power behind discourse. Additionally, translanguaging practices are still considered a threat towards a monolingual bias in schools, societies and countries, especially where standardEnglish norms are the ultimate language education policy. In the overall shape of teachings, Indonesian university EMI teachers practice ‘making meaning, shaping experiences, gaining understanding and knowledge through the use of two languages’ (Lewis et al., 2012, p. 655; Baker, 2011). In addition, they ‘allow the simultaneous coexistence of different languages in communication’ and ‘supports the development of multiple linguistic identities’ (García, 2009, p. 119). The power behind discourse in this paper is seen from the ideology from which Indonesian university EMI teachers could be accommodating not only English but also other languages appropriately and adequately, which is intended to make their teachings meaningful and understood (Fairclough, 2013). Next, translanguaging from which bilingual language activities are not considered as two independent language systems (García & Wei (2014), a single linguistic repertoire with social features is practiced by Indonesian university EMI teachers. For example, teachers give instructions, deliver questions to introduce specific terms, ensure students’ understanding, provide some issues towards the material explained, and use integrating strategies to build engagement with students. Teachers intend this way to provide students with space for translanguaging environments. All the social features that were done

Fostering Translanguaging Pedagogy Environment

71

by Indonesian university EMI teachers in their pedagogical practices show that they attempt to make meaning in the classroom and negotiate different language practices (Schissel et al., 2021). In addition, in these practices, Indonesian university EMI teachers use their linguistic sources, which do not fit into simple bounded categories, and use languages skilfully for specific functional goals like narration and explanation. Through practicing the social features, Indonesian university EMI teachers improve access to content to achieve the lessons they have set up (Creese & Blackledge, 2010). Providing a translanguaging environment through practicing social interaction and process through assigning social features is a salient example of how translanguaging is used as a communication tool for multilingual speakers. This way, these speakers are expected to be competent communicators in their multilingual speech community by developing their translingual repertoires. In other words, teachers who immerse themselves in English and other languages to provide a translanguaging environment could be helpful for English enrichment (Wang & Curdt-Christiansen, 2019). In line with power in discourse reflected in the content of discourse (Fairclough, 2013), what Indonesian university EMI teachers say in their teachings demonstrates an important achievement of creating a translanguaging environment. In addition, the power relations in the EMI setting, particularly in the relationship between teacher and student, which T1 and T4 present, and other monologues that are done by the rest of the teachers, show that this relation can be in the form of questioning and direct translations (Wei et al., 2018).

Conclusions Using CDA, the research provides some evidence of the importance of fostering translanguaging pedagogy in a non-Anglophone context. All teachers in this reported study used chiefly English in the classrooms with some use of languages other than the national language, local language, and even Arabic language showing particular groups from the Indonesian context. Having a majority of Muslims, the use of the Arabic language has contributed to the richness of multilingualism in Indonesian education settings. Despite teachers’ use of the majority of English in the classroom, the use of Bahasa Indonesian, shared mainly by teachers and all students, plays a vital role in enriching students’ learning experience and nurturing a multilingual global environment. Therefore, the use of Bahasa Indonesian could be encouraged to balance the predominant

72

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

use of English in the EMI classrooms in Indonesian settings. More importantly, the Indonesian government has encouraged using English as multilingual cultural global Englishes (Jenkins, 2015) by restraining the national language, Bahasa Indonesian, and making the local language insignificant. These three languages should be made use of by teachers to create a translanguaging environment in Indonesian university EMI settings. In other words, power and social relations (Fairclough, 2013; Mullet, 2018) in the practices of translanguaging in Indonesian university EMI teachings could be identified from the linguistic features and text structures. These features include teachers’ using typical and contextualizing terms, providing translation, or direct translations, using L1 as transferring to the L2 term, making use of their mother tongue, responding to students in L1, giving instructions, using questions to introduce specific terms, checking students’ understanding, providing some issues towards the material explained, and making use of integrating strategies. Furthermore, as this paper focuses on discourse analysis in teachers’ multilingual practices to provide a translanguaging environment, future research that emphasizes teacher–student engagement using their multilingual sources and repertoires is highly recommended.

References Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 5th ed. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Boyd, M. P., & Markarian, W. C. (2015). Dialogic teaching and dialogic stance: Moving beyond interactional form. Research in the Teaching of English, 49(3), 272–296. Canagarajah, S. (2013). Theorizing a competence for translingual practice at the contact zone. In S. May (ed.), The Multilingual Turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and Bilingual Education (pp. 78–102). New York: Routledge. Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Coleman, J., Hultgren, K. Li, W., Tsui, C., & Shaw, P. (2018). Forum on English-Medium Instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 52(3), 701–720. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.469 Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the Bilingual Classroom: A Pedagogy for Learning and Teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 103–115. Dewi, A. (2017). English as a Medium of Instruction in Indonesian Higher Education: A Study of Lecturers’ Perceptions. In B. Fenton-Smith, I. Walkinshaw

Fostering Translanguaging Pedagogy Environment

73

& P. Humphreys, English Medium Instruction in Higher Education in Asia-Pacific: From Policy to Pedagogy (pp. 241–258). Springer International Publisher AG. Duff, P. A. & Polio, C. G. (1990). How much foreign language is there in the foreign language classroom? Modern Language Journal, 74(2), 154–166. Fairclough, N. (2013). Language and Power. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324 /9781315838250 Fenton-Smith, B., Walkinshaw, I., & Humphreys, P. (2017). English Medium Instruction in Higher Education in Asia-Pacific: From Policy to Pedagogy. https://link.springer. com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-51976-0 García, O. (2009). Bilingual Education in the Twenty-First Century: A Global Perspective. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Grabe, W. & Stoller, F. L. (2011). Teaching and Researching Reading, 2nd edn. Edinburgh: Pecerson Education. Hornberger, N. H., ed. (2003). Continua of Biliteracy. An Ecological Framework for Educational Policy, Research, and Practice in Multilingual Settings. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Jenkins, J. (2015). Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a Lingua Franca. Englishes in Practice, 3(3), 49–85. https://doi.org/10.1515/eip-2015-0003 Kress, G. (1997). Before Writing: Rethinking the Paths to Literacy. London: Routledge. Lamb, M., Waskita, D., Kuchah, K., Hadisantosa, N., & Ahmad, N. (2021). The State of English as Medium of Instruction (EMI) in Higher Education Institutians in Indonesia. British Council Indonesia. Lasagabaster, D., & García, O. (2014). Translanguaging: towards a dynamic model of bilingualism at school. Cultura y Educación, 26(3), 557–572. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 11356405.2014.973671 Lee, J. S., Lee, K., & Drajati, N. A. (2019). Preservice English teachers’ perceptions of English as an international language in Indonesia and Korea. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 40(3), 230–243. https://doi. org/10.1080/01434632.2018.1 Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012). Translanguaging: Developing its Conceptualisation and Contextualisation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(7), 655–670. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2012.718490 Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J., & Dearden, J. (2018). A systematic review of English medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching, 51(1), 36–76. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444817000350 Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2015). Second Language Research: Methodology and Design, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315750606 Maiworm, F., & Wachter, B. (2002). English-language-taught degree programmes in European higher education, Trends, and success factors. ACA papers on

74

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

International Cooperation in Education. Bonn: Lemmens Verlags & Mediengesellschaft. Mazak, C. M., & Herbas-Donoso, C. (2014). Translanguaging Practices and Language Ideologies in Puerto Rican University Science Education, Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 11(1), 27–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2014.871622 Mbirimi-Hungwe, V. (2016). Translanguaging as a strategy for group work: Summary writing as a measure for reading comprehension among university students, Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 34(3), 241–249. https:// doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2016.1250352 Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation, 4th ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Mullet, D. R. (2018). A General Critical Discourse Analysis Framework for Educational Research. Journal of Advanced Academics, 29 (2), 116–142. Otheguy, R., García, O., & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying Translanguaging and Deconstructing Named Languages: A Perspective from Linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(3), 281–307. Pecorari, D., & Malmström, H. (2018). At the Crossroads of TESOL and English Medium Instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 52(3), 497–515. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.470 Pritasari, A., Reinaldo, H., & Watson, C. W. (2018). English-medium instruction in Asian business schools: a case study. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 40(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2018.1458855 Rafi, A. S. M., & Morgan, A.-M. (2022). Linguistic ecology of Bangladeshi higher education: A translanguaging perspective. Teaching in Higher Education, 27(4), 512–529. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2022.2045579 Rymes, B. (2015). Classroom Discourse Analysis: A Tool for Critical Reflection. London: Routledge. Sadiq, N. (2021). Teachers’ Use of English and Other Languages in the English-Medium Instruction (EMI) Settings in Indonesian Universities. Doctoral Thesis, University of Southampton. Schissel, J. L., De Korne, H., & López-Gopar, M. (2021). Grappling with translanguaging for teaching and assessment in culturally and linguistically diverse contexts: teacher perspectives from Oaxaca, Mexico. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24(3), 340–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670 050.2018.1463965 Wang, W., & Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2019). Translanguaging in a Chinese–English bilingual education programme: a university-classroom ethnography. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(3), 322–337. https://doi.org/10.10 80/13670050.2018.1526254 Wei, L., Murphy, P. K., & Firetto, C. M. (2018). How Can Teachers Facilitate Productive Small-Group Talk? An Integrated Taxonomy of Teacher Discourse Moves. The Elementary School Journal, 118(4), 578–609. https://doi.org/10.1086/697531

Fostering Translanguaging Pedagogy Environment

75

Williams, C. (1994). Arfarniad o Ddulliau Dysgu ac Addysgu yng Nghyd-destun AddysgUwchradd Ddwyieithog [An Evaluation of Teaching and Learning Methods in the Context of Bilingual Secondary Education]. Doctoral thesis, University of Wales (Bangor). Unpublished. Zhang, R., & Chan, B. H.-S., (2021). Pedagogical translanguaging in a trilingual context: the case of two EFL classrooms in a Xinjiang university. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25(8), 2805–2816. https://doi.org/10.1080/136 70050.2021.1978383

76

5

Translanguaging with Different L1s in a University EMI Course Beñat Muguruza

Introduction: Translanguaging in Englishmedium instruction In recent times, the use of students’ mother tongue(s) has been regarded as necessary in English-medium instruction (EMI). The employment of these languages can vary depending on the context, official language policies or the teacher’s decisions, for example, and translanguaging has become ‘an umbrella term that embraces a wide variety of theoretical and practical proposals’ (Cenoz & Gorter, 2020, p. 2). Doiz and Lasagabaster (2021) list a number of recommendations for EMI teaching practice, the second of which reads as follows: ‘An English-only language policy is neither realistic nor effective’ (p. 258). Besides, if we did not pay attention to students’ L1, then we would be ignoring how multilingual speakers communicate in their everyday life (Cenoz & Gorter, 2020). Due to the rise of internationalization programmes in higher level education all over the world on the one hand, and the claim for more flexible use of languages in the classroom on the other, much research has been done on translingual practices in EMI from a myriad of perspectives in recent years. Nonetheless, Paulsrud et al. (2021) think that translanguaging in such Englishmedium programmes remains an area of research that still needs to be developed. In the same vein, Vaish (2019, p. 274) criticises the fact that most studies usually show a great deal of ‘examples of how teachers and students use multiple languages to learn academic content and celebrate identity’, but not many ‘discuss in detail the challenges faced by teachers and students in this endeavour’. Thus, Vaish (2019) suggests that research needs to be done in classrooms that are highly diverse regarding the mother tongue(s) of both students and teachers. 77

78

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Applying translingual practices in diverse EMI classrooms First of all, taking into account that attracting foreign students is one of the goals of internationalization programmes, it is likely that they are not familiar with the language(s) spoken in their host country. As Macaro (2020, p. 272) points out, using L1 in certain situations in an EMI classroom ‘becomes controversial if not impossible’ when there is a considerable number of international students who do not speak the L1 of ‘the majority of the population’. Costa (2012) observes that some lecturers at an Italian university switched to Italian even when a large proportion of students did not speak the local language. EMI lecturers at different Turkish universities considered it unfair, however, to use L1 Turkish in the classroom if there was a single student who did not speak the local language because that student would be excluded and thus, according to the lecturers, lessons should be run entirely in English (Karakas, 2016). Kuteeva (2020) interviewed students from an EMI programme in Sweden about translingual practices and she obtained a range of different results: some international students felt excluded now and then when L1 Swedish was used, whereas others experienced the need to learn the local language to engage in those translingual interactions. Based also on official language policies, Kuteeva (2020) herself questions whether L1 use is appropriate in any context. Also in Sweden, Söderlundh (2012) analysed an EMI course in which international students were generally respectful towards the use of most students’ and the lecturer’s L1 (i.e., Swedish), albeit she also saw that some students did not always pay attention to student–lecturer interaction in Swedish, and they waited for the lecturer’s translation into English to re-engage. Another important issue is the presence of a minority language in the context in which the EMI course is run. Lindström (2012) examines the presence of Swedish as a minority language at the University of Helsinki (Finland). He conducted different focus group discussions according to students’ L1 and concludes that the Swedish-speaking group was the most flexible one regarding language attitudes and use. The same author highlights two connected ideas: first, the issue of language rights was not even mentioned in the Finnish group, and second, pro-Swedish language policies at the university only seemed to have an impact on Swedish students, while they did not apparently affect Finnishspeaking and international students. Cenoz and Gorter (2017) also emphasize the difference between translanguaging in contexts in which, on the one hand, bilingualism consists of two strong languages and, on the other, a regional minority language is involved, ‘because

Translanguaging with Different L1s in a University EMI Course

79

these languages are vulnerable and their future is not always secured’ (p. 904). They believe that the challenge lies in the combination of translanguaging and promoting these vulnerable languages because there typically exists inequality in status and power.

Attitudes towards EMI and translanguaging in the Basque Country Most studies on attitudes towards EMI among students in the Basque Country have focused especially on the clash between English as the global lingua franca and Basque as the minority language. Some studies suggest that Basque L1 students are mistrustful of English and overly protective towards the minority language (Doiz et al., 2013a, 2013b; Lasagabaster, 2004), but more recent works have shown a different trend. In fact, local students at the University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU) seem to be highly motivated to learn and use English and they harbour positive attitudes towards it regardless of their L1 (Gonzalez Ardeo, 2016; Lasagabaster, 2016). Doiz and Lasagabaster (2017) demonstrate that lecturers have different perspectives when it comes to translingual practices in EMI programmes. Most of them are not explicitly in favour of using students’ L1 in the classroom, but the authors report a ‘mismatch between beliefs and practices’ (p. 172) because the majority of the lecturers admit to resorting to L1 in different circumstances. The UPV/EHU has not established any specific norms regarding language use in EMI courses, so it could be either that they advocate for the flexible use of languages or that they have not even considered this issue (Doiz & Lasagabaster, 2017; Serna-Bermejo & Lasagabaster, 2022). Several studies on EMI programmes at the UPV/EHU have shown the use of both Basque and Spanish in the classroom, but the relationship between the two local languages has gone unnoticed. Doiz and Lasagabaster (2021) observe that the lecturers codeswitched only to Spanish, with very few and specific exceptions, although two of the three lecturers were Basque speakers. Serna-Bermejo and Lasagabaster (2022) asked EMI students about their opinion regarding the use of Basque/Spanish in the classroom, but no distinction was made between the two languages. Such a distinction could have been significant, considering that the groups were comprised of Basque speakers, local non-Basque speakers and international students. Doiz et al. (2013b) collected different stakeholders’ points of view vis-à-vis the Internationalization Programme at the UPV/EHU and one

80

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

international student was against having English medium courses because they were there to improve their Spanish, which reveals that the minority language may be invisible for some students. Therefore, it seems that there is some underlying conflict when the use of students’ L1s is allowed in an EMI course offered in a bilingual context in which the two languages have an unequal status.

The study This research was carried out in a very specific context, so it is of paramount importance to explain the background in detail and we will do so in this section.

Context The University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU) is a bilingual university located in the Basque Autonomous Community, where both Basque and Spanish share official status. Even though Basque is a minority language and its situation is vulnerable in most spheres, over half of the 36,000 undergraduate students enrolled at the UPV/EHU in the 2020/2021 academic year were studying for their degree through the medium of Basque. The UPV/EHU also promotes the use of foreign languages via its Multilingualism Plan, which was implemented in 2005. Since then, the number of courses offered in English has increased steadily, and there were 292 courses in English in the different degrees in the 2021/2022 academic year (regarding other foreign languages, however, only one course was offered in French). We analyse one of these in this study, a course that is part of the Social Education degree. Our main focus of interest is the flexible language policy established by the lecturer: both her explanations in the classroom and the materials used are almost exclusively in English, but students do not have to participate in English; they are explicitly encouraged to use either Basque or Spanish in the classroom as well as for written assignments. The Social Education degree was offered simultaneously in the Basque and Spanish streams, but for this course in English, students from the two streams were placed together in the same class.

Participants We carried out the same study during two academic years and a total number of seventy-seven students participated. Their average age was about twenty-four

Translanguaging with Different L1s in a University EMI Course

81

years old and the vast majority of them were female. Most students were local, but there were also a few Latin American, German, Spanish and Catalan students. Excluding the German and the Catalan students, the students’ mother tongue was Basque (28.3 per cent), Spanish (55.6 per cent) or both Basque and Spanish (13.1 per cent). As for their self-reported competence in the languages used in the classroom, Basque got an average of 7.8/10, 9.2/10 in Spanish, and 4.9/10 in English. Virtually all the students were fluent in Spanish, but about a dozen had no or very little knowledge of Basque, so whenever someone took part in Basque they could not understand what they were saying.

Research tools All the students filled in a questionnaire consisting of their personal background as regards birthplace, mother tongue, language competence, language habits and so on. We observed and audiotaped all the lessons during the two years and eventually had forty-five hours of recorded material. The first assignment in the course was a task called ‘Language Biography’, in which students wrote about their experience with the different languages they had come across throughout their life and their relationship with these languages. We considered this information relevant to our research. Students also had to write a weekly journal describing their experience in the course regarding its linguistic aspects. We organized five Focus Group Discussions with the students over the two years. There were between ten and twelve students in each group. All the discussions were audio – and videotaped and later transcribed verbatim. Finally, the lecturer managed a virtual forum in which students had to respond to different issues that she suggested, with the aim of students interacting with each other so as to create some discussion. Again, in all these contexts – apart from the Focus Group Discussions, which were mostly conducted in Spanish – students could freely choose from among Basque, Spanish and English. Table 5.1 shows the students’ language use in the different spaces. However, we should deal with these illustrative figures cautiously for different reasons. Classroom participation tokens can refer to either very short utterances or relatively long discussions. Especially in the case of English tokens, many of them were repetitions of what the lecturer had said. Besides, in the second year, there were a few active speakers of Basque who were very participative, but the data for the use of Basque in the first year is about 10 per cent. As for written assignments, we should bear in mind that the Moodle Forum is public (and therefore subject to interaction with other students), whereas the contexts of

82

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Table 5.1 Languages used by students in the different areas of the course

Classroom Participation Journal Entries Language Biography Moodle Forum

Basque

Spanish

English

283 (35.1%) 377 (37%) 35 (35.7%) 83 (21.7%)

367 (45.5%) 551 (54.1%) 55 (56.1%) 290 (75.7%)

157 (19.5%) 91 (8.9%) 8 (8.2%) 10 (2.6%)

Language Biography and Journal Entries involved private texts that were directly delivered to the lecturer. Last, some international students attended the course sporadically and may not have turned in all the assignments.

Research questions The lecturer has allowed students to use Basque in the classroom, conscious that some of them will struggle to get every – or even a single – word. Thus, some tension may appear among those who would like to take part in Basque and those who would not understand them. We then pose two research questions: 1. How did Basque-speaking students behave and what were their attitudes regarding the use of Basque in the classroom? 2. How did non-Basque-speaking students behave and what were their attitudes regarding the use of Basque in the classroom?

Results English is the main language of instruction in this course, whereas Basque and Spanish are secondary languages, although they are a priori at the same level, which is not very common. Basque-speaking students could speak in Basque according to the language policy implemented by the lecturer, and they did so, especially in the second year that was observed in the study. Every excerpt is coded according to the source (Focus Group Discussion: FGD; Classroom Participation: CP; Moodle Forum: MF; Language Biography: LB; Journal Entry: JE), the student code when there is only one and the original language of the excerpt (Basque: B; Spanish: S; English: E).

Translanguaging with Different L1s in a University EMI Course

83

How did Basque-speaking students behave and what were their attitudes regarding the use of Basque in the classroom? The use of Basque could be deemed low; in other words, a higher use would have been expected considering the students’ language profile. Among the main reasons for this, we find respect towards those who do not understand Basque, as they have explained in different fora. In this first excerpt, B01 describes what happened to B17 in class, regarding a discussion in which non-Basque-speaking students were also involved: B17 started in Basque, and ‘well, sorry’, he was like, ‘well, sorry for speaking in Basque, for the sake of respect, well, I will speak in Spanish, and so on. . .’, and then we switched to other issues. Well, otherwise I’ve asked my questions in Basque. I feel more comfortable like that. (FGD_B01_B)

In a similar vein, A52 explains that every single student is familiar with Spanish and English to an extent, but this is not the case with Basque. Because you know for sure there’re people that won’t understand you. For sure. In English and in Spanish you know there’ll be people who will understand, more or less, but you know there’s a certain level. In Basque, you know there’re people that understand, and people, well, that don’t understand. I, at least, when I’ve used Spanish it was because of that, the person next to me, or in front of me . . . I know they don’t understand. (FGD_A52_S)

This participant consciously spoke in Spanish, as many others do, so that they all understand each other without any problem. This motivation is quite widespread among students, but some also acknowledge that they actually feel more comfortable speaking in Spanish, even if their Basque is acceptable (or good). Moderator: A69, you said that whenever you participate, you do it in Spanish, right? But you can also speak well in Basque? A69: Yeah. Well, that’s for two reasons: first, for what you’ve said, because in the end there’re people who don’t understand, and you say ‘well, I also want everyone to be able to take part here’. And second, because I also find it easier to speak in Spanish than in Basque. Although I’m fluent in Basque. (FGD_S)

These examples from the Focus Group Discussion illustrate different situations that take place in the classroom. Likewise in the Moodle Forum, students write for everybody and many Basque-speaking students tend to use Spanish for the aforementioned reasons. We collected a number of testimonies making explicit references to their decision to participate in the fora in Spanish.

84

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

In this third post, which is just the post scriptum of the whole text, A65 expresses a clear message for his non-Basque-speaking classmates. I speak in Spanish to facilitate comprehension and participation in the forum for the people that are not familiar with Basque. (MF_B29_S) I completely agree with you. To be honest, I’m not personally used to writing in Spanish in situations like these, as I always and almost automatically turn to Basque. But from now on sometimes I’ll try to write also in Spanish so that everyone can understand what others write. (MF_B02_S) P.S.: I must say that I would’ve liked to write all this in Basque, but considering that there are students from the Spanish stream in the class and considering that many don’t know or don’t understand Basque, I write in Spanish so that we can all understand each other. (MF_A65_S)

There was a different perspective in a first-year Focus Group Discussion, in which the use of Basque was especially low. A03 shows his disagreement with the idea of so-called respect towards non-Basque-speaking students. Moderator: Somebody said that for the sake of respect . . . that he has participated in Spanish for the sake of respect. A03: Well, I quite disagree there. I can also consider it a lack of respect. . . . Well, I don’t know, let’s see, the fact that the two languages can be used, in the end, there’s a part that won’t understand if I speak in Basque, but, I mean, they can think it disrespectful that I speak in Basque, but of course, the fact that I can’t use Basque when it is actually allowed, then sure, I don’t know, there’s like a contradiction there, right? I mean, I also feel bad that I can’t use Basque, when in fact I am allowed. Then, gosh, I don’t know. The approach seems to me a bit . . . (FGD_S)

Even if she does not draw a clear conclusion from his thoughts, A03 seems sceptical about the language policy proposed by the lecturer. Most Basquespeaking students show a resigned attitude towards the difficulties involved in using Basque, even if its use is permitted and even encouraged together with Spanish. Among the five Focus Group Discussions we organized, one was comprised of only students from the Basque stream. This involved the only discussion conducted entirely in Basque, so here we could obtain information that we could not access otherwise. One issue, in particular, was raised that has somehow become commonplace among active speakers of minority languages: the fact that if there is a single person present within the group who does not understand the minority language

Translanguaging with Different L1s in a University EMI Course

85

in question, everybody turns to the majority language, with the implication that nobody would ever speak the minority language if this was always the reaction. After discussing these matters for several minutes, everybody falls silent, and B12 adds the following: ‘This is our usual battle, right? In the end . . .’, which provoked general laughter among the participants, a sign that most of them identified with this type of situation. Lastly, B17 suggests an interesting approach: the role of English as the ‘neutral’ language. Following this suggestion, he advocates for a wider use of English in the classroom, and he claims that it is the teacher’s responsibility to encourage students: ‘[The lecturer] should prod us to, should force us to speak in English. Because English is, in the end, neutral in our class’ (FGD_B17_B). This comment provoked different reactions; some students supported it, considering that using either Basque or Spanish means taking a stance, whereas others acknowledged that they cannot actually speak English and that English may be neutral, but it is not ‘the common language’ for everyone. B17 elaborates on this idea in the Moodle Forum, which possibly contradicts to a certain extent what he stated in the Focus Group Discussion: Regarding advantages and disadvantages, my biggest disadvantage took place when I had to take part in class, because the fact that some classmates didn’t speak Basque was a hindrance in order to carry out some discussions. I sometimes tried to say in English what I wanted to express, but to be honest, I don’t have a good level yet to communicate in English. (MF_B17_B)

Basque-speaking students do not comprise a homogenous group, and their experiences differ greatly from one another. We will discuss the different perspectives we have dealt with here in the last section.

How did non-Basque-speaking students behave and what were their attitudes regarding the use of Basque in the classroom? Many students belonged to the Spanish stream, and some of them struggled to make out or indeed could not understand at all their peers’ contributions in Basque, whether they were classroom participations or comments in the internet fora. The lecturer was perfectly aware of this, but, regardless, she encouraged the use of Basque, thereby placing the minority language at the same level as Spanish. We have seen that students, to some extent, took advantage of the language policy and participation in Basque was relatively common. The students from the Spanish stream were not used to listening to Basque in the classroom, and that evidently elicited different reactions.

86

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Again, generalizing is adventurous, but we could state that non-Basque Spanish students respected the use of Basque. On the one hand, it is important that the lecturer herself established the language policy, which made it easier to be accepted; on the other, showing respect towards Basque could nowadays be considered the politically correct discourse, and criticizing the use of Basque can become a delicate issue depending on the context. However, we collected very different opinions and to illustrate this, we cite two students’ excerpts from their Language Biographies, showing their absolute lack of interest in Basque and their disagreement with the language policy of the Basque Government: Instead of encouraging myself to study Basque, what I want is to go to another city, where Basque is not required because I consider it more important to dedicate myself to the study of English or French to make my way in the world of work. (LB_A13_S) If I go to look for work and the PP [Spanish conservative party] governs, I will have fewer problems, but if the PNV [Basque Nationalist Party] governs, I will have more problems. Why? Somebody explain that to me, or they should have put a sign at the entrances to the Basque Country that said: ‘Immigrant, if you want to enter these borders to live, learn our language and make your children know it, or turn around, because otherwise, you have nothing to do’. This could have been a good warning for my family, and perhaps they would have thought twice whether to stay here, or continue another 100 kilometers and go down to Burgos [a Spanish city close to the Basque Country], for example. (LB_B23_S)

B23 did not limit herself to expressing her negative opinions towards Basque in a written assignment, as she also made a controversial comment in class when the lecturer asked her if she could understand Basque: Well, something, I can more or less understand you, but I can’t speak it fluently. And I don’t intend to either, you know. No, I had problems with it when I was a kid, and I’m not gonna try it again. I tried and no, it’s not my thing. (CP_B23_S)

This remark was regarded as offensive by some of the Basque-speaking students, as we observed in the Focus Group Discussions. Explicit opinions against Basque can be considered exceptional, but it is worth showing a few of them. In the same vein, A23 defends the right not to learn Basque. I wanted to make a clarification of what she said, and it’s that we must bear in mind that we are in a class in which there are people who speak Basque, but then there are people who have chosen to enroll in Spanish. The time they spend in

Translanguaging with Different L1s in a University EMI Course

87

the Basque Country might be transitory, and it’s their right not to want to learn Basque. So speaking . . . in Basque would be . . . I mean, if you enroll in Spanish, you don’t have to be in a class where Basque is spoken, right? (FGD_A23_S)

This was probably the most controversial comment of all, but more pragmatic points of view defending the use of Spanish in class were expressed by nonBasque-speaking students, often alluding to the supposed sociolinguistic reality of the classroom: What happens is that . . . It’s true people try to speak more in Spanish, because the vast majority of people are from the Spanish model, so if you are going to say something, you should at least do it in Spanish. (FGD_A66_S)

However, there seems to be a misperception, because in this particular year over half the students came from the Basque stream at university, and out of all 52 students, 30 had studied in Basque-immersion programmes at school, 11 had studied in Basque-Spanish bilingual programmes, and 6 had taken Basque as a subject. Thus, the argument employed by A66 – and others, too – would not be valid. There were more tolerant attitudes towards the use of Basque among nonBasque-speaking students. A South American student acknowledges that ‘in the end, if she [the lecturer] gives the option, it’s a bit free’, and she adds the following: ‘If she gives me the option to speak in Spanish, why not speak in Basque?’ (FGD_A22_S). Likewise, the most supportive student towards the use of Basque was not a local, but a Catalan student: But I . . . I don’t know, erm, I haven’t been to a university in Catalonia, but I know that there are people who go there and don’t speak Catalan, and even so, there are classes in Catalan, people speak and participate in Catalan, even knowing that there are people who do not understand Catalan. And me here, well, I don’t know, sometimes I don’t get to understand this solidarity towards people who don’t understand Basque. It wouldn’t bother me if people participated in Basque. I have, well, this, I’m sure I have a partner who translates for me and if I don’t understand it, well, I ask, I have to be interested in understanding the local language. (FGD_ A31_S)

This comment somehow changed the atmosphere of the group, and most participants seconded it, regardless of their language background. In a different Focus Group Discussion, a local student who speaks very little Basque is selfcritical: ‘We are a bit used to being handed everything on a plate, right? And we have to do our bit, right?’ (FGD_A20_S). B21, meanwhile, celebrates the diverse

88

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

and multilingual setting of the classroom, and advocates for taking advantage of a context in which real conversations in Basque can also take place. When asked for her opinion about the flexible language policy, B21 answered the following: That’s perfect for me. I mean, among the subjects I’ve had, I mean, I’ve enjoyed that a lot, because . . . I mean, it’s not that I don’t understand a word in Basque. . . . [I]t seems richer to me. In other words, it even seems rewarding to me that a person who is from Andalusia [a region in the south of Spain], and doesn’t know anything, at a given moment can be in a place where Basque is being spoken, and . . . become familiar with it, . . . [I]t seems much richer to me because it is also freer, that anyone can express themselves in the language that works best for them, without any imposition. (FGD_B21_S)

B21 is a student with a high motivation to learn Basque, as we also observed in other written and oral contributions, but she considers the presence of Basque to be in the general interest of all the students, even if she understands very little. Looking at these results, it is unreasonable to depict a division between Basque speakers and non-Basque speakers, or even between the different L1s of the students, or between their language streams at the university. Rather, we see an assortment of attitudes and behaviours. There is a generally respectful attitude towards Basque among the students, but the flexible language policy does appear to pose some problems: some Basque-speaking students express their desire to speak more Basque but they do not, because they realize some students can be left out of the conversation, either in the classroom or virtually. Moreover, Basque was not used very extensively in the different contexts in the course. Therefore, most nonBasque-speaking students – and those who are not very active speakers of Basque – felt comfortable with the flexible language policy, insofar as they could understand most of the contributions in the language. A few contemptuous opinions towards Basque were also expressed, to which some other students reacted negatively.

Discussion The use of L1 in EMI programmes has proved to be useful in different contexts, although it has traditionally been considered damaging to the development of English. This study highlights two interrelated problems for such translingual practices: the use of L1 in classrooms in which there are different L1s and not all are common, and the use of two L1s in a bilingual context with two languages, each with a different status.

Translanguaging with Different L1s in a University EMI Course

89

In the Basque context, the most recent studies on attitudes towards EMI and the different languages involved have shown that students generally harbour positive attitudes (Gonzalez Ardeo, 2016; Lasagabaster, 2016). However, both students and teachers tended to show quite negative attitudes towards translanguaging in EMI courses (Doiz & Lasagabaster, 2017; Serna-Bermejo & Lasagabaster, 2022). When the medium of instruction is a third language, some advocate for the use of both L1s, but the relationship and the tensions between the different L1s have not been sufficiently addressed. In the Basque context, this is a question worth problematizing, but most studies of situations in the Basque Country have overlooked these tensions or have tiptoed around them. In this study, we examine a specific course in which the lecturer actively promotes the use of L1. However, this course takes place in a bilingual university in which English is the third language. Thus, some students take part in the minority language (Basque), and others in the majority language (Spanish). Considering that not all students speak Basque, the use of the minority language may become problematic. Looking at the data, we see that the three languages are present in the classroom – English being clearly the least used – and many Basque speakers communicate in Spanish. Just by observing the lessons, we see that there is virtually no problem regarding language use and attitudes, but other research instruments have provided us with more insightful information. It would be misleading to view the students as divided into two monolithic blocks with Basque speakers on one side and non-Basque speakers on the other. Language use, attitudes and opinions were diverse in both language groups. However, those Basque-speaking students who usually switched to Spanish for the sake of mutual intelligibility displayed two different outlooks: some used the majority language because, basically, it is the natural thing to do when there are people around who do not understand Basque; whereas others explained how they faced a dilemma between the language policy of the course and the language background of the students, and mostly tended to use Spanish almost unwillingly, with a resigned attitude. In this respect, it could be argued that the flexible language policy worked as long as Basque did not occupy too much space in the classroom. One Basque L1 student said that English should have more of a presence in the classroom, as that is the neutral language for all the students as well as the teacher. Although Spanish could be considered a more common language in terms of competence, students are indeed taking a position if they use either Basque or Spanish, whereas English, the actual official language of the course, can be used with no additional connotations. Although it may be difficult for

90

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

every single student in the classroom to use English as a language of communication, the idea of English being the common language seemed to be intriguing. This study questions the notion, advanced by Doiz, Lasagabaster and Sierra (2013b), that Basque students are close-minded towards other languages, as it demonstrates that students do try to explore new alternatives for all three classroom languages to coexist. In the same vein, Basque-speaking students do not seem more afraid of the increasing use of English, as Doiz et al. (2013a) suggest. It is debatable whether English is, in reality, the neutral language, taking into consideration the general competence in this language, but according to some students, it is unfair to bestow that role on Spanish. Thus, Basque-speaking students are hesitant in regard to the language policy because translanguaging can turn out to be discriminatory for one of the L1s, and English could become the common medium of communication, even though many students have a low command of the language. In a similar way to the findings of a study by Lindström (2012), in which Swedish-speaking students in Finland made use of their whole linguistic repertoire, Basque-speaking students were the most adaptable, because they adapted to the different languages that each situation required, and they also obviously had the resources to do so. However, in our study, the majority of language speakers raised the issue of language rights when the moderator elicited it in the Focus Group Discussions. Some Spanish-speaking students defended their right to not learn Basque and they did not react positively towards the presence of Basque in the course. A Catalan student shared the opposite point of view: namely, that it is the students’ duty to follow the comments made in Basque if they do not understand since Basque is an official language both in the Basque Autonomous Community and in the course itself. Cenoz and Gorter (2017) present a list of guiding principles for sustainable translanguaging for regional minority languages which could be helpful in different contexts. In this case, the lecturer herself establishes a language policy in a classroom in which some students are not familiar with the three ‘official’ languages of the course and, hence, mutual intelligibility is not always guaranteed. Consequently, she should – and indeed she does – use strategies to create a functional communicative space for everyone, such as translations or reformulations. Cenoz and Gorter (2020) also state that even when a multilingual language policy is designed carefully, translanguaging can turn out to be hazardous for the minority language. They argue in favour of tailor-made programmes that will help protect and promote the minority language, so that, rephrasing Macaro’s

Translanguaging with Different L1s in a University EMI Course

91

(2020) words, the use of students’ L1 in EMI settings becomes controversial but not impossible. However, ultimately, as Doiz et al. (2013a, p. 98) remind us, ‘in contexts where a minority language, a majority language and a foreign language are in contact, the clash to a greater or lesser degree seems unavoidable’.

References Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2017). Minority languages and sustainable translanguaging: Threat or opportunity? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38(10), 901–912. Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2020). Pedagogical translanguaging: An Introduction. System, 92, 1–7. Costa, F. (2012). Focus on form in ICLHE lectures in Italy: Evidence from Englishmedium science lectures by native speakers of Italian. AILA Review, 25, 30–47. Doiz, A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2017). Teachers’ beliefs about translanguaging practices. In C. M. Mazak & K. S. Carroll (eds), Translanguaging in Higher Education: Beyond Monolingual Ideologies (pp. 157–176). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Doiz, A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2021). Analysing EMI Teachers’ and Students’ Talk about Language and Language Use. In D. Lasagabaster & A. Doiz (eds), Language Use in English-medium Instruction at University (pp. 34–55). New York: Routledge. Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. (2013a). English as L3 at a bilingual university in the Basque Country, Spain. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster & J. M. Sierra (eds), English-medium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges (pp. 106–130). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. (2013b). Globalisation, internationalisation, multilingualism and linguistic strains in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(9), 1407–1421. Gonzalez Ardeo, J. M. (2016). Learning motivation and strategies of ESP university students. Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos, 22(1), 141–169. Karakas, A. (2016). Turkish lecturers’ views on the place of mother tongue in the teaching of content courses through English medium. Asian Englishes, 18(3), 242–257. Kuteeva, M. (2020). Revisiting the ‘E’ in EMI: Students’ perceptions of standard English, lingua franca and translingual practices. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(3), 287–300. Lasagabaster, D. (2004). Attitudes towards English in the Basque Autonomous Community. World Englishes, 23, 211–224. Lasagabaster, D. (2016). The relationship between motivation, gender, L1 and possible selves in English-medium instruction. International Journal of Multilingualism, 13(3), 315–332.

92

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Lindström, J. (2012). Different languages, one mission? Outcomes of language policies in a multilingual university context. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 216, 33–54. Macaro, E. (2020). Exploring the role of language in English medium instruction. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(3), 263–276. Paulsrud, B., Tian, Z., & Toth, J. (2021). English-Medium Instruction and Translanguaging. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Serna-Bermejo, I., & Lasagabaster, D. (2022). Translanguaging in Basque and English: Practices and attitudes of university teachers and students. International Journal of Multilingualism. Söderlundh, H. (2012). Global policies and local norms: Sociolinguistic awareness and language choice at an international university. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 216, 87–109. Vaish, V. (2019). Challenges and directions in implementing translanguaging pedagogy for low achieving students. Classroom Discourse, 10(3/4), 274–289.

6

Translanguaging in EMI Classrooms: Exploring Teacher Educators’ Practices in the Turkish Higher Education Context Serdar Tekin

Introduction Recent years have witnessed an increasing interest in the use of translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy in language education in various settings including EMI. There is a proliferation of definitions of translanguaging, but in a nutshell, it refers to the act of fully drawing on linguistic repertoire and using more than one language in harmony without ignoring any of them (García, 2009). It possesses the transformative power of eliminating the hierarchy among languages and challenges the idea of placing a particular amount of value on languages. It has particularly emerged as opposed to pervasive monolingualism at institutional, national and international levels across the world (Tekin, 2022) and it is nowadays regarded as an inevitable part of daily life and education by many teachers working in different age groups ranging from children to adults (Garton & Tekin, 2022) and contexts such as foreign language (Tekin & Garton, 2020), second language contexts (Carroll & Sambolín Morales, 2016), Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) classrooms (Zhou & Mann, 2021), and immersion programmes (Zheng, 2021). In this regard, translanguaging has attracted considerable attention in academic circles, which triggered a great many research studies examining its use from different stakeholders’ perspectives including students, teachers and parents (Wang, 2019; Wilson, 2021). It has been reported that translanguaging offers great benefits for enhancing the learning and teaching process in terms of many aspects. Empirical studies reveal that translanguaging helps teachers to make clear explanations in vocabulary and grammar (Copland & Neokleous, 2011), compensate for students’ lack of comprehension (Tekin & Garton, 2020), and maintain classroom 93

94

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

management (Liu et al., 2004). Contextual differences play an important role in the use of translanguaging in that teachers and students adjust their language use by taking into consideration contextual factors such as teachers’ and students’ proficiency levels, institutional language policy and so on (McMillan & Rivers, 2011; Tekin & Garton, 2020). Previous research has provided valuable insights into translanguaging in educational contexts. However, translanguaging in EMI classrooms needs to be examined further to unearth the relationship between translanguaging practices and language policy. EMI and translanguaging might interfere or overlap with each other depending on the application of language policy and the nature of the discipline. In this regard, Zhou and Mann (2021) point out the necessity of further research focusing on translanguaging in EMI to find out how teachers’ translanguaging strategies are affected by discipline-specific characteristics. Thus, this research investigates the translanguaging practices of teacher educators working in a state teacher education programme in Turkey.

Pedagogical translanguaging According to Cenoz (2017 p. 194), pedagogical translanguaging is a theoretical and instructional approach referring to teachers’ in-class language practice in terms of ‘the use of different languages for input and output or to other planned strategies based on the use of students’. Pedagogical translanguaging mainly aims to enhance and reinforce the understanding of language and content of the class with the help of teachers’ and students’ use of an integrated approach to languages. In this regard, it is not simply teachers’ mixing languages or allowing students to use their first language (L1) during the class without thinking of pedagogical benefits or value (Galante, 2020). For instance, a teacher’s chat with students in L1 about something that is out of context may not be regarded as helpful to teach the focus of the lesson and hence not be considered pedagogical translanguaging. For this reason, teachers should carefully take into consideration several contextual factors such as students’ proficiency, level of understanding, the focus of the lesson, and curriculum while using translanguaging and its pedagogical benefits. Although pedagogical translanguaging still implies the existence of boundaries between languages, they are viewed as soft and permeable allowing them to transform from one language to another smoothly, which is very unlikely to be present in the traditional ideologies of language separation or

Translanguaging in EMI Classrooms

95

monolingualism (Cenoz & Gorter, 2020). In monolingual language teaching, languages are regarded as two solitudes, the use of L1 is considered as a linguistic deficiency or failure in language education, and hence exclusive target language (L2) use is supported (Cummins, 2007). Pedagogical translanguaging is also different from more traditional terms such as codeswitching and codemixing which emphasize separate language systems while the main idea of translanguaging indicates one integrated language system (Vogel & García, 2017). Since it is specifically planned to improve the efficiency of learning and teaching language or content, it is also different from what is labelled as spontaneous translanguaging which is fluid discursive practices occurring both in and out of the class (Cenoz, 2017).

EMI and translanguaging EMI is a rapidly growing phenomenon that is implemented particularly in higher education levels across the world (Macaro, 2020; Macaro et al., 2018; Xie & Curle, 2022). Defined as ‘the use of the English language to teach academic subjects (other than English itself) in countries or jurisdictions where the first language of the majority of the population is not English’ (Macaro et al., 2018, p. 37), EMI continues to be adopted by more universities due to economic, social, political and educational factors (Xie & Curle, 2022). Its exponential growth also stems from globalization and the role of English as a lingua franca in the field of language education and daily life as well as universities’ desire to attract more international students (Fang, 2018). It appears that EMI is an inevitable trend in most countries including Turkey where a great majority of higher education institutions (110 out of 178) use English to teach academic subjects to some degree in some or all departments (Dearden et al., 2016). Considering the main aim of EMI, namely, successful delivery of the content and successful communication in English, Macaro (2020) problematizes language use in EMI classrooms. If the emphasis is mainly on language itself and maintaining interaction in English, a large amount of L2 input and interaction could be considered necessary for a successful outcome. However, Dearden and Macaro (2016) reveal at this point that some teachers might not feel responsible for improving students’ language levels, since they regard themselves as content teachers. If the primary aim is to ensure students’ high level of comprehension of the content, the use of translanguaging would be necessary to better convey the meaning (Dearden & Macaro, 2016). It would be particularly

96

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

useful for students to better understand challenging points, one of which is understanding vocabulary according to several studies (e.g., Kırkgöz, 2009; Uchihara & Harada, 2018). Such vocabulary items are often categorized as ‘unknown lexical items’ that are technical vocabulary related to a specific field. Considering Nation’s (2006) estimation for a minimum level of knowledge of incoming vocabulary items (95 per cent) to understand spoken discourse, using students’ L1 could be regarded as an aid to compensate for students’ insufficient vocabulary repertoire. However, Macaro (2020) argues for the necessity of differentiating teachers’ use of L1 equivalents of vocabulary items – whether they are pedagogically beneficial or ‘made on the spur of the moment and without obvious potential benefit’ (p. 272). In this respect, he is in favour of providing teachers with training on language use, increasing their awareness of language switches, and enabling them to gain competence to teach the focus more effectively. Research into the use of L1 in EMI tertiary classrooms reveals a negotiation of language choice between L1 and English. In a Chinese tertiary-level EMI context, Zhang and Wei (2021) found that translanguaging was strategically used for four main purposes which were conveying domain-specific knowledge, complementing English, recasting, and explaining localized knowledge. A similar study was conducted in science classes in Hong Kong by Pun and Macaro (2019) whose findings show that translanguaging offered great benefits in terms of allowing teachers to ask more questions and making the classes more interactive. In a similar vein, Tarnopolsky and Goodman (2014) revealed some uses of translanguaging in a Ukrainian university including improving rapport, enhancing students’ comprehension level (particularly in content-specific terminology), and maintaining classroom management. Based on these findings, Sahan et al. (2021) argue that exclusive English use is not implemented in many EMI settings and that translanguaging is a commonly used strategy serving a variety of purposes in EMI classrooms.

EMI in Turkey Similar to the institutions across the world that regard EMI as a way of internationalization, Turkish higher education institutions increasingly adopt EMI partially in some or all departments (Soruç et al., 2021). According to Dearden et al. (2016), EMI is prevalently applied in more than half of the state and private universities in Turkey. In line with this, a growing number of EMI-

Translanguaging in EMI Classrooms

97

related empirical studies have been conducted from various perspectives such as teachers’ and students’ viewpoints (Dearden et al., 2016; Kırkgöz, 2009), challenges that students experience in EMI (Soruç & Griffiths, 2018), and the role of language proficiency and linguistic-related difficulties (Soruç et al., 2021). These studies could be regarded as useful for a better understanding and implementation of EMI at tertiary level in Turkish context. In addition to the above-mentioned studies, some studies particularly focused on translanguaging use in EMI (Kırkgöz & Küçük, 2021; Sahan, 2020; Sahan et al., 2021; Sahan & Rose, 2021). For example, utilizing multiple data collection methods (classroom observation, individual and focus group interviews), Sahan (2020) investigated how tertiary-level teachers and students used translanguaging as a communicative strategy during classroom interaction in the mechanical engineering department at a public university in Turkey. According to the findings, both teachers and students used translanguaging for several purposes such as enhancing mutual understanding, encouraging student engagement, clarifying difficult concepts and improving content learning and teaching. In this regard, both students and teachers drew on their bilingual resources by moving between English and Turkish and hence prioritized communicative efficiency over adherence to English-only policy. Moreover, Sahan et al. (2021) carried out a relatively larger scale study with twenty-one EMI engineering teachers from seven universities to examine the differences in language use and classroom interaction as a component of EMI pedagogy. Drawing on classroom observation and interviews, the researchers found that L1 was commonly initiated and used by the teachers who viewed L1 as a useful and inevitable tool for content learning. One of the most striking results to emerge from the data was the difference in the amount of L1 and type of interaction across different types of universities. It was found that teachers used considerably less L1 in a teacher dominant way in elite universities compared to small universities in which the interaction was more commonly maintained by means of L1 use between students and teachers. The findings suggest that student-centred pedagogical techniques such as scaffolding language and content by means of questioning techniques should be applied to improve student participation in EMI classes. Based on the same dataset, Sahan and Rose (2021) prepared a framework for an effective use of translanguaging and hence successful delivery of the content in EMI classes. This framework mainly categorizes translanguaging use into three groups which are content transmission (e.g., introducing new content, translating technical vocabulary, explaining and clarifying, and so on), classroom management, and social and affective functions. The authors argue

98

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

that translanguaging should serve certain pedagogical functions and hence be regarded as a natural feature of EMI classes.

Method Research questions As aforementioned, previous research into translanguaging has largely been conducted in various educational contexts including foreign and second language classrooms and has examined translanguaging from different stakeholders’ perspectives. However, it is of benefit to investigate translanguaging in EMI contexts so that the relationship between language use and contextual factors which are peculiar to various disciplines could be better understood (Zhou & Mann, 2021). In this regard, this research explores teacher educators’ translanguaging practices with pre-service EFL teachers at a state university in Turkey. With this aim in mind, the following research questions (RQs) have emerged: 1. What motivations do teacher educators have for the use of translanguaging in EMI classrooms? 2. What factors affect teacher educators’ decision to use translanguaging in EMI classrooms? 3. What are the feelings of teacher educators while using translanguaging in EMI classrooms?

Setting and participants The research setting was a small English department at a state university in Turkey. It was a four-year programme in which students were majoring in EFL. Students were mostly of Turkish origin, and hence their L1 was Turkish, but there were some whose L1 was different and who learned Turkish as L2. Class size ranged from 15 to 35 depending on each grade. Although the medium of instruction at the department was English for major area courses, it was a flexible language policy allowing both students and teachers to use L1 in the course of learning and teaching. Thus, Turkish was not banned at all. In this respect, the department followed Macaro’s (2018) Multilingual Model which allowed teachers to use L1 in some cases or sessions. Students had to have an English placement test and become successful on this test to study at this department. From the first grade on, they took several

Translanguaging in EMI Classrooms

99

courses which were specifically related to English language teaching. Some of these courses were teaching language skills, language structure, linguistics, English literature, syntax, English–Turkish translation, teaching principles and methods, discourse analysis, world Englishes, language acquisition, drama in language teaching, English in media, coursebook evaluation, teaching integrated language skills, assessment in teaching English, and sociolinguistics. The above courses were delivered by five teachers who were also participants in the current study (pseudonyms: Ahmet, Veli, Selin, Erhan and Okan). Four participants were male, and one was female. They had a great variety of teaching experiences ranging from five to twenty-three years at the tertiary level.

Data collection This is a qualitative-oriented study using interviews to investigate teachers’ translingual practices. According to Talmy and Richards (2011, p. 2), using an interview is ‘a good way to mine attitudes, beliefs, and experiences of selfdisclosing respondents’. More specifically, this study employed individual semistructured interviews so that the focus of the research could be covered without getting off translanguaging and participants would be offered sufficient leeway in their responses (Bryman, 2016). The interview included different sections including questions about participants’ teaching context, their way of teaching, language choice experiences, feelings and attitudes towards translanguaging, training on language use, and learners’ attitudes towards teacher’s language use. Each interview was audio-recorded and lasted from thirty minutes to one hour. Ethics was paramount in this study. Ethics approval was obtained from the university’s ethics board, and then participants were invited to the study. They were given information about the study both orally and in written form, and their consent was obtained. Their names were anonymized for ethical purposes.

Data analysis The data collected through interviews were analysed through thematic analysis (Bryman, 2016). During this process, NVivo 12 was used to meticulously analyse the data in terms of identifying themes, indexing and coding. Although interview questions helped to identify the themes during the coding procedure, there were some emergent themes and sub-themes which were various translanguaging strategies used by the participants and their feelings.

100

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Findings In line with the RQs, the results of the current study were presented into three sub-sections, namely, teacher educators’ motivation for translanguaging, factors affecting translanguaging, and teacher educators’ feelings.

Motivations for translanguaging The findings show that all participants used translanguaging in their classes. Their accounts revealed that their translanguaging use was commonly based on two main factors which are the enhancement of students’ understanding and content-specific factors. They stated that they would draw on full linguistic resources both in Turkish and English to help students to better understand some points in particular moments. They all stated that students’ instant lack of comprehension was the main motivation, and they did not have any theoretical reason for translanguaging use. Erhan shared his experiences regarding language choice as follows. When I have the impression that students do not understand me in English, I draw in Turkish. I also speak Turkish when I think that the meaning could be better conveyed in Turkish. However, it does not occur in all classes. For example, I can say that I use 100% English while using the lecturing style in the drama course. [1]

As it is shown in the above interview extract, Erhan puts students at the centre of his decision-making process of language choice. Similar accounts were also expressed by Okan who elaborated on the strategies he used to use translanguaging. I follow a student-centred approach. By looking at their eyes, and observing their behaviours and body language while listening, I can understand that they are stuck with what I say in English. I have the feeling of students’ lack of understanding from my previous teaching experiences. I observe them and switch to Turkish once they are unable to understand. [2]

Ahmet shared similar experiences with others in terms of using translanguaging due to students’ level of understanding; however, he stated that he adopted this way of teaching only after experiencing failure in an Englishonly class in a language structure course at the beginning of the term. His experience is presented below.

Translanguaging in EMI Classrooms

101

I almost never use L1 with the third graders (in teaching integrated language skills courses), but the first graders could not make it when I used English exclusively. I tried it during the first two weeks of the last term. However, students had serious comprehension-related problems. Therefore, I now follow a mixed method approach in terms of language use and use both Turkish and English to eliminate my concerns about lack of understanding. [3]

Agreeing with the others, Veli stated that students’ lack of understanding mostly stemmed from an abundance of terminology in the courses he delivered, which included teaching linguistics, contrastive grammar, semantics and syntax. These courses included several points and specific terms which were challenging for students. He provided some examples of course-specific terms for the syntax course such as modifiers, heads and complements. He argued that the English explanation of these terms did not lead to students’ comprehension and hence used translanguaging in such moments. There are lots of technical terms. I observe students after lecturing in English. If they give me the impression of a lack of understanding, I use both English and Turkish in order to clarify the points that I previously explained in English. It is specifically related to their level of understanding. [4]

Selin also had similar accounts in terms of using translanguaging based on learners’ comprehension levels. Although she delivered several modules, she only needed translanguaging in two of them which were sociolinguistics and discourse analysis. She stated that the use of translanguaging was a useful strategy for her to compensate for students’ lack of understanding. If I teach something too difficult for students, say, sociolinguistics, I sometimes make Turkish explanations after teaching the focus in English. It is the same for discourse analysis in which students had great difficulty understanding particular points. I make a summary in Turkish at the end of the lesson following teaching and making discussions in English. [5]

Participants’ accounts presented above show that their decision to employ translanguaging was highly affected by content-specific factors. In other words, they adjusted their language use and used translanguaging depending on the difficulty level of the course or specific classes in which they needed to teach several technical terms or challenging points the students were unfamiliar with. It implies that they prioritized the delivery of the courses and ensured students’ comprehension with the help of translanguaging rather than maintaining an L2only policy. However, not all the courses necessitated the participants to draw on

102

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

students’ L1 due to their relatively clearer and easier nature. Some participants followed an L2-only policy in some courses such as drama (Extract [1]) and teaching integrated language skills (Extract [3]). In addition to these, Selin stated that she hardly ever used Turkish in the coursebook evaluation course. In the coursebook evaluation course, we did not need to use Turkish because the contents were very clear and understandable. There were checklists and we evaluated coursebooks depending on these checklists. It is not a complicated process in terms of content, so we were easily able to maintain communication in English. [6]

Although enhancement of students’ comprehension particularly during teaching challenging and course-specific points was the common motivation for participants’ use of translanguaging in their classes, one participant (Ahmet) stated that it was not an easy decision-making process. He confessed that he sometimes had a dilemma on whether to draw on Turkish or to follow an L2only approach, and hence established a practical criterion to overcome it. He identified the main aim of the course, whether teaching the content or improving students’ level of English, and adjusted his language use. The main determinant is my goal in the course. What is my goal? Either contributing to students’ English development or successfully teaching the contents they need to learn about their field. If the latter is more important, I put exclusive English use into the background and hence adopt a more Turkishoriented approach. I sometimes have a dilemma between the two, but I prioritize either depending on the course. [7]

Veli stated that he had a very similar dilemma in terms of language choice. He tried to find a balance between using English and Turkish to ensure that EMI is not ignored and that the message is conveyed efficiently with the help of Turkish. I say that students should learn and speak English. When I take into consideration this, I try to speak as much English as possible. However, I also say that students should understand what I teach. They may not be able to understand it when I use exclusive English. In such cases, I switch to Turkish to make clarifications and explanations. I am trying to find a balance between these two situations. [8]

Factors affecting translanguaging The results show that participants’ language choice was affected by external and internal factors. Regarding the former, the most influential factor was students

Translanguaging in EMI Classrooms

103

in that participants decided to use either language depending on students’ choice and level of understanding. Participants mostly switched to Turkish by observing whether students understood them or not, as presented in the previous section. Therefore, the most effective stakeholder for students was participants’ use of translanguaging. They stated that they were not affected by other stakeholders such as colleagues and the administration. At this point, Veli’s account summarizes it ‘The only stakeholder that affects my language choice is students.’ Additionally, Ahmet received students’ feedback on his own language use and adjusted his language use in favour of exclusive L2. Students provided me with positive feedback. They like my speaking English all the time. However, I did not get any feedback from other stakeholders. This issue has never been discussed. [9]

In a similar vein, Selin highlighted the student factor affecting her language choice. More specifically, she put students’ understanding at the centre of her decision-making process of language choice and drew on L1 in the case of lack of comprehension. She shared her experience as follows. The main affecting factor is students. If I feel that students’ minds are not clear, I switch to Turkish. I can easily see whether they understand it or not by looking at their eyes. Otherwise, I am comfortable with teaching in both languages. [10]

As for the internal factors affecting participants’ language use, Erhan stated that his language choice was more affected by his own desire than external factors. In other words, he felt the need to maintain L2 use due to his own belief which was mostly influenced by the language policy of the school. External factors such as colleagues and students had minimum influence on his decision of language choice. I might be affected by some factors such as the context and other teachers, but external factors mostly have minimum influence on my language choice. I speak English because I myself want it. [11]

In line with Erhan, Okan expressed similar thoughts about language choice in terms of innate desire that affects his language choice. However, he stated that his innate desire of maintaining L2 use was substantially driven by students. By using exclusive L2, he wanted to be a role model for students who were supposed to be English teachers in the future and hence they can apply it in their own teaching. Okan elaborated on the internal factors which were also affected by the student factor as follows.

104

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

I feel like I have to speak English. I observe that students’ level is insufficient. I aim to be a role model for them by speaking English. I want to provide input, be a role model, and hence encourage them to speak English. This is the most influential factor leading me to speak English. [12]

Teacher educators’ feelings Participants had a variety of feelings resulting from translanguaging use, ranging from a strong feeling of guilt to complete confidence. While two of the participants expressed a sense of guilt while drawing on Turkish, the others were more optimistic about translanguaging and focused more on its benefits. The strictest feeling belonged to Okan who stated that he gave thought to this issue many times. He clearly stated that he was so disturbed with his own use of Turkish that he spoke it fast to switch back to English. Although he previously stated that he found pedagogical value in using translanguaging (Extract [2]), it was not a desirable way of teaching for him. I considered it previously and I can honestly say that I feel guilty. When I switch to Turkish, I use it fast because I feel like I am doing something wrong, and it needs to end soon. It stresses me. I remember this feeling very clearly. It is crystal clear. I still have this feeling. [13]

Despite having similar feelings about translanguaging with Okan, Ahmet had a milder position in that he tried to find a balance between a sense of guilt and the necessity of translanguaging. I feel guilty a little bit. Although my primary aim is to deliver the content to the first graders, it is an ELT course, not a Turkish course, so I am not happy with the use of Turkish. To be honest, it is bothering me. However, I cannot get rid of it because my main concern is to teach the content. [14]

Unlike Okan and Ahmet, the other participants had more positive views on translanguaging. They were happy with their language use in terms of the interplay between English and Turkish since it was a necessity for the successful delivery of the courses. In this regard, Selin stated that she used translanguaging to meet students’ needs and hence she was comfortable with it. In the ELT department, none of my classes was delivered in Turkish entirely; therefore, I feel OK with language use. I only drew on Turkish when students needed or wanted it. I would feel incompetent if I had decided to use Turkish without the students’ request or need. [15]

Translanguaging in EMI Classrooms

105

In the above extract, Selin differentiated between translanguaging use as a necessity and translanguaging with no reason or as laziness. She highlighted that translanguaging should serve students’ needs when they are unable to understand the teacher’s L2 use. This is also supported by Veli who stated that translanguaging should be used to help students to understand the content particularly in challenging courses. For this reason, he found no harm in speaking Turkish when the necessity occurs. I think that we need to use as much English as possible in classes. However, I also believe that it is all right to switch to Turkish in classes with lots of technical and theoretical terms. It all depends on the content of the class. For example, speaking class. I am completely against speaking Turkish in this class. [16]

Okan also agreed with the other participants in terms of feeling comfortable with speaking Turkish. He believes that Turkish should not be ignored since it is their L1. However, he stated that he put a threshold for L1 use in his classes. We have to speak English since it is our field. However, Turkish is our first language, and it is unreasonable to say that we should not use it at all. I think that it is not a problem to speak Turkish when it is necessary. My minimum limit for English use is 70%. I would be uncomfortable if I had gone below this level. [17]

Okan’s self-determined language limit concurs with the language policy of the institution. Therefore, it could be argued that he feels comfortable as long as he abides by the language use guidelines. Moreover, he emphasizes that Turkish is the L1 and hence it is natural for him to draw on it.

Discussion Motivations for translanguaging This research explored translanguaging practices of teacher educators working with pre-service EFL teachers at a state university in Turkey. The findings showed that all participants used translanguaging to enhance students’ comprehension in particular courses. In this regard, they put students at the centre of their decision-making process of language choice between L1 and L2. This is quite in line with previous research which reveals that students’ lack of understanding is one of the main reasons for teachers’ translanguaging use (Pun & Macaro 2019;

106

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Sahan et al. 2021; Tarnopolsky & Goodman 2014; Zhang & Wei, 2021). However, different from previous research which investigated translanguaging use in various majors such as engineering (Sahan et al., 2021), the students in this context were EFL teacher candidates. Therefore, it could be assumed on the one hand that their English level should be high enough to understand the focus of the classes in L2. This was not the case for the participants who argued that they needed to draw on students’ L1 on particular occasions to ensure the understanding of the focus. On the other hand, considering participants’ exclusive or near-exclusive L2 use in some courses (e.g., coursebook evaluation, teaching integrated language skills), it could be inferred that translanguaging use was highly affected by the characteristics of the course – whether the focus is too specific or includes technical terminology and specific points that are too difficult to understand in L2. Participants felt the need for translanguaging to explain specific terms and points in various courses, took these factors into consideration, and adjusted their language use. They ensured students’ comprehension by using an interplay between Turkish and English. This is quite in line with the argument of Macaro (2020) in that it is important to ensure the pedagogical benefits of a teacher’s use of L1 for an explanation. The findings showed that participants were aware of this, as they emphasized that their translanguaging use served students’ comprehension and that they avoided translanguaging with no reason or as laziness. In other words, there was a negotiation of language choice between Turkish and English to convey the meaning, which is in line with the nature of EMI in terms of the successful delivery of the content and successful communication in English (Macaro, 2020). The use of translanguaging to explain challenging points and vocabulary items that belong to a specific field was also revealed in the existing literature (e.g., Kırkgöz, 2009; Uchihara & Harada, 2018). However, it was not an easy decision for two participants who had a dilemma between employing either language. This is quite in line with the argument of Copland and Neokleous (2011) in that decision-making of language choice is not a simple process that occurred in teachers’ minds since there are multiple factors to be taken into consideration.

Factors affecting translanguaging The findings also provided important insights into the factors affecting translanguaging use. Participants wanted to use English due to their innate desire, as they were aware of their responsibility as English lecturers and for

Translanguaging in EMI Classrooms

107

behaving as role models for students. Although one participant agreed on the minimum effect of the school’s language policy, participants’ decision to use or not to use translanguaging was almost entirely affected by students’ comprehension level. As long as students achieved a good level of understanding in the L2, they did not switch to L1. Thus, other external factors or stakeholders such as administration and language policy had minimum or no effect on their language choice. This finding evidently contradicts previous research revealing that institutions’ language policy considerably affects teachers’ language use (Liu & Fang, 2020; McMillan & Rivers, 2011; Wang, 2019). In a similar vein, Liu and Fang (2020) argue that strict institutional language policy is one of the biggest constraints for teachers to effectively make choices between languages, particularly adopting a translanguaging stance. Tekin (2022) highlights that teachers could be stressed to maintain the L2-only policy and sacrifice students’ comprehension for the sake of a monolingual approach. From this viewpoint, considering the flexible language approach of the context of the current research which did not ban L1 use at all, it could be argued that participants of this study had no concerns with their translanguaging use and compliance with institutional language policy. It has important implications for the design of language policy in terms of leaving some space for the teachers rather than following a top to bottom language policy written in ‘well-worded statements on glossy paper or carefully designed websites’ (Heron et al., 2021, p. 11). In this regard, the language policy in the researched context could be argued to acknowledge linguistic diversity by allowing switches between L1 and L2, which is also recommended by Fang (2018).

Teacher educators’ feelings Findings also provided important insights into teachers’ feelings stemming from translanguaging use. Although all participants were aware of the pedagogical value of translanguaging and hence used it in their classes, they had a diversity of the state of mind, ranging from severe guilt to full contentment. The ones having a sense of guilt about translanguaging use regarded it as a negative practice that should be avoided during teaching; however, they unwillingly used it as an aid for the sake of delivering the content successfully. This is quite in line with Littlewood and Yu’s (2011, p. 72) description for use of L1 as ‘an ad hoc “crutch” to achieve language learning goals’. This way of translanguaging use occurs when the necessity occurs in terms of unsuccessful message delivery. Copland and Neokleous (2011) argued that teachers’ sense of guilt stemmed

108

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

from teachers’ being stuck between using either language considering different factors which are successful when teaching with the help of L1, and perceived ideal teaching through exclusive L2. It is also confirmed by Wang (2019), who argues that this feeling results from the adoption of a maximal position (exclusive L2 use) rather than an optimal stance which supports a multilingual perspective. Since they view translanguaging use as ‘unfortunate and regrettable but necessary’ (Macaro, 2005, p. 68), it would be useful to provide teachers with training on language choice so that they can make informed decisions. Those who were content with translanguaging use focused on its benefits and hence were comfortable with its occasional use. Emphasizing the status of Turkish as the L1, one participant stated that it was natural for them to draw on L1 as long as it complies with the language policy. This is closely related to crosslinguistic awareness and bilingual identity (Cenoz, 2017) in terms of valuing both L1 and L2. From this viewpoint, it is important to ‘develop cross-linguistic awareness and empower bilingual identities’ for those who have negative feelings about translanguaging use (Cenoz, 2017, p. 197).

Recommendations and conclusion To conclude, the current research examined teacher educators’ translanguaging practices in the EMI context in terms of their motivations, affecting factors and feelings. The study has shown that translanguaging was employed by all participants to enhance students’ comprehension depending on the spur of the moment. However, not all participants were content with its use. In this regard, they should be provided with training about translanguaging if the aim is to gain awareness, improve their language choice and enable them to make informed decisions confidently. At the same time, they could be encouraged to follow a reflective teaching approach which is regarded as an important way to dive deeper into mental processes and obtain more information about unobservable feelings and underlying motivations (Dörnyei, 2007). Moreover, collaboration among teachers could be increased by means of peer observation (Bailey, 2006). When conducted for developmental purposes, peer observation could enable them to learn from each other about translanguaging use depending on their actual experiences of observing each other. In this way, it could be possible for teachers to more confidently and efficiently use translanguaging considering the specific contextual factors and have a healthier state of mind in terms of language choice.

Translanguaging in EMI Classrooms

109

References Bailey, K. M. (2006). Language Teacher Supervision: A Case-based Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Carroll, K. S., & Sambolín Morales, A. N. (2016). Using university students’ L1 as a resource: Translanguaging in a Puerto Rican ESL classroom. Bilingual Research Journal, 39(3/4), 248–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2016.1240114 Cenoz, J. (2017). Translanguaging in school contexts: International perspectives. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 16(4), 193–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15348458.2017.1327816 Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2020). Teaching English through pedagogical translanguaging. World Englishes, 39(2), 300–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12462 Copland, F., & Neokleous, G. (2011). L1 to teach L2: Complexities and contradictions. ELT Journal, 65(3), 270–280. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq047 Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 221–240. Dearden, J., & Macaro, E. (2016). Higher education teachers’ attitudes towards English medium instruction: A three-country comparison. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(3), 455–486. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.3.5 Dearden, J., Akincioglu, M., & Macaro, E. (2016). EMI in Turkish Universities: Collaborative Planning and Student Voices. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https:// doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.15435.39204 Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fang, F. (2018). Review of English as a medium of instruction in Chinese universities today: Current trends and future directions. English Today, 34(1), 32–37. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0266078417000360 Galante, A. (2020). Pedagogical translanguaging in a multilingual English program in Canada: Student and teacher perspectives of challenges. System, 92(3), 1–10. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102274 García, O. (2009). Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. Garton, S., & Tekin, S. (2022). Teaching English to young learners. In E. Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of Practical Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 83–96). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003106609-7 Heron, M., Dippold, D., Aksit, N., Aksit, T., Doubleday, J., & McKeown, K. (2021). Tutors’ beliefs about language and roles: practice as language policy in EMI contexts. Teaching in Higher Education, 26(4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.1973410 Kırkgöz, Y. (2009). Students’ and lecturers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of foreign language instruction in an English-medium university in Turkey. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(1), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510802602640

110

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Kırkgöz, Y., & Küçük, C. (2021). Investigating translanguaging practices in an English medium higher education context in Turkey: A case of two lecturers. In B. Di Sabato & B. Hughes (eds), Multilingual Perspectives from Europe and Beyond on Language Policy and Practice (pp. 135–155). London: Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9780429351075 Littlewood, W., & Yu, B. (2011). First language and target language in the foreign language classroom. Language Teaching, 44(1), 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0261444809990310 Liu, D., Ahn, G.-S., Baek, K.-S., & Han, N.-O. (2004). South Korean high school English teachers’ code switching: Questions and challenges in the drive for maximal use of English in teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 605–638. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588282 Liu, Y., & Fang, F. (2020). Translanguaging theory and practice: How stakeholders perceive translanguaging as a practical theory of language. RELC Journal, 53(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220939222 Macaro, E. (2005). Codeswitching in the L2 classroom: A communication and learning strategy. In E. Llurda (ed.), Educational Linguistics (pp. 63–84). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-24565-0_5 Macaro, E. (2018). English Medium Instruction: Content and Language in Policy and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Macaro, E. (2020). Exploring the role of language in English medium instruction. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(3), 263–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2019.1620678 Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J., & Dearden, J. (2018). A systematic review of English medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching, 51(1), 36–76. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444817000350 McMillan, B. A., & Rivers, D. J. (2011). The practice of policy: Teacher attitudes toward “English only.” System, 39(2), 251–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.04.011 Nation, I. S. P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.1.59 Pun, J., & Macaro, E. (2019). The effect of first and second language use on question types in English medium instruction science classrooms in Hong Kong. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(1), 64–77. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1510368 Sahan, K. (2020). ELF interactions in English-medium engineering classrooms. ELT Journal, 74(4), 418–427. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccaa033 Sahan, K., & Rose, H. (2021). Translanguaging or code-switching?: Re-examining the functions of language in EMI classrooms. In B. Di Sabato & B. Hughes (eds), Multilingual Perspectives from Europe and Beyond on Language Policy and Practice (pp. 45–62). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429351075 Sahan, K., Rose, H., & Macaro, E. (2021). Models of EMI pedagogies: At the interface of language use and interaction. System, 101, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. system.2021.102616

Translanguaging in EMI Classrooms

111

Soruç, A., & Griffiths, C. (2018). English as a medium of instruction: Students’ strategies. ELT Journal, 72(1), 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccx017 Soruc, A., Altay, M., Curle, S., & Yuksel, D. (2021). Students’ academic language-related challenges in English medium instruction: The role of English proficiency and language gain. System, 103, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102651 Talmy, S., & Richards, K. (2011). Theorizing qualitative research interviews in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 32(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amq045 Tarnopolsky, O. B., & Goodman, B. A. (2014). The ecology of language in classrooms at a university in eastern Ukraine. Language and Education, 28(4), 383–396. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2014.890215 Tekin, S. (2022). Translanguaging of pre-service EFL teachers in young learner classroom: A teacher educator perspective. In M. Tunaz & B. Aksu Ataç (eds), Challenging Issues in Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 171–183). Ankara: Egiten Publishing. Tekin, S., & Garton, S. (2020). L1 in the primary English classroom: How much, when, how and why? Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 77–97. https:// doi.org/10.30466/IJLTR.2020.120935 Uchihara, T., & Harada, T. (2018). Roles of vocabulary knowledge for success in English-medium instruction: Self-perceptions and academic outcomes of Japanese undergraduates. TESOL Quarterly, 52(3), 564–587. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.453 Vogel, S., & García, O. (2017). Translanguaging. In G. Noblit & L. Moll (eds), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education (pp. 2–21). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.181 Wang, D. (2019). Translanguaging in Chinese foreign language classrooms: Students’ and teachers’ attitudes and practices. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(2), 138–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1231773 Wilson, S. (2021). To mix or not to mix: Parental attitudes towards translanguaging and language management choices. International Journal of Bilingualism, 25(1), 58–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006920909902 Xie, W., & Curle, S. (2022). Success in English medium instruction in China: Significant indicators and implications. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25(2), 585–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2019.1703898 Zhang, Y., & Wei, R. (2021). Strategic use of L1 in Chinese EMI classrooms: A translanguaging perspective. In W. Tsou & W. Baker (eds), English-medium Instruction Translanguaging Practices in Asia (pp. 101–118). Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-3001-9_6 Zheng, B. (2021). Translanguaging in a Chinese immersion classroom: An ecological examination of instructional discourses. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24(9), 1324–1339. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1561642 Zhou, X., & Mann, S. (2021). Translanguaging in a Chinese university CLIL classroom: Teacher strategies and student attitudes. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 265–289. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2021.11.2.5

112

7

The Functions of Codeswitching in English-Medium Instruction in a Japanese Tertiary Context Samantha Curle, Wanying Xie, Hongdu Huang and Dogan Yuksel

Introduction A recent survey by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2010, p. 316) of Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) indicated that twenty-four out of thirty-five countries offered some, many or nearly all tertiary programmes in English. Jenkins (2013, p. 5) notes this as an indication of ‘how the English language is playing a major role in the internationalization of higher education’. Mauranen and Ranta (2008) call for further investigation into the way language is being used in such circumstances. The aim of this study therefore is to explore the codeswitching behaviour of one lecturer in a Japanese university which participates in the Global 30 (G30) Project. Due to participation in the G30 Project, this university has adopted an English medium of instruction (EMI) policy, offering a portion of the degree programmes in English. The current study has three major foci. Firstly, it aims to discover what percentage of the total lecture time (comparing English Language (ENG) lectures with Sociolinguistics (SOC) lectures) is spent codeswitching. Secondly, it will explore the lecturer’s perception of what functions he thought codeswitching served in these lectures. Finally, the lecturer’s attitude towards using the first/native language (L1) in EMI lectures will be explored.

113

114

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Literature review EMI in the Japanese tertiary context Nowadays, EMI has been greatly promoted in HEIs. The increasing role of English in the university setting is inextricably linked with the internationalization of higher education (HE) (Galloway and Rose, 2015). Japan is no exception. Based on the concepts of kokusaika (internationalization) and gurōbaru-ka (globalization), in 2018 the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) launched the Global thirty Project. The best 30 Japanese universities began offering ‘a range of courses in a number of fields’ through the medium of English to ‘propel them into the international scene’ (MEXT, 2013). A few other initiatives were released subsequently to further internationalize HE in Japan (Rose and McKinley, 2018). Various studies have investigated the implementation of EMI programmes in Japan (e.g. Greer, 2003; Shizuka, 2006; Brown, 2014, 2017); however, few empirical studies have specifically investigated the impact of the G30 Project and its language practices, especially codeswitching, within the participating HEIs. This study therefore aims to fill this gap in the research literature.

The debate of L1 use The use of the L1 has been ‘one of the most controversial issues in the field of foreign language education’ (Shin et al., 2020, p. 406). On one hand, a group of researchers push for the exclusion of the L1 in L2 classrooms (Hlas, 2016; Izquierdo et al., 2016; Thompson and Harrison, 2014; Turnbull, 2001), because they believe that L1 would hinder opportunities for input exposure and output production (Chaudron, 1988; Krashen, 1981; Lightbown, 1991; Liu, 2008). On the other hand, numerous researchers have found pedagogical value in using the L1 when teaching through the medium of the L2 (Cook, 1999; Hall & Cook, 2012; Shin et al., 2020), arguing that it should be viewed as a resource for teaching and learning, rather than a hindrance (Cook, 2001). From a cognitive perspective, L2 learners already possess a fully developed language system of L1, and this may be drawn upon as a valuable cognitive tool to lighten a learner’s cognitive load (Libben, 2000). Cook (1999, p. 185) considers L2 learners as ‘speakers in their own right’ since most L2 learners seldom attain native-like competence. Especially in EMI classrooms, if the emphasis is the deep understanding of

The Functions of Codeswitching in English-Medium Instruction

115

content knowledge, L1 use may be necessary (Macaro, 2020). Apart from these, teacher’s attitudes also shape the debate of L1 use in a target language method of instruction (MOI) classroom, which is also one focus of this study. Empirical studies related to L1 use in classrooms will now be reviewed.

L1 use in class Amount of L1 use A large variability in the amount of L1 used has been reported in empirical studies. Employing the word count approach, Rolin-Ianziti and Brownlie (2002) and de la Campa and Nassaji (2009) found a relative low amount of L1 use: 8 per cent (ranging from 0 per cent to 18.15 per cent) and 11.3 per cent (ranging from 4.6 per cent to 25.1 per cent) respectively. Adopting the fifteen-second sampling technique, Duff and Polio (1990) found a cross-class average of 67.9 per cent (a range from 10 per cent to 90 per cent) in two 50 minute observed and audio recorded sessions of thirteen teachers of a variety of languages at an American university. Then and Ting (2009) counted the instances of codeswitching in three 40 minute audio recorded EMI lessons in a Malaysian secondary school. The analysis illustrated that English to Bahasa Malaysia switches occurred 48 per cent of the time in the Science lesson, 43 per cent in the Poetry lesson, and 8 per cent in the Reading lesson. This study highlights that codeswitching may not only vary according to subject but also the content in that subject. Utilizing conversational analysis (CA), Gamiao (2012) investigated the types, patterns, reasons and effects of codeswitching of three EMI classes in five different HEIs in the Philippines. Findings indicated that 52 per cent of the teacher turns contained codeswitching. This study provides insight into codeswitching in both English language and content subject lectures. The current study intends to verify these conclusions in the Japan HE context. Finally, two studies are found of particular relevance to the present study. Utilizing the same fifteen-second sampling technique and also collecting data from two time points, Macaro (2001) video-recorded six French student teachers in England over a period of fourteen foreign language (FL) lessons. An average of 4.8 per cent L1 was used out of the total lesson time (6.9 per cent of the total teacher talk time). A followup study of three of the teachers by Macaro and Mutton (2002) illustrated a slight increase to 5.0 per cent (5.5 per cent of the total teacher talk time).

116

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

L1 functions As Lin (2013, p. 8) notes, drawing on Halliday’s (1994) functional view of language, codeswitching may be viewed as a communicative resource that lecturers and learners draw on to achieve three types of functions: ideational functions, textual functions and interpersonal functions. These three functions are categorized by whether codeswitching is used to help students have a better understanding of the academic content, to manage the classroom activities or to negotiate relationships between lecturers and students. Xu (2012) and Gamiao (2012) detected ideational functions of codeswitching in classrooms. Teachers switched to L1 to facilitate comprehension of content knowledge, ensure semantic understanding, and aid students to investigate further. Lee and Macaro’s (2013) and Dang’s (2018) studies found that it would be easier for students to learn when codeswitching is used to offer L1 equivalents of L2 words. Vázquez and Ordóñez (2019) suggested teachers cautiously using L1 to help teach content construct while not reducing L2 exposure in EMI classrooms. Apart from this, in Stroupe’s (2014) study, lecturers detailed their purposes for using codeswitching to organize the class, provide instructions or explanations, or maintaining the pace of activities (i.e. managerial purposes or textual functions). Especially when teachers failed to regulate students’ behaviour and maintain the classroom order in L2, codeswitching became a powerful weapon they could resort to (Lee & Macaro, 2013; Genc et al., 2023). Teachers also switched to L1 to build rapport (i.e. affective purposes or interpersonal functions) (Milk, 1981; Liu, 2010, 2017). In Xu’s (2012) study of two teachers and sixty students in college level, bilingual, international trade lessons, teachers used codeswitching to create solidarity with students, convey ‘important’ messages and express emotions. Apart from these three functions, other researchers have named and categorized the functions of L1 in different ways. Rolin-Ianziti and Brownlie (2002) coded L1 functions under three headings: Translation, Meta-linguistic Uses and Communicative Uses. Grim (2010), who studied the functions of codeswitching of eleven French high school and college teachers added Elicitation of Student Contribution, Evaluation, Revision of Previous Knowledge, Shift of Topic, and Arbitrary to this growing list of codeswitching functions. Wu (2011) and Kim (2014) found that codeswitching was used to reduce student anxiety, raise student motivation, and create a comfortable learning environment, adapting students with low English proficiency to the English-only environment (Tian and Hennebry, 2016).

The Functions of Codeswitching in English-Medium Instruction

117

Teacher attitudes Empirical research exploring teachers’ attitudes towards codeswitching in the classroom has been abundant (e.g. Liu et al., 2004; Rubdy, 2007; Franas, 2010). Many studies have reported teachers’‘guilt’ when having to ‘resort’ to the L1 (Macaro, 2006, 2009; Littlewood and Yu, 2011; Xu, 2012). De la Campa and Nassaji (2009, p. 754) concluded in their study that teachers had ‘clear beliefs’ that the use of the L1 was an ‘acceptable tool’. Summarizing the literature, Macaro (2006, p. 68) found that ‘the majority of bilingual teachers regard code-switching as unfortunate and regrettable but necessary’. However, in Gamiao’s (2012) study, fifteen HE teachers showed an overall positive attitude towards the use of the L1 in the lecture hall. Studies have also investigated the factors affecting L1 use, which included: the foreign language context, students’ low level of proficiency, class composition, student motivation, and teachers’ personal language learning experience (Mitchell, 1988; Macaro, 1997; de la Campa and Nassaji, 2009; Hall and Cook, 2012). Among these factors, Li, Zhang and May (2019) found that the discourse pattern in the EMI classroom was largely shaped by teacher emphasis on content and students’ English inadequacy. In addition to these factors, teacher proficiency is another important factor (Carless, 2004; Bateman, 2008; Nagy and Robertson, 2009). In Stroupe’s (2014, p. 84) study, lecturers based their code choice decisions on ‘unwritten’ expectations by the professional community of lecturers, who shared a ‘TL only’ pedagogical approach rather than written rules as dictated by administration. In regard to the Japanese/English codeswitching, two studies found different attitudes of non-native Japanese speakers. British-origin teachers in Hobbs et al.’s (2010) study showed more positive attitudes to L1 use as compared to the Japanese-origin teachers. However, native English-speaker teachers in McMillan and Rivers’ (2011) study were found to have equally divided positive and negative attitudes towards L1 use. Finally, Kim (2014) explored lecturers’ views on the effectiveness of codeswitching for students to grasp new concepts in both content subjects and language development. Fourty-four per cent of lecturers reported that the L1 should not be used in excess. Forty-eight per cent believed that codeswitching may be beneficial to teaching content subjects, but not students’ English development although they thought codeswitching could boost students’ confidence and interest in English and decrease students’ learning anxiety. McMillan and Rivers (2011) and Macaro (2009) suggested that in order to establish the ‘optimal’ level of L1 use, teachers’ judgement is of utmost importance.

118

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

To conclude, bilingual teachers’ overwhelming perception that ‘L2 should be the prominent language of interaction in the classroom’ is evidently manifested in the literature (Macaro, 2006, p. 68). This current study, employing naturalistic observation, addressed the following research questions: 1. How much codeswitching occurs in EMI lectures? (a) Comparing lectures on Sociolinguistics and English Language, what percentage of the total lecture time is spent codeswitching? (b) Comparing lectures from 2012 and 2014 on Sociolinguistics, what percentage of the total lecture time is spent codeswitching? 2. What specific functions does the lecturer view codeswitching as serving in EMI lectures? (a) Does his view of different functional varieties of codeswitching differ by subject taught? (b) Does his view of different functional varieties of codeswitching differ by year? 3. What is the lecturer’s attitude towards using the L1 in an EMI lecture? (a) Does the lecturer have criteria for deciding when to use the L1 in an EMI lecture? On what does the lecturer base his language use decisions (pedagogical or institutional factors)? (b) Does the lecturer’s attitude towards using the L1 in an EMI lecture vary with regards to the subject taught? 4. Does the lecturer’s attitude towards using the L1 in an EMI lecture correspond to his views on the specific functions that codeswitching serves in an EMI lecture?

Materials and method Context A single individual case study was carried out at a university in Tokyo, Japan. This particular institute was chosen among the broad target population of thirteen Japanese universities not only on the basis of gaining access, but also on the basis that an EMI policy had been implemented no later than within the last two years. This provided some degree of certainty that academic staff had had time to acclimatize to the policy and adjust their language behaviour accordingly, which therefore suited this study well.

The Functions of Codeswitching in English-Medium Instruction

119

Participants Following a case study approach, only one participant/lecturer was chosen from the institute. A list of criteria was developed in order to select a suitable participant for this study; descriptions of the chosen participant are given below. ●

●

●

●

This participant was a Japanese-English bilingual speaker. If the lecturer had been an English-Japanese bilingual (i.e. a native English speaker), this might have adversely affected codeswitching behaviour, or codeswitching might not have taken place at all. This participant typically codeswitched when lecturing as the main focus of this study is codeswitching. This participant has had at least a minimum of two years’ teaching experience in a university setting, so as to avoid the possible confounding factor of anxiety affecting language behaviour. The participant taught English Language and another academic subject to either the same class, or classes of students with similar demographics.

In consideration of these criteria, a non-probability, purposive sampling (also known as Judgement Sampling or Criterion Sampling) technique was adopted. Kuzel (1992) notes this as a typical qualitative sampling technique and Teddlie and Yu (2007) highlight this technique as providing greater depth but less breadth in comparison to probability sampling. As the sample was chosen by the researcher, demonstrating how representative this sample is of the population is challenging. This weakens the current study’s generalizability across research contexts (Dörnyei, 2007).

Data collection A mixed-methods approach of a single case was employed in this study. Data was collected from the four sources using the following research instruments. ●

●

Lecture observation. In order to analyse the lecturer’s codeswitching behaviour while delivering lectures, a total of eight lectures (four English Language lectures (which focused on presentation skills) and four Sociolinguistics lectures) were observed and recorded in both video and audio manners from May 2014 to June 2014, with the total length of 514 minutes. 2012 recordings. To make comparison and contrast to the recordings made in May–June 2014, this study also used two extra recordings of two Sociolinguistics sessions the participant ran in the summer of 2012 which were made for one of his undergraduate students’ end-of-year dissertation

120

●

●

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

research projects. These two additional 250-minute recordings were provided voluntarily by the participant. Stimulated recall interviews. To elicit introspective reasoning with minimal interference by the researcher, five stimulated recall interviews were conducted with the participant to discover what he was thinking at the moment of codeswitching, and what functions he saw codeswitching as serving in the lecture. Questions such as ‘Why did you use Japanese at this moment in the lecture?’ were used to stimulate the lecturer to recall and reflect on the underlying reasons for and perceived functions of codeswitching. All stimulated recall interviews took place no longer than forty-eight hours after the lecture had been recorded through the medium of English, in a quiet, private, non-threatening environment, lasting for approximately sixty minutes each (some interviews covered two lectures at a time), and were recorded using a digital audio recorder. Every instance of codeswitching was therefore discussed and reflected on. Incidents of codeswitching were identified at the word, clause, phrase or sentence level. All stimulated recall interviews were transcribed verbatim. Semi-structured interview. One semi-structured interview was conducted in order to find out the lecturer’s attitude towards using the L1 in an EMI lecture, whether he had any criteria for deciding language choice, what he based his language choice on, and whether his attitude towards using the L1 in an EMI lecture varied with regards to the subject taught. It is organized around a predetermined interview protocol made up of open-ended questions, with follow-up questions emerging from the conversation between the researcher and the participant.

Both the institute and the participant within gave consent to engage in this study. A pilot study was conducted before data collection in order for the researcher to practice conducting a stimulated recall interview and a semistructured interview. This was done because Dörnyei (2007, p. 25) notes that piloting data collection instruments ensures ‘the high quality of the outcomes’.

Results How much codeswitching occurs in EMI lectures? To find out how much L1 the lecturer used in EMI lectures (RQ1), as well as to compare this across years and subjects (RQ1a and 1b), the quantity of L1 used

The Functions of Codeswitching in English-Medium Instruction

121

by the lecturer (as a percentage of the total lecturer talk time) was calculated. Firstly, total lecturer talk made up the largest proportion of the total lecture time of all lectures across years (34.53 per cent of the 2012 lectures; 41.57 per cent of the 2014 lectures). The second largest proportion of the total lecture time was taken up by Student Talk (39.22 per cent in 2012 and 33.44 per cent in 2014). The third biggest proportion of the total lecture time was taken up by Silence (19.56 per cent in 2012 and 19.91 per cent in 2014). Secondly, looking at all lectures on both Sociolinguistics (SOC) and English presentation skills (English language: ENG), an average of 13.34 per cent of the total lecturer talk was spent in the L1. Examining only lectures from 2014, the percentage of the total lecturer talk spent in L1 drops to an average of 0.95 per cent, as summarized in Figure 7.1. Figure 7.2 summarizes a comparison of the amount of L1 used in Sociolinguistics lectures versus English Language lectures. When lecturing Sociolinguistics in 2014, a total of 1.12 per cent of the total lecturer talk time was spent in the L1, 0.51 per cent of the total lecture time. These percentages rise drastically when examining

Figure 7.1 An overall comparison of the amount of L1 used in all lectures.

Figure 7.2 A comparison of the amount of L1 used in SOC vs. ENG lectures

122

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Figure 7.3 A comparison of the amount of L1 used in Sociolinguistics lectures.

the total average amount of L1 used in both 2012 and 2014: 20.87 per cent of the total lecturer talk time, 7.39 per cent of the total lecture time. Looking at data from English presentation skills,1 this percentage falls to a mere 0.79 per cent of the total lecturer talk (that is 0.30 per cent of the total lecture time). When a comparison is made of Sociolinguistics lectures; in 2012, 50.51 per cent of the total lecturer talk time was spent in the L1 (17.71 per cent of the total lecture time), whereas in 2014 this was only 1.12 per cent of the total lecturer talk time (0.51 per cent of the total lecture time), as illustrated in Figure 7.3.

A summary of examining L1 use in each lecture: comparison across subjects and years To summarize, L1 use in each ENG lecture ranged from 0 to 2.16 per cent of the total lecturer talk (0 per cent to 0.82 per cent of the total lecture time) whereas SOC lectures showed a wider range of 0.72 per cent to 60.53 per cent of the total lecturer talk (0.28 per cent to 22.54 per cent of the total lecture time). The amount of L1 used as a proportion of the total lecturer talk in each lecture from 2014 ranged from 0 per cent to 2.16 per cent. In 2012, this range was 40.49 to 60.53 per cent. Inspection of each lecture in 2014 highlights that L1 use as a proportion of the total lecture time did not reach 1 per cent (range: 0.09 per cent to 0.82 per cent) whereas this range for the 2012 lectures was 12.89 to 22.54 per cent.

What specific functions does the lecturer view codeswitching as serving in EMI lectures? In order to find out the functions that the lecturer viewed codeswitching as serving in EMI lectures (RQ2) and whether his view of different functional varieties of codeswitching differed by subject taught (RQ2a) and year (RQ2b), analysis of the stimulated recall interviews was carried out. Table 7.1 illustrates the total frequency and differences between the functions of codeswitching in

The Functions of Codeswitching in English-Medium Instruction Table 7.1 The total frequency and differences between the reported functions of codeswitching in SOC and ENG lectures Functional categories

Aesthetic affective functions Professor’s personal feelings Relationship with students Get closer to students Relationship with students Humour – fun Communicative uses Administrative issues Comprehension/ Understanding Translation Feedback Prompt student interaction Student led switch Time-saving/efficiency/ Convenience Language factors Frequency of use (habit) Precision No English term No Japanese term Presumed cognates Professor’s proficiency Return to official language (English) Slip of the tongue Total Total number of codeswitching instances recalled

Total frequency SOC lectures (2012)

Total frequency SOC lectures (2014)

Total frequency ENG lectures

1 (0.689%) 0 (0%)

7 (4.827%) 5 (3.448%)

1 (0.689%) 0 (0%)

1 (0.689%)

6 (4.137%)

1 (0.689%)

1 (0.689%) 5 (3.448%)

1 (0.689%) 6 (4.137%)

1 (0.689%) 4 (2.758%)

5 (3.448%) 7 (4.827%) 3 (2.068%) 8 (5.517%) 1 (0.689%)

5 (3.448%) 7 (4.827%) 2 (1.379%) 8 (5.517%) 5 (3.448%)

0 (0%) 8 (5.517%) 0 (0%) 3 (2.068%) 3 (2.068%)

0 (0%) 6 (4.137%) 2 (1.379%) 2 (1.379%) 4 (2.758%) 4 (2.758%) 5 (3.448%)

1 (0.689%) 2 (1.379%) 4 (2.758%) 0 (0%) 2 (1.379%) 2 (1.379%) 2 (1.379%)

0 (0%) 1 (0.689%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (0.689%)

0 (0%) 55 (37.93%) 145 (100%)

2 (1.379%) 67 (46.21%)

0 (0%) 23 (15.86%)

123

124

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Sociolinguistics (SOC) and English Presentation Skills (ENG) lectures. The L1 was used for eighteen different functions, however the frequencies of these functions were noticeably varied. As Table 7.1 illustrates, the top three most frequent functions for codeswitching across subjects were for providing feedback (15.17 per cent), student led switches (13.10 per cent) and comprehension/understanding (10.34 per cent). The top four least frequent functions for codeswitching across subjects were due to frequency of use (habit), (0.68 per cent), slip of the tongue and precision of not having a Japanese term available (both 1.37 per cent each), and administrative issues (2.06 per cent). Generally, codeswitching was therefore most frequently used for communicative uses and least frequently used due to language factors. Comparing subjects (RQ2a), the most frequent functions for codeswitching in SOC lectures were due to a student led switch, providing feedback, followed by humour and precision. In ENG lectures, the most frequent functions for codeswitching were to provide feedback, comprehension/understanding, efficiency and student led switches. Figure 7.4 summarizes these differences in frequency of functions according to subject. As the lecturer reflects in the semi-structured interview, codeswitching behaviour was affected by the aim of each subject. As ENG lectures focused on communicating in the L2, this is reflected in the dominance of codeswitching for communicative uses. SOC lectures focused on content mastery, therefore due to numerous explanations of technical terms, switches focused more on language factors. Also, aesthetic affective functions were prominent in 2014 SOC lectures, highlighting the lecturer’s desire to make lectures enjoyable and to bond with students. Finally, examining the differences between functions of codeswitching in SOC lectures across years (RQ2b), a striking difference in functions across years (see Table 7.1) was the use of humour: this served for only 0.6 per cent of switches in 2012 whereas this increased to 4.1 per cent in 2014. A similar difference is

Figure 7.4 Differences in frequency of functions for codeswitching according to subject.

The Functions of Codeswitching in English-Medium Instruction

125

seen for returning to the official language; 3.4 per cent in 2012 and 1.3 per cent in 2014.

What is the lecturer’s attitude towards using the L1 in an EMI lecture? A semi-structured interview was carried out to probe the lecturer’s attitude towards using the L1 in an EMI lecture (RQ3), what criteria (if any) he had for deciding when to use the L1 in an EMI lecture (RQ3a), whether this attitude varied according to subject taught (RQ3b) and to investigate whether the lecturer’s attitude towards using the L1 in an EMI lecture corresponded to his views on the specific functions that codeswitching served in an EMI lecture (RQ4). According to Extracts 1, 2 and 3 (all extracts are provided in Appendix), the lecturer reports that he does have clear beliefs and criteria for deciding when to use the L1 in an EMI lecture (RQ3a) but does not describe any particular pedagogical or institutional factors that influence such criteria. The self-imposed principle is: the more English the better (the Virtual position). This highlights the institutional adopted EMI policy as having no influence on this particular lecturer’s code choice while lecturing at a G30 project participating HEI. In addition, Extract 1 indicates that the lecturer’s criteria for L1 use are flexible (changing from year to year and within a year), influenced by the context of instruction. In the relaxed, ‘outside of school’ summer camp context (2012 SOC lecture data) a lot more Japanese was used than in the classroom (2014 SOC lecture data). This explains the fluctuation of the amount of L1 used across years (RQ1b). With regards to the lecturer’s attitude varying according to the subject taught (RQ3b), the lecturer states that since more ‘technical things’ (Extract 1) needed to be discussed in SOC lectures, a higher amount of L1 was used in these lectures. In addition, since SOC lectures are higher stake than ENG lectures as they relate directly ‘to the graduation thesis’, the lecturer felt that ‘it does make sense to some extent to just make sure FIRST that everyone understands everything and then . . . see . . . use of English as some addition to it’. This illustrates a prioritizing of comprehension over MOI. However, Extract 4 highlights that the content of these lectures would challenge students regardless of MOI. This fluctuation in attitude is evident throughout the interview. As Extract 5 highlights, the lecturer attempts to uphold a Virtual position for both subjects, but prioritizes EMI in ENG lectures.

126

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Congruence between lecturer’s attitude towards L1 use and specific function of codeswitching When we analysed the relationship between what the lecturer’s attitude towards using L1 during the lecture and his views about the specific functions of codeswitching overall, we observed that the lecturer’s attitude appears to correspond with his views (RQ4). The use of L1 was revealed to often be dictated by student proficiency, with the lecturer consistently prioritizing comprehension. The professor’s personal feelings appeared to play an important part in code choice. This choice was self-imposed, saying that he wanted to do things the ‘proper way’. The use of a particular code was justified because it felt either ‘strange’ or ‘nice’, highlighting instinct as a guide with regards to the amount, the function and use of L1, which leans towards an Optimal position. Again, this fluctuation between the Virtual and Optimal position was a conflict which was consistent in both stimulated recall (SR) and the semi-structured interviews. Inconsistencies persist in both attitudes and functions of codeswitching; on one occasion the lecturer states that using the L1 saves time (referring to an instance of L1 use to tell a student to stick her poster on the wall): ‘I wanted to make sure that she understood it in due time and I thought Japanese was the quickest way’ (SR2014-1). However, on another occasion he contradicts this (referring to the language in which students should receive feedback on their presentations): ‘It would probably be be more efficient and more precise if I if I did it in in Japanese Japanese . . . yeah but . . . but it would maybe it would also be . . . no it would . . . there wouldn’t be much time difference’ (stimulated recall interview). This uncertainty does not appear to be fleeting and emerges as a constant battle that the lecturer needs to fight, and will continue to fight in future as illustrated in Extract 6.

Discussion The quantity of L1 used Overall, quantitative analysis showed high variability in the amount of L1 used in EMI lectures. The analysis of both SOC and ENG lectures showed an overall low amount of L1 use (an average mean of 13.34 per cent of the total lecturer talk). This is low in comparison to results obtained in studies such as Rolin-Ianziti and Brownlie (2002, 91.19 per cent), Duff and Polio (1990, 67.9 per cent) or Gamiao (2012, 52 per cent), whereas it is higher than findings in studies by de la Campa

The Functions of Codeswitching in English-Medium Instruction

127

and Nassaji (2009, 11.3 per cent), Macaro (2001, 6.9 per cent) and Macaro and Mutton (2002, 5.5 per cent). This difference may be caused by differing methodologies adopted in different studies. Examining L1 use as a proportion of total lecturer talk comparing each lesson across subjects, this range was from 0 per cent to 60.53 per cent, a much wider range than that of Macaro (2001, 0–15.2 per cent) and Macaro and Mutton (2002, 2.4–7.3 per cent). However, when data from 2012 is excluded from analysis, this range drops to 0 to 2.16 per cent, a considerably low amount compared to that reported in other studies. This may have been due to, as the lecturer states, setting up a ‘high hurdle’ at the beginning of the academic year as ‘it is easier to take the hurdle down bit by bit than start with a low hurdle and then put it up’. It may also be viewed as an indication that the lecturer’s self-imposed MOI policy is successful. In terms of difference in L1 use according to subject, comparing this study (ENG lecures: 0.79 per cent; SOC lectures: 20.87 per cent) to Then and Ting (2009; Reading lesson: 8 per cent; Science lesson: 48 per cent), a tentative pattern emerges in that more L1 is used in what may be considered more content-focused subjects compared to more language skill-focused subjects. Qualitative analysis in the current study indicate that the ENG lecturer felt ‘some kind of responsibility to assure that they [the students] get a a a minimal or . . . the highest amount of English input that I can give them’. In comparison, the SOC lecturer wanted to ‘really make sure that that they really learn about the contents . . . [to] make sure FIRST that everyone understands everything and then . . . see . . . use of English as some addition to it’. This fear that plurilingualism might affect education attainment negatively echoes researchers (De Swaan, 2003) who have argued for this sentiment.

The functions of codeswitching The functions the lecturer viewed codeswitching as in this study were similar to those found in studies by Milk (1981), Rolin-Ianziti and Brownlie (2002), Xu (2012) and Gamiao (2012). The codes have been mapped onto Halliday’s (1994) matrix of three main functions of language. See Table 7.2 for further analysis. This mapping illustrates what Halliday (1994) argues is language being drawn on as a systematic resource for meaning, playing ‘critical functions’ in interaction. This is also in line with García and Wei’s (2014, p. 10) argument: ‘we are all languagers who use semiotic resources at our disposal in strategic ways to communicate and act in the world’. However, the fact that the functions of Efficiency, Force of Habit, Presumed Cognates, Professor’s Proficiency and Slip of the tongue did not appear to appropriately map onto Halliday’s matrix highlights

128

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Table 7.2 Current study functions mapped onto Halliday’s matrix of language functions Ideational functions

Textual functions

Interpersonal functions

Comprehension/ understanding Translation Feedback

Administrative issues

Professor’s personal feelings Get closer to students Humour

Student led switch Return to official language

Precision No English term No Japanese term

Prompt student interaction

the many varied functions that the L1 can serve, and the limitations of such a framework which attempts to set boundaries on the functions of language. Three of the most frequent functions (i.e. using L1 to provide feedback and translation and ensuring comprehension) gives weight to Cook’s (2001) argument that the L1 should be used as a resource for teaching and not viewed as a hindrance to learning. These results suggest that, to some degree, the lecturer concurs with this position. Comparing subjects; in ENG lectures the L1 was used mostly to provide feedback, for comprehension, and to save time. In SOC lectures the use of L1 was often dictated by students, was used to provide feedback, to create humour, and or to speak precisely. This difference demonstrates the influence that the aim, content and context in which a subject is being taught may have on the functions that the L1 serves. For example, at SOC lectures that took place outside of class on a summer camp away (2012 data), in such a relaxed environment humour might have played a bigger role to build rapport with students than if these lectures had taken place inside the classroom. As the lecturer stated: ‘PLUS maybe you through the Summer Camp you get . . . you get closer to each other you get a more intimate relationship . . . and everything outside class as you may have realized . . . always is in Japanese’.

The lecturer’s attitude towards codeswitching Overall, the lecturer’s biggest struggle appeared to be with the fact that code choice exists. During the semi-structured interview, the lecturer expressed the idea that having to choose between languages was distressing. Language

The Functions of Codeswitching in English-Medium Instruction

129

choice was said to be ‘a stressful thing’ and ‘one of the hardest things’ in his teaching. Reasons for codeswitching were similar to findings of that of de la Campa and Nassaji (2009), Hobbs et al. (2010), Gamiao (2012) and Kim (2014). General reasons included the lecturer’s perceived obligation to use English due to being part of the English department, the student’s low L2 proficiency, the lecturer’s own English / Japanese proficiency, and the lecturer’s previous work experience and how that affected his current expectations and beliefs. The lecturer specifically stated that using L2 to explain ‘technical’ terms did not make sense. This resonates with the cognitive perspective (Libben, 2000); the lecturer used the L1 to lighten the learner’s cognitive load of mastering the ‘abstract concepts and ideas’ in SOC lectures. At one point, however, the use of the L1 did not appear to be intentional. The lecturer found ‘it just happens’. This echoes Cook’s (2001, p. 405) words: ‘naturam expelles furca, tamen usque recurret. Like nature, the L1 creeps back in, however many times you throw it back out with a pitchfork.’ Other reasons were more context-specific and included for example the high stake nature of SOC lectures. For this course students are expected to write up a graduation thesis and submit it on time, without which graduation cannot take place and this would directly affect student job prospects. The lecturer’s attitude towards codeswitching in SOC lectures compared to ENG lectures therefore differed. Finally, similar to findings in Stroupe’s (2014) study, the lecturer’s language use decisions were not based on pedagogical or institutional factors but rather personal beliefs. The lecturer felt ‘some kind of responsibility’ and thought students would appreciate it.

Conclusion Limitations and future research Due to limited time and resources for data collection, only one participant was observed, and eight lectures recorded and analysed. A bias may have existed in using audio recording as a stimulus rather than a video recording which is a more precise stimulus for SR interviews (Gass and Mackey, 2000). However, it should be noted that where possible, both audio and video recordings were used as stimuli in this case study. One limitation of using the SR interview method was that the professor could not recall why he codeswitched at each time, and

130

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

therefore could not comment on the possible function every instance of codeswitching served. In addition, the percentages of the functions of switches may be slightly misleading as the professor at times provided two possible functions that a codeswitch may have served. This highlights a limitation of analysing codeswitching in functional terms; switches may be multi-functional or open to different functional interpretations (Xu, 2012, p. 32). In order to verify the results of the current modest case study, replication studies would need to be carried out in similar contexts in terms of the country, number of participating HEIs, demographics of the participant, and the number of participants and lectures observed. Such studies would provide further evidence for possible generalizable results. Moreover, this study was descriptive in nature. It did not explore the effects of L1 use on L2 acquisition or mastery of Sociolinguistics content. Further research into these issues would contribute to the debate on L1 use in EMI lectures. To further elaborate; findings of this study suggest that further research is needed to examine the effectiveness of teaching Sociolinguistics bilingually versus monolingually in the Japanese context. This may be done by comparing the codeswitching situation to a non-codeswitching control group. Such follow-up comparison would further insight and evidence into the role and attitude towards L1 use in both English language and Sociolinguistics in EMI lectures in a Japanese university participating in the G30 Project.

Pedagogical implications Implications for teaching and continuing professional development of lecturers in HEIs may be drawn from this study. Most notably, university lecturers should be encouraged to be reflective practitioners and professional decision-makers (Borg, 2008). In practical terms, as the lecturer suggests in the semi-structured interview of this study, this may be done by providing opportunities for and encouraging lecturers to observe each other’s practice in order to be reflexive. Self-videotaping and reflecting on personal L1 usage based on previous and/or current research may also be methods to support self-reflection. In addition, dialogue between lecturers facing the same ‘dilemma’ of code choice could serve as a support base from which lecturers could draw, in order to share experiences and practical suggestions. Finally, as the particular department to which the lecturer of this study is currently attached does not appear to have a clear MOI policy, it may be suggested to involve lecturers to develop a policy, as well as develop localized strategies: a framework or set of guidelines in line with lecturers’ beliefs to optimize L1 use in both English language and other academic/content subjects. This clarity

The Functions of Codeswitching in English-Medium Instruction

131

may serve to decrease lecturer anxiety with regards to code choice and lecturers ‘may come to experience and enjoy a new level of self-articulated professionalism’ (Farrell, 1998, p. 10). However, until this study is replicated in similar contexts, and on a larger scale, immediate pedagogical implementation may be limited.

Funding details This work was not funded.

Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Note 1 There is no data from 2012 of the lecturer lecturing English Presentation Skills.

References Bateman, B. E. (2008). Student teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about using the target language in the classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 41, 11–28. Borg, S. (2008). Teacher Cognition and Language Education: Research and Practice. London: Continuum. Brown, H. (2014). Contextual factors driving the growth of undergraduate Englishmedium instruction programmes at universities in Japan. Asian Journal of Applied Lingusitics, 1(1), 50–63. Brown, H. (2017). Investigating the implementation and development of undergraduate English-medium instruction programs in Japan: Facilitating and hindering factors. Asian EFL Journal, 19(1), 99–135. Carless, D. (2004). Issues in Teachers’ Reinterpretation of a Task-Based Innovation in Primary schools. TESOL Quarterly, 4(38), 639–662. Chaudron, C. (1988). Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and Learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33(2), 185–209. Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(3), 403–423. Dang, Q. (2018). The application of code-switching in the English classes of higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 2018(05), 124–126.

132

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

de la Campa, J. C. & Nassaji, H. (2009). The amount, purpose, and reasons for using L1 in L2 classrooms. Foreign Language Annals, 42(4), 742–759. De Swaan, A. (2002). Words of the World. The Global Language System. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Duff, P. A., & Polio, C. G. (1990). How much foreign language is there in the foreign language classroom? Modern Language Journal, 74(2), 154–166. Farrell, T. (1998). Reflective teaching: The principles and practices. English Teaching Forum Online, 36(4), 10. Franas, K. (2010). Analysing Student Teachers’ Codeswitching in Foreign Language Classrooms in Poland: Theories and Decision Making. Unpublished Masters dissertation, University of Oxford. Galloway, N., & Rose, H. (2015). Introducing Global Englishes. Abingdon: Routledge. Gamiao, B. A. (2012). Code Switching in College Classes: Its Implications on Language Policy Formulation and Pedagogy. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Mariano Marcos State University. García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated Recall Methodology in Second Language Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Genc, E., Yuksel, D., & Curle, S. (2023). Lecturers’ translanguaging practices in Englishtaught lectures in Turkey. Journal of Multilingual Theories and Practices, 4(1), 8–31. Greer, T. (2003). Multi-Ethnic Japanese Identity: An Applied Conversation Analysis. Japan Journal of Multilingualism and Multiculturalism, 9(1), 1–23. Grim, F. (2010). L1 in the L2 Classroom at the Secondary and College Levels: A Comparison of Functions and Use by Teachers. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 7(2), 193–209. Hall, G., & Cook, G. (2012). Own-language use in language teaching and learning: state of the art. Language Teaching, 45(3), 271–308. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (second edition). London: Edward Arnold. Hlas, A. C. (2016). Secondary teachers’ language usage: beliefs and practices. Hispania, 99(2), 305–319. Hobbs, V., Matsuo, A., & Payne, M. (2010). Code-switching in Japanese language classrooms: An exploratory investigation of native vs. non-native speaker teacher practice. Linguistics and Education, 21, 44–59. Izquierdo, J., Martínez, V. G., Pulido, M. G. G., & Zúñiga, S. P. A. (2016). First and target language use in public language education for young learners: longitudinal evidence from Mexican secondary-school classrooms. System, 61, 20–30. Jenkins, J. (2013). English as a Lingua Franca in the International University. The Politics of Academic English Language Policy. London: Routledge.

The Functions of Codeswitching in English-Medium Instruction

133

Kim, H.J. (2014). Codeswitching by Korean Students in New Zealand and Lecturers in Korea. In R. Barnard & J. McLellan (eds), Codeswitching in University EnglishMedium Classes: Asian Perspectives (pp. 200–213). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Krashen, S. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. New York: Pergamon. Kuzel, A. J. (1992). Sampling in qualitative inquiry. In B. F. Crabtree & W. L. Miller (eds), Doing Qualitative Research (pp. 31–44) (Research Methods for Primary Care Series, Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Lee, J. H., & Macaro, E. (2013). Investigating age in the use of L1 or English-only instruction: Vocabulary acquisition by Korean EFL learners. Modern Language Journal, 97(4), 887–901. Li, J., Zhang, L. J., & May, S. (2019). Implementing English-medium instruction (EMI) in China: teachers’ practices and perceptions, and students’ learning motivation and needs. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(2), 107–119. Libben, G. (2000). Representation and processing in the second language lexicon: the homogeneity hypothesis. In J. Archibald (ed.), Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Lightbown, P. (1991). What have we here? Some observations of the influence of instruction on L2 learning. In R. Phillipson, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith & M. Swain (eds), Foreign/Second Language Pedagogy Research (pp. 197–212) Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Lin, A. M. Y. (2013). Classroom code-switching: Three decades of research. Applied Linguistics Review, 4(1), 195–218. Littlewood, W., & Yu, B. (2011). First language and target language in the foreign language classroom. Language Teacher, 44, 64–77. Liu, D. L., Ahn, G. S., Baek, K. S., & Han, N. O. (2004). South Korean high school English teachers’ code switching: Questions and Challenges in the drive for maximal use of English in Teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 605–638. Liu, J. (2008). L1 use in L2 vocabulary learning: facilitator or barrier. International Education Studies, 1(2), 65–69. Liu, J. (2010). Teachers’ code-switching to the L1 in EFL classroom. Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 3(10), 10–23. Liu, X. (2017). Researching the functions of code-switching in Chinese university English classes [Da xue ying yu ke tang jiao shi yu ma zhuan huan zhu yao gong neng yan jiu]. Hunan University. Macaro, E. (1997). Target Language, Collaborative Learning and Autonomy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Macaro, E. (2001). Analysing student teachers’ codeswitching in foreign language classrooms: theories and decision making. Modern Language Journal, 85(4), 531–548. Macaro, E. (2006). Codeswitching in the L2 classroom: A communication and learning strategy. In E. Llurda (ed.), Non-native Language Teachers: Perceptions, Challenges and Contributions to the Profession (pp. 63–84). Amsterdam: Springer.

134

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Macaro, E. (2009). Teacher use of codeswitching in the second language classroom. In M. Turnbull and J. Dailey-O’Cain (eds), First Language Use in Second and Foreign Language Learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Macaro, E. (2020). Exploring the role of language in English medium instruction. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(3), 263–276. Macaro, E., & Mutton, T. (2002). Developing language teachers through a co-researcher model. Language Learning Journal, 25, 27–39. Mauranen, A., & Ranta, E. (2008). English as an academic lingua franca – the ELFA project. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 7(3), 199–202. McMillan, B., & Rivers, D. J. (2011). The practice of policy: Teacher attitudes toward ‘English only’. System, 39, 251–263. MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology–Japan) (2013). About Global 30: Study in Japan (Japan Universities). Retrieved from: http://www. uni.international.mext.go.jp/global30/ Milk, R. (1981). An analysis of the functional allocation of Spanish and English in a bilingual classroom. C. A. B. E. Research Journal, 2(2), 11–26. Mitchell, R. (1988). Communicative Language Teaching in Practice. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching. Nagy, K., & Robertson, D. (2009). Target language use in English classes in Hungarian primary schools. In M. Turnbull, & J. Dailey-O’Cain (eds), First Language Use in Second and Foreign Language Learning (pp. 66–87). Bristol, Multilingual Matters. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2010). Education at a Glance 2010: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD. Rolin-Ianziti, J., & Brownlie, S. (2002). Teacher use of learners’ native language in the foreign language classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 402–426. Rose, H., & McKinley, J. (2018). Japan’s English medium instruction initiatives and the globalization of higher education. Higher Education, 75(1), 111–129. Rubdy, R. (2007). Singlish in School: Impediment or a resource? Journal of Multilingual Matters, 28(4), 308–324. Shin, Y. J., Quentin Dixon, L., & Choi, Y. (2020). An updated review on use of L1 in foreign language classrooms. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 41(5), 406–419. Shizuka, I. (2006). The development of pragmatic functions of codeswitching: a case study of two-year-old and four-year-old Japanese-English bilingual children. Japan Journal of Multilingualism and Multiculturalism, 12(1), 54–67. Shohamy, E. (2006). Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches. London: Routledge. Stroupe, R. (2014). Codeswitching in two Japanese contexts. In R. Barnard and J. McLellan (eds), Codeswitching in University English-Medium Classes: Asian Perspectives (pp. 76–91). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Teddlie, C. & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: a typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77–100.

The Functions of Codeswitching in English-Medium Instruction

135

Then, D. C. O. & Ting, S. H. (2009). A preliminary study of teacher code-switching in secondary English and Science in Malaysia. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 13 (1), 1–17. Thompson, G. L., & Harrison, K. (2014). Language use in the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 47(2): 321–337. Tian, L., & Hennebry, M. (2016). Chinese learners’ perceptions towards teachers’ language use in lexical explanations: A comparison between Chinese-only and English-only instructions. System, 63, 77–88. Turnbull, M. (2001). There is a role for the L1 in second and foreign language teaching, but . . . . Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(4), 531–540. Vázquez, V. & Ordóñez, M. (2019). Describing the use of the L1 in CLIL: an analysis of L1 communication strategies in classroom interaction. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(1), 35–48. Wu, W. (2011). The current situation of code-switching in university English classes [Da xue ying yu ke tang jiao shi yu ma zhuan huan yan jiu xian zhuang]. Modern Marketing (Academic Edition), 8, 217–230. Xu, Q. (2012). A tentative analysis of code-switching in college bilingual education. Cross-Cultural Communication, 8(4), 30–33.

Appendix Extract 1 [Codes: English: the more the better, Time affects code choice, Context, High Stake] (R= Researcher, P=Professor) R: mm . . . so do you have some sort of guidelines or criteria that you set for yourself that you . . . P: yes R: what are those? P: . . . for these two classes? as a as I said it’s just like umm . . I try to establish English as the main language and KEEP it as the main language . . and umm . . . and provide opportunities for the students to hear and speak English R: . . . mm . . . P: . . . but it’s not uh set in stone . . umm and it’s constantly changing . . from year to year . . and also within a year maybe I said that earlier but . . in Autumn usually the Japanese starts to get uh more frequent . . particularly in the seminar . . so after the after the after the Summer camp during Summer camp it’s already . . because it’s it’s out of school . . umm maybe that has also it’s outside of school and maybe that

136

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

has an impact but there are many technical things that we need to discuss and that directly relate to the graduation thesis . . ummm and much of this happens in . . . in Japanese last year’s Summer Camp which we didn’t record I think was even more there was even MORE Japanese than the one that you had umm have the data from . . umm it was only the presentations . . the presentations were all given in English still . . but all comments and everything I THINK was basically done in Japanese. .

Extract 2 [Codes: Global 30 Project] R: mm . . was that mentioned when you started at the university that ? P: no R: this is the policy . . this is how P: no R: things should be conducted P: no R: so that’s totally self (imposed)? P: yes . . it’s totally free

Extract 3 [Code: Global 30 Project] R: OK . . and there is no sort of official language policy that you were handed down . . ? P: no nothing R: or given or? P: no nothing R:

. . . OK

Extract 4 [Code: English Presentation Skills vs Sociolinguistics] [referring to SOC lectures] P: the contents that we are talking about are actually . . may be pretty abstract . .

The Functions of Codeswitching in English-Medium Instruction

137

R: mm P: not so easily to grasp actually . . irrespective of L1 or L2

Extract 5 [Code: English Presentation Skills vs Sociolinguistics] P: I feel some kind of responsibility to assure that they get a a a minimal or . . the highest amount of English input that I can give them R: mm . . OK. . . . In both subjects? P: in both subjects but MORE in the in the communication . . [referring to ENG lectures] R: mm hmm P: subject than the other subject definitely

Extract 6 R: having gone through this interview process and having somebody observed you and reflect . . do you think your views have changed . . on using Japanese in English Medium of Instruction lectures . . or . . or what have you gotten out of this process? P: . . . I I think it’s it’s good to . . to to consciously try to try to sort this out R: ok P: why am I doing and WHAT am I doing? umm . . . yeah I’m still really in the process . . R: mm P: of this and umm . . . I’m . . . [long pause] I really don’t know what to do . .

138

Part Three

Teachers’ and Students’ Perspectives Towards Translingual and Multi-cultural Practices

139

140

8

Over the Quality Aspects of EMI: The Influence of Lecturers’ Postgraduate Degree from an Inner-Circle University on Multilingual EMI Students’ Academic Success Mehmet Altay and Dogan Yuksel

Introduction For the past two decades, there has been an exponential growth of EMI across the world. Some of the most recent research in EMI concentrates on the quality aspects of EMI and their implications for students’ academic success, especially the quality of teaching in English (e.g. Dearden, 2014; Doiz et al., 2011; Macaro et al., 2019). An overwhelming proportion of the studies investigated lecturers’ linguistic proficiency with a specific focus on the diversity of English. The central argument is on the perceptions of whether lecturers’ English use is more favourable when they are native or native-like speakers (Doiz et al., 2011; Gundermann, 2014; Jenkins, 2009). Besides, EMI lecturers’ pedagogical competence and disciplinary content knowledge are also counted as the other determinants of quality in EMI. A vast number of non-native English speaking (NNES) states fund their postgraduate students to study at English-speaking universities in Anglophone countries to not only advance in English but also acquire such requisite competencies to teach in English at universities. Notwithstanding, no previous study specifically investigated the implications of the quality aspects of EMI lecturers with a postgraduate degree from these universities over students’ academic success to the best of the authors’ knowledge. Therefore, this study fills this gap by investigating students’ academic success in English medium and Turkish medium courses depending on their lecturers’ postgraduate degrees from either an Inner-Circle or a Turkish university. 141

142

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Background to the study Quality aspects in EMI Englishization manifests itself both in the form of teaching English and teaching in English. As Jenkins (2019, p. 1) mentions, many universities, Anglophone or not, ‘have switched to teaching in English-medium so as to recruit more students and staff from outside their national borders’ (p. 1). The quality offered by EMI programmes came into question correspondingly. Several studies (e.g. Gundermann & Dubow, 2018; Hellekjær, 2017; Hu et al., 2014; Macaro et al., 2019) handle it through a context-specific lens, though a few others operationalized more universal suggestions. For example, Klaassen (2008, p. 41) points out that ‘the success of implementing English-medium instruction and becoming an internationally oriented university depends on an extended policy for quality improvement with respect to language proficiency as well as pedagogical skills’. Also, Dearden (2014) specified the quality aspects of EMI as: ●

● ●

●

teachers’ being linguistically ‘qualified’ (i.e. ‘proficient’ in the English language), clear EMI organizational and pedagogical guidelines, teacher preparation (i.e. teaching content lecturers how to deliver EMI content), CPD (i.e. in-service teacher support). (As paraphrased in Curle et al., 2020)

The aspects suggested above are quite interrelated and concern EMI teachers to a great extent. Therefore, the lecturers’ quality investigated in this study are posited on these aspects as (a) their English language proficiency, (b) the effectiveness of their pedagogical competence, and (c) the strength of their disciplinary content knowledge. Unfortunately, few studies have analysed the requisite aspects from a multidimensional perspective.

Common challenges of teaching quality in EMI Various challenges have been identified as restricting the quality of teaching in EMI so far. Teachers’ linguistic proficiency lies at the heart of the arguments, specifically with an indirect reference to the ownership of English. Smith (2004) remarks on the demand of training the staff that is native owing to NNES teachers’ insufficient English competence. Erling and Hilgendorf (2006) confirm the

Over the Quality Aspects of EMI

143

absence of a sufficient number of competent subject professionals of Anglophone origin on the global market. Nevertheless, it is debatable whether being a native English speaker (NES) assures meeting the required quality aspects in EMI. For example, Hellekjær (2017) discerns that the linguistic difficulties EMI students confront include distinguishing the meaning of words, unfamiliar vocabulary and difficulties taking notes while listening to lectures in English and L1. The study, therefore, suggests the need to improve the quality of lecturing, that is, effective delivery of the subject content (Macaro, 2019), also in the native language. Furthermore, it is probable for NES teachers to fall behind in the other quality aspects regardless of their training. To give an instance, Tamtam et al. (2012) notify Anglophone teachers’ inability to adjust to indigenous students who speak their native languages and their lack of diversity and accessibility to teaching aids. Collectively, the common ground of previous research is towards the necessity of pedagogical training for NES teachers. Discrete concerns are directed to non-native English speaker (NNES) teachers within the same domain of pedagogical training. Pedagogical support for EMI teachers is systematically implemented and reformulated according to changing needs in certain settings (Ball & Lindsay, 2013; Dubow & Gundermann, 2017; Gundermann & Dubow, 2018). However, Macaro (2018) reminds that the introduction of EMI is not supported by pre-service teacher training or teacher professional development in many countries. This might be due to excessive emphasis on teachers’ linguistic proficiency and its overshadowing the other quality aspects in EMI teaching. In the same vein, Airey (2015) notes that such an emphasis risks ignoring the disciplinary literacy needs of students. Overall, further research is also required for the non-linguistic quality aspects.

Teacher training for EMI at an Inner-Circle university Although English is not learned primarily to communicate with its native speakers, ‘attachment to “standard” Inner-Circle native speaker models remains firmly in place among Non-native English speakers’ (Jenkins, 2019, p. 204). For instance, TESOL teachers from Outer and Expanding-Circle countries seek opportunities for professional training in Inner-Circle countries due to the boom in international student mobility (Nguyen & Walkinshaw, 2018). Together with this mobility and Englishization, there occurred an exponential growth in EMI in NNES countries as well. As (Fenton-Smith et al., 2017, p. 195) discussed:

144

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

The push to implement EMI at a quick pace created a need for teacher support, as lecturers adapt their courses to the new medium of instruction. This situation presents an opportunity for Anglophone nations to provide EMI teacher training within a fully immersive environment.

In their study concerning TESOL teachers, Nguyen and Walkinshaw (2018) mentioned the schism between the local linguistic, pedagogical and sociocultural settings where teachers live and work and those in which they undergo their training. However, little research, if any, has observed the implications of studying at an Inner-Circle university over EMI lecturers teaching in their homelands.

Methodology This study adopts a mixed-methods research design to compare the influence of EMI lecturers with a postgraduate degree either from an Inner-Circle university (henceforth Stratum 1) or a domestic university (Stratum 2) over multilingual EMI students’ academic success through the lens of the three requisite EMI lecturer qualifications. It seeks to address vis-à-vis the following research questions: 1. Are there statistically significant differences in students’ a. EMI academic success, b. TMI academic success depending on lecturers’ strata? 2. Does the EMI academic success differ statistically significantly from that of TMI within the courses given by each of the two lecturer strata? 3. Regarding the two lecturer strata, how do students perceive the influence of lecturers’ qualifications on their academic success in multilingual EMI when viewed through the lens of (a) English language proficiency, (b) the effectiveness of their pedagogical competence and (c) the strength of their disciplinary content knowledge?

Context of the study EMI in Turkey has a relatively more extended history, even compared to some excolonized countries. As Macaro (2018, p. 38) argues, ‘the main impetus for EMI in Turkey has been a choice made by an independent and sovereign state attempting to modernise’. Universities in Turkey offer two types of EMI programmes as full

Over the Quality Aspects of EMI

145

and and multilingual. These programmes across the country generally require students to undertake a Preparatory Year Programme (PYP), ‘the bridging courses in universities for those undergraduates wishing to study through EMI’ (Macaro, 2018, p. 37), to reach the B1 proficiency level of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). Alternatively, they can also certify the same level of proficiency with a valid national or international proficiency test endorsed by the Board of Higher Education (BHE) in Turkey. Besides, the minimum prerequisites to teach at a tenure track position at universities include a PhD degree and a certifying C1 level of English proficiency with a validated test score. Candidates with the academic experience of at least two years in an Anglophone country are exempted from the language prerequisite. To promote this second option and train lecturer candidates, BHE also has a fellowship programme to fund students abroad.

Population and sampling The accessible population in this study consists of the senior students from six multilingual EMI subjects of the engineering division at a state university in Turkey, where they were required to take 30 per cent of their courses in English per semester. Although academic success requires additional elements, this success is often quantified using assessment grades (Cachia et al., 2018), as also determined by the official university regulations in this study. Accordingly, the proportion of assessments, their techniques, and weight in the term grades are standardized by these regulations to a certain extent to minimize the inconsistencies in lecturers’ evaluation. The six engineering subjects were purposively selected as they accept only the students within the range of the top 1.04 to 1.89 per cent according to their university entrance scores scores. Fifty-seven faculty members teach in these multilingual EMI subjects, whereas fifty-five have tenure. Therefore, the quantitative data consist of students’ EMI and TMI term grades from these fiftyfive lecturers. Depending on where they earned their postgraduate degrees, the lecturers were classified into Stratum 1 and Stratum 2. Despite the fact that the students’ proficiency levels are consistent and the regulations for the assessment are relatively standardized, this study adopted convenience sampling as a non-probability sampling procedure. It is frequently used in mixed-methods research, particularly when participants are already placed in groups based on other criteria such as a placement test, as in educational settings (Riazi, 2016). A total of 4,328 EMI and TMI term grades were collected;

146

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

however, only 1,458 were from Stratum 1 as they were only thirteen lecturers in total. As Cohen (1988) highlights, the reliability of a sample value depends on the sample size, and sufficient sample size is widely accepted to be at a 5 per cent confidence level of the whole population: 204 EMI term grades were thereby sampled (term grades from lecturers in Stratum 1, n = 102; term grades from lecturers in Stratum 2, n = 102). As for the qualitative data, eighteen students were determined to participate in the interviews through a maximal variation sampling, which ‘only investigates a few cases but those which are as different as possible to disclose the range of variation in the field’ (Flick, 2009, p. 123). Therefore, students with one of the lowest, middle and highest cumulative Grade Point Averages (GPAs) were sampled from each of the six subjects in equilibrium. All the participants were Turkish native speakers, and they learned English as a foreign language. Table 8.1 presents the selected cases, with numbers replacing the names of the interview participants.

Table 8.1 Information of the interview participants from six multilingual EMI engineering subjects Participant

Gender

Age

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Female Male Male Male Female Male Female Male Male Female Male Male Male Female Male Female Male Female

24 23 28 31 26 27 24 23 24 25 27 29 24 23 23 24 26 23

Cumulative GPA Engineering subject (%) over four years 47 62 81 52 68 85 57 75 92 51 63 82 58 73 91 49 64 80

Chemical Chemical Chemical Mechatronics Mechatronics Mechatronics Mechanical Mechanical Mechanical Electronics Electronics Electronics Computer Computer Computer Civil Civil Civil

Over the Quality Aspects of EMI

147

Data collection The mixed-methods research design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017) in this study is based on both the statistical analyses of students’ EMI and TMI term grades and a follow-up interview protocol. Prior to commencing the investigation, all the legal and ethical permissions were granted from the university’s Research Ethics Committee in 2020. The Registrar Office subsequently provided the autumn term grades of the senior students, consisting of the average of a mid-term exam and a term final exam. The interviews were conducted at the beginning of the spring semester after obtaining written informed consent from the participants. The biographical details of the academic staff are publicly available on the university’s website, and the participants were asked to review their lecturers’ details. Then they were directed three semistructured interview questions to reflect on.

Data analysis All the quantitative data analyses were generated using the computing software R and plots illustrated in Minitab Statistical Software. Multivariate analysis of variance was used to investigate any change in the two dependent variables, namely academic success in EMI and TMI courses, as the factor variable was the two EMI lecturer strata (RQ1). To discover if success in EMI courses differs from that of TMI taught by the two lecturer strata, a t-Test analysis for dependent variables was conducted (RQ2). Finally, Nvivo Qualitative Data Analysis Software was used to analyse the interview data taking a content analysis approach (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017). The transcriptions were translated and codified by two experts and then clustered under three themes as ‘English language proficiency’, ‘pedagogical competence’ and ‘disciplinary content knowledge’ for case-by-case comparisons (Gibbs, 2012). Cohen’s kappa coefficient indicated high inter-rater reliability (K = 0.89).

Results Students’ academic success in EMI and TMI depending on lecturer strata The initial research question sought to investigate any change in the two dependent variables of EMI and TMI term grades based on the lecturer strata. One-way MANOVA was carried out for the comparison between the two

148

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

strata. The following assumptions for MANOVA were confirmed empirically beforehand: ●

● ●

●

All the courses given by Stratum 1 and Stratum 2 are independent of each other in respect to assessment and evaluation. No outliers were detected. The data of the dependent variables were tested through a one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test as multivariate normally distributed both in EMI (p = 0.063) and in TMI (p = 0.200). Skewness values (EMI = −0.106; TMI = −0.145) were approximately symmetric (Hair et al., 2010). Kurtosis values also confirm a normal distribution (EMI = −0.483; TMI = −0.145). Levene’s test indicates the homogeneity of variance both in the EMI variable (p = 0.668) and TMI variable (p = 0.545).

Table 8.2 compares the mean scores and standard deviations of EMI and TMI courses taught by the two lecturer strata. It is apparent that students’ TMI term grades (x¯ = 61.91, SD = 15.16) are higher in Stratum 1 as against EMI grades, with a lower standard deviation (x¯ = 52.57, SD = 15.64). Similarly in the courses by Stratum 2, students’ TMI term grades (x¯ = 65.79, SD = 14.10) are higher than their EMI grades against a lower standard deviation (x¯ = 64.18, SD = 14.94). The difference between EMI and TMI mean scores in Stratum 1 is considerably higher compared to Stratum 2. Also, the overall term grades from Stratum 1 are lower than those from Stratum 2. While the difference of the mean scores in the TMI grades is in a reasonable range, it is quite distinctive as in EMI mean scores. As shown in Table 8.3, the results refer to a statistically significant difference as Wilks’ Lambda = 0.03, F(2.201) = 252.852, p = 0, rejecting the null hypothesis. The multivariate eta-squared was estimated as large (η2 =0.618) based on the assumptions by Cohen (1988). Similarly, the findings of the univariate analysis justify the differences within EMI term grades (F(1.202) = 29.369, p = 0)

Table 8.2 Mean scores and standard deviations for EMI and TMI term grades from the two lecturer strata Lecturer strata

Students’ term grades EMI

Stratum 1 Stratum 2

TMI

x

SD

x

SD

52.57 64.18

15.64 14.94

61.91 65.79

15.16 14.10

Over the Quality Aspects of EMI

149

Table 8.3 Multivariate and univariate analyses of variance F ratios for EMI and TMI term grades according to lecturer strata Univariate Multivariate

EMI

Variable

Fa

p

η2

Lecturer strata

252.852

0.000

0.618

Fb

p

TMI η2

Fb

p

η2

29.369 0.000 0.128 3.584 0.060 0.015

Note. Multivariate F ratio was generated from Wilks’ Lambda statistic. a Multivariate df = 2.201, b Univariate df = 1. 202.

Figure 8.1 Histogram of EMI and TMI scores depending on EMI lecturer profiles.

depending on lecturers’ holding a postgraduate degree either from an InnerCircle university or a domestic university. On the other hand, the difference is insignificant in the TMI term grades of the students (F(1.202) = 3.584, p = 0.060). Figure 8.1 visually represents the differences.

The difference of academic success in EMI from TMI within each lecturer stratum In the interest of the second research question, Paired-Samples t-Test was operationalized to distinguish any difference between EMI and TMI term grades

150

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Table 8.4 EMI students’ success differences between EMI and TMI in the two lecturer strata M Stratum 1 Stratum 2

EMI-TMI −9.333 EMI-TMI −1.607

SD

t101

p

Cohen’s d

2.401 2.517

−39.245 −6.449

0 0

3.887 0.638

Figure 8.2 Boxplot of the comparison of the EMI and TMI mean scores within each profile.

within each of the lecturer strata. The paired data for comparison consisted of EMI and TMI term grades from a total of 102 students. The previously given descriptive statistics and assumptions also correspond to the preliminary statistics for the following t-Test analysis. Table 8.4 is revealing in several ways. First, the null hypothesis is rejected both in Stratum 1 (t101 = −39.245, p = 0) and Stratum 2 (t101 = −6.449, p = 0). Therefore, the students’ EMI term grades significantly differ from their TMI term grades in both lecturer strata. Second, the mean difference between EMI and TMI in Stratum 1 (M = −9.333, SD = 2.401) surpassed that of Stratum 2 (M = −1.607, SD = 2.517). The excessive mean difference in Stratum 1 resulted in an extremely large effect size (d = 3.887), though it is large in Stratum 2 (d = 0.638) as well. Figure 8.2 visually represents the differences.

Over the Quality Aspects of EMI

151

Multilingual EMI students’ perceptions over lecturers’ quality aspects The statistical comparison of the quantitative data indicated a significant difference between the two lecturer strata in terms of students’ EMI academic success, while no significant difference was found in TMI academic success. Another statistically significant difference was found between EMI and TMI academic success within each stratum, though the mean difference was overwhelmingly higher in Stratum 1. The qualitative data offer a more insightful understanding of students’ perceptions by comparing the three quality aspects between the two strata to see the underlying factors behind the statistical findings.

English language proficiency The interview findings point to differences between the two lecturer strata in three subthemes for English language proficiency: communicative competence, translanguaging and purposeful linguistic simplification. As for the first one, students’ responses (n = 7) imply that they are aware of a need for other components of communicative competence than only grammatical competence for better language proficiency. They also perceive that lecturers in Stratum 1 are more competent than Stratum 2, as given in the following sample excerpts: Participant 5 (GPA = 68): They [Stratum 1] experienced a life built upon English for survival needs along with academic requirements. As a result, they do not only ‘use’ English but act upon it. They do not even switch to Turkish in exclamations. Some are also good at producing an idiom or proverb in English to react in some cases. These are all good indicators of proficiency in English. In contrast, the only requirement for the others is passing a national proficiency test, which only measures grammar and vocabulary. Participant 12 (GPA = 82): Their [Stratum 1] English proficiency yields extra self-confidence; one can observe it from their body language. They are skilful in finding a way to teach in English coherently. Their teaching is not much interrupted when they cannot realize a word. They easily find an alternative way to explain it. The case is not so with the others.

Unlike the first subtheme, participants’ reflections over the second subtheme, translanguaging, is more common among Stratum 2 (n = 8). Some students argue that they often switch from English to Turkish in EMI courses because of their limited English proficiency rather than students’ proficiency levels. The following excerpts vividly illustrate this point of view:

152

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Participant 1 (GPA = 47): I can understand most of the course contents despite my limited English proficiency. Still, I observe that our lecturers with a degree from Turkey excessively switch to Turkish in English medium courses. Participant 8 (GPA = 75): They [Stratum 2] shift to Turkish when they cannot express themselves in English.

However, some others (n = 4) think the commonality of translanguaging may also lessen students’ burdens. This is emphasized especially for the courses taught by Stratum 1, in which translanguaging is in the opposite direction. They prefer translanguaging more often in TMI courses, thus shifting from Turkish to English. The most common use is apparently for the technical terms and definitions, which is believed to contribute to comprehending the course content in EMI. Whereas EMI does not seem to affect TMI courses positively, as stated in the following excerpts: Participant 17 (GPA = 64): They [Stratum 1] usually prefer using the technical terms in English during TMI courses. This is sometimes for our good in that we transfer what we learn in TMI into EMI. Nevertheless, what we learn in EMI courses does not contribute to TMI as we hardly understand much of the EMI content. Participant 3 (GPA = 81): Our lecturers holding a degree from the UK or the USA are selective in shifting to Turkish. Seldom do they use Turkish, but worth it when they do. On the other hand, they use many English words in TMI, through which we can transfer what we learn to the other lecturers’ courses.

The last subtheme concerns purposeful linguistic simplification, for which the responses were relatively more constructive for Stratum 2 compared to the previous subthemes. Some of the participants (n = 5) claim that Stratum 2 often adopt a simpler English language use only because of their limited proficiency, while the others (n = 6) think they simplify their English on purpose for students’ comprehension. In either case, participants seem to be pleased with the linguistic simplification of Stratum 2. Participant 10 (GPA = 51): I often feel that English spoken by the lecturers’ with a postgraduate degree from a native English-speaking country is not my cup of tea. However, lecturers who studied in Turkey have a parallel academic background to ours, so they know what level of English can help us. Participant 16 (GPA = 49): Knowing that our proficiency is so limited, their language use is at a basic level, consisting of more straightforward vocabulary.

Over the Quality Aspects of EMI

153

Our pronunciations are alike, so it is more suitable for us to focus on content than figuring out what they say.

Contrary to positive views on Stratum 2, the participants voice discontent with the unsatisfactory linguistic simplification of Stratum 1. The common view is that either they are unaware of the limits of students’ proficiency level or do not bother with it. Some students imply the little use of communications strategies by these lecturers for better interaction. Also, the transfer of knowledge from TMI to EMI is highlighted as an important contributor to success. The following are some of the criticisms: Participant 7 (GPA = 57): We sometimes express that we do not understand what they [Stratum 1] tell us. The only thing they do is repeating what they previously said rather than clarifying or restating it. Fortunately, they often use EMI terminologies in TMI courses to occasionally figure out the content in EMI. Participant 1 (GPA = 47): They assume the students understand what is being instructed without any elicitation attempt despite knowing our low proficiency level. If I did not transfer what I learn in TMI courses into EMI courses, I would probably fail in most EMI courses.

Pedagogical competence When the pedagogical qualities of the two strata were asked, all the interview participants (n = 18) indicated that there is perceived incompetence affecting their successful comprehension irrespective of the strata. To what they attributed this incompetence was asked as a follow-up question, and the responses merged under the lack of a prerequisite for it in the EMI policy. Participant 3 (GPA = 81), planning a career as a lecturer at his university, reflected how puzzled he felt on realizing that the prerequisites excluded pedagogical training. Similarly, it was inferred from most other comments (n = 12) that mastery in disciplinary content knowledge and proficiency in English do not necessarily assure the required skills on their own. The participants were asked to specify pedagogical requirements they would expect an EMI lecturer to meet with a final question. The suggestions are clustered into subthemes as pre-service lecturer training and Continuous Professional Development (CPD) for in-service lecturers. Regarding the former, only a few (n = 3) of the participants stated that there could be pedagogical training for undergraduate engineering students as the following:

154

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Participant 4 (GPA = 52): It would be good if we [undergraduate engineering students] could at least have a selective course for teaching. Taking this course could be a requirement for those planning a career as a lecturer. I doubt if any of our lecturers received in-service teacher training. There seems to be no difference in their teaching to me. Participant 14 (GPA = 73): Engineers of any sort should know how to teach as they will always need to train the people around them. So I believe we need to get training on teaching. Participant 18 (GPA = 80): We already need to take many courses irrelevant to our discipline. I think none of our lecturers took courses on teaching. Learning how to teach would at least be good for those dreaming of becoming a professor in the future. Lots of my friends, especially the ones with high GPAs, have such career plans.

Contrary to the comments above, the other participants indicated that pedagogical training for undergraduate engineering students might not be a requirement. However, some others (n = 5) suggested a compulsory course for pedagogical training at the PhD level in that a PhD candidate has a better probability of becoming a lecturer. Besides, there is a consensus among all the participants (n = 18) that teaching at an EMI programme and teaching in the mother tongue are different cases, so EMI lecturer candidates should receive training specifically for teaching in English. Several other participants (n = 13) stated that lecturers should receive sustainable in-service lecturer support, as given in the excerpts below: Participant 2 (GPA = 62): Some of our professors have been teaching for several decades. Meanwhile, educational technologies have changed a great deal. They should somehow update their teaching. Participant 9 (GPA = 92): Many conferences and symposia are held at our faculty every year, and all of our lecturers participate in them. We join them, too. Nevertheless, I have never seen a presentation on effective teaching of any sort. Participant 11 (GPA = 63): Our classes are sometimes postponed due to the academic events of our lecturers. The lecturers with a degree from abroad usually join international meetings. I do not know if they join events for professional development in teaching, though. Participant 15 (GPA = 91): I think teacher trainers should organize workshops for our EMI lecturers to learn more effective teaching techniques.

Over the Quality Aspects of EMI

155

Disciplinary content knowledge The last comparison in the qualitative analysis was towards the participants’ perceptions of the disciplinary content knowledge in the two strata. Two subthemes emerged after analysing the responses as following current literature and familiarity with the local context. Regarding the former, most of the participants (n = 11) agreed that Stratum 1 keep their mastery in content knowledge by following the literature, while a few others (n = 4) refuted the existence of a distinguishing difference between the two strata. Participant 6 (GPA = 85) stated that Stratum 1 follow the literature more effectively and assign students with them, contributing to their academic success. Participant 13 asserts that a great deal of the up-to-date literature they read was shared by Stratum 1. The following excerpt illustrates these arguments with a personal example: Participant 4 (GPA = 52): I had to postpone my higher education for several years due to financial problems. Coming back to school, I had to retake some of the courses by those [Profile 2 lecturers] lecturers and saw that the course materials and contents remained the same despite the passing years. Meanwhile, a few PhD candidates graduated from universities in a native English-speaking country and started working as academic staff. In my opinion, it was clear that they brought a spirit of research together.

Unlike their mastery in current literature, Stratum 2 seem to have a predominant strength considering their familiarity with the Turkish context. Based on the feedback from the participants (n = 6), this aspect contributes to the disciplinary content knowledge of EMI lecturers in some ways. First and most importantly, Stratum 2 have comparably more acquaintances as a natural consequence of graduating from a domestic university. For instance, Participant 8 (GPA = 75) indicated that these lecturers usually have either a classmate or a former colleague in most big factories across the country. As a result, they provide more information for students with these interpersonal relations. In a parallel manner, Participant 5 (GPA = 68) presents, ‘Of course, following the current literature contributes to our content knowledge, and thus academic success, as it enables us the chance to keep up with the global innovations. However, we should also have an awareness of the local context.’ As a final remark, it can be inferred from the comments (n = 5) that the diversity in the disciplinary content knowledge is a determinant for some employers to hire multilingual EMI graduates as strong as the bilingual education they receive. Participant 12 underlines this by saying, ‘All of our lecturers are native speakers of Turkish, so our TMI classes are quite the same. There are

156

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

inevitably some differences in EMI classes, yet the most important point is not the medium of instruction but what is taught with it.’ Participant 3 (GPA = 81) postulates that employers are well aware of what Stratum 1 and Stratum 2 offer for students. ‘They know that we have several lecturers with a postgraduate degree from an Anglophone country, who follow the current trends better in our discipline.’ Participant 7 (GPA = 57) acknowledges it saying, ‘Employers need engineers with a global-local mindset who can follow innovations thanks to English and know the local realms of engineering.’

Discussion and implications This study aimed to investigate students’ academic success in EMI and TMI courses given by two different lecturer strata depending on their postgraduate degrees. Based on the statistical comparison to respond to the first research question, students’ EMI term grades from Stratum 1 were relatively lower than Stratum 2, with a statistically significant difference. In line with the remarks of Nguyen and Walkinshaw (2018), this issue might be due to the schism between, at least, the local linguistic settings where teachers live and work, and those in which they undergo their EMI training. If Stratum 1 are attached to ‘standard’ Inner-Circle native – or native-like – speaker models (Jenkins, 2009) as in their former immersive environment, they might have also expected it from their students. In a similar study, Splunder (2013) previously concluded that the Inner-Circle students, or at least those with ‘Inner-Circle-like English’ had a clear advantage in a multilingual EMI context. Therefore, this factor may be responsible for lower grades from Stratum 1 unless students’ English proficiency is regarded as standard. Students’ TMI term grades were also compared to see if the difference in EMI grades was attributable only to the quality of the lecturers’ English use. That is, there can also be a need to improve the quality of lecturing in L1, as argued by Hellekjær (2017). If the mean comparison of TMI term grades indicated a similar result to EMI comparison and the term grades from Stratum 1 were comparatively lower, then it could also signal a difference between the two strata in the use of their native language. Despite a lower TMI mean score again in Stratum 1, the difference is statistically insignificant in the present instance. A final statistical comparison was between the EMI and TMI term grades within each stratum for the second research question. Along with the training of students, a significant difference in this comparison would also imply the

Over the Quality Aspects of EMI

157

insufficient English competence of that stratum, which Tamtam et al. (2012) noted as a challenge against the quality of EMI. The results showed a statistically significant difference in both strata, though with a larger mean difference in Stratum 1. Nevertheless, the previously discussed differences in the two research questions do not only have implications for the linguistic quality of the two strata. Rather, the differences may also stem from the levels of pedagogical competence and the disciplinary content knowledge of the lecturers. Furthermore, there could be a difference in these quality aspects within the same stratum depending on the medium of instruction. For instance, a teaching technique may be used in EMI while it might not be needed in TMI. Therefore, further qualitative support was needed to see how effective each of the three quality aspects were for academic success in EMI and TMI courses. Concerning the linguistic quality aspect, the interview responses were clustered into three subthemes: communicative competence, translanguaging and purposeful linguistic simplification. Taken as a whole, the participants regard Stratum 1 linguistically as more proficient as they do not merely possess grammatical competence. As a matter of fact, participants’ address to language proficiency better fits into the definition of ‘communicative effectiveness’. This is in line with Björkman’s (2017, p. 87) argument: ‘lecturers who are highly proficient in English do not necessarily make good lecturers unless they make frequent use of communication-enhancing pragmatic strategies’. In this current study, Stratum 1 are regarded as more proficient speakers of English, but they operationalize insufficient communication strategies. Meanwhile, Stratum 2 use more translanguaging as a compensation strategy, mainly in EMI classes. On the contrary, translanguaging is preferred more commonly by Stratum 1 in TMI courses, specifically for the content-specific terms. Also, purposeful linguistic simplification often takes place in courses given by Stratum 2, which is attributed not to students’ but to lecturers’ limited English proficiency, whereas Stratum 1 seem to retain their attachment to ‘standard’ Inner-Circle native speaker models (Jenkins, 2009) without simplification. The second theme examined participants perceptions towards the influence of lecturers’ pedagogical competence as another determinant of quality in EMI (Dearden, 2014; Klaassen, 2008; Nguyen & Walkinshaw, 2018). In the common view, the lack of pedagogical training in EMI policy has consequences in students’ academic success regardless of the lecturers’ postgraduate degree stratum, reducing the teaching quality of the courses. The suggestions were concentrated around the needs of pre-service lecturer training and CPD for

158

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

in-service lecturers. Furthermore, the participants agreed that teaching in English requires specific training, confirming the previous research. As a final theme, participants were asked to discuss the mastery levels of the disciplinary content knowledge in the two strata. Airey (2015) previously advocated that a one-size-fits-all approach to language use problems in higher education risks ignoring the disciplinary literacy needs of students. Therefore, a better linguistic competence does not assure better teaching in EMI. The participants’ responses endorsed the usefulness of a disciplinary content knowledge variety offered by the two strata. On the one hand, Stratum 1 is better at reviewing the current global literature. On the other hand, Stratum 2 are better in their local relations with employers. Since employers seek ‘glocal’ graduates, competent both in English and the realities of the local setting, the participants regard the contributions from both strata as useful.

Conclusions, limitations, and areas for further research As a consequence of the unstoppable pervasiveness of English in recent decades, English-medium instruction (EMI) has come into prominence in NNES countries. Many world states keep up with this trend by allocating funds to train EMI teacher candidates in Anglophone countries. However, it is hypothetical whether it assures meeting the requisite quality aspects to teach in the EMI context. Previous research has suggested that lecturers have linguistic competence, pedagogical competence and disciplinary content knowledge for effective EMI teaching. Therefore, this current study aimed to investigate if EMI lecturers with a postgraduate degree from an Inner-Circle university (Stratum 1) differ from those with a degree from a domestic university (Stratum 2) regarding their contributions to students’ academic success. It was seen that Stratum 1 are more proficient in English but are not fully effective speakers owing to the limited use of strategic competence compared to the other components of communicative competence. In contrast, Stratum 2 prefer translanguaging more, especially in EMI classes, as a compensation strategy. They also resort to purposeful linguistic simplification, possibly due to a lack of confidence in their English proficiency. These two characteristics of Stratum 2 seem to facilitate students’ learning. Students agree that insufficient pedagogical training of their EMI lecturers in both strata is a handicap to students’ academic success. Furthermore, teaching in English should require special pre-service teacher training and CPD. As a final remark, the duality in

Over the Quality Aspects of EMI

159

the contributions of the two strata helps students gain a glocal perspective, which is a qualification most employers seek. It is plausible that a number of limitations might have influenced the results obtained. Unfortunately, it was not possible to take the individual differences of the lecturers and the participant students into account. The limited knowledge about the course contents is yet another downside of the study. Further studies are needed to be conducted in the quality aspects of teaching in English, especially to provide a more insightful understanding of the role of nonlinguistic quality aspects.

Declaration of interest There are no potential conflicts of interest.

References Airey, J. (2015). From stimulated recall to disciplinary literacy: Summarising ten years of research into teaching and learning in English. In S. Dimova, A. K. Hultgren & C. Jensen (eds), English-Medium Instruction in European Higher Education (pp. 156–176). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. https://www.academia.edu/21409156/ English_Medium_Instruction_in_European_Higher_Education Ball, P., & Lindsay, D. (2013). English-Medium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster & J. M. Sierra (eds), ELT Journal (Vol. 67, Issue 4, pp. 497–500). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cct045 Björkman, B. (2017). So You Think You Can ELF: English as a Lingua Franca as the Medium of Instruction. HERMES – Journal of Language and Communication in Business, 45, 77–96. https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v23i45.97348 Cachia, M., Lynam, S., & Stock, R. (2018). Academic success: Is it just about the grades? Higher Education Pedagogies, 3(1), 434–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/23752696.2018. 1462096 Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (second edition). Philadelphia: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd. Curle, S., Şahan, K., Jablonkai, R., Mittelmeier, J., & Veitch, A. (2020). English in higher education – English medium Part 1: Literature review. In TeachingEnglish (Issue September). www.britishcouncil.org Dearden, J. (2014). English as a Medium of Instruction – a Growing Global Phenomenon. https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/e484_emi_-_cover_option_3_ final_web.pdf

160

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2011). Internationalisation, Multilingualism and English-medium Instruction, 30(3), 345–359. Dubow, G., & Gundermann, S. (2017). Certifying the linguistic and communicative competencies of teachers in English-medium instruction programmes. Language Learning in Higher Education, 7(2), 475–487. https://doi.org/10.1515/ cercles-2017-0021 Erling, E. J., & Hilgendorf, S. K. (2006). Language policies in the context of German higher education. Language Policy, 5(3), 267–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993006-9026-3 Fenton-Smith, B., Stillwell, C., & Dupuy, R. (2017). Professional Development for EMI: Exploring Taiwanese Lecturers’ Needs (pp. 195–217). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3319-51976-0_11 Flick, U. (2009). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. London: SAGE Publications. Gibbs, G. (2012). Thematic Coding and Categorizing. In Analyzing Qualitative Data (pp. 38–55). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Ltd. https://doi. org/10.4135/9781849208574.n4 Gundermann, S. (2014). English-medium instruction: Modelling the role of the native speaker in a lingua franca context, 320. https://www.freidok.uni-freiburg.de/ data/9795 Gundermann, S., & Dubow, G. (2018). Ensuring quality in EMI: developing an assessment procedure at the University of Freiburg. Bulletin Suisse de Linguistique Appliquée, 107(107), 113–125. http://www.statistik.uni-freiburg.de/gloss/aus_stud Hair, J. F., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective. New Jersey : Pearson Education Inc. Hellekjær, G. O. (2017). Lecture Comprehension in English-Medium Higher Education. HERMES – Journal of Language and Communication in Business, 23(45), 11–34. https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v23i45.97343 Hu, G., Li, L., & Lei, J. (2014). English-medium instruction at a Chinese University: Rhetoric and reality. Language Policy, 13, 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993013-9298-3 Jenkins, J. (2009). English as a lingua franca: interpretations and attitudes. World Englishes, 28(2), 200–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2009.01582.x Jenkins, J. (2019). English Medium Instruction in Higher Education: The Role of English as Lingua Franca. In A. Gao, C. Davison, & C. Leung (eds), Second Handbook of English Language Teaching (Issue December, pp. 91–108). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02899-2_7 Klaassen, R. (2008). Preparing lecturers for English-medium instruction. In R. Wilkinson & V. Zegers (eds), Integrating Content and Language: Realising Content and Language Integration in Higher Education (pp. 32–43). Maastricht: Maastricht University. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/323361107.pdf#ge=48 Macaro, E. (2018). English Medium Instruction. Oxford: Oxford Unitersity press. https:// doi.org/10.30687/978-88-6969-227-7/001

Over the Quality Aspects of EMI

161

Macaro, E., Hultgren, A. K., Kirkpatrick, A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2019). English medium instruction: Global views and countries in focus. Language Teaching, 52(2), 231–248. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444816000380 Nguyen, X. N. C. M., & Walkinshaw, I. (2018). Autonomy in teaching practice: Insights from Vietnamese English language teachers trained in Inner-Circle countries. Teaching and Teacher Education, 69, 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.08.015 Riazi, A. M. (2016). Innovative mixed-methods research: Moving beyond design technicalities to epistemological and methodological realizations. Applied Linguistics 37(1), 33–49. Smith, K. (2004). Studying in an additional language: What is gained, what is lost and what is assessed? In R. Wilkinson (ed.), Integrating Content and Language: Meeting the Challenge of a Multilingual Higher Education (pp. 78–93). Maastricht: Universitaire pers. Splunder, F. van. (2013). All Englishes Are Equal (But Some Are More Equal Than Others)*. Bogazici University Journal of Education, 1(30), 1–9. https://www. acarindex.com/bogazici-universitesi-egitim-dergisi/all-englishes-are-equal-butsome-are-more-equal-than-others-68273 Tamtam, A. G., Gallagher, F., Olabi, A. G., & Naher, S. (2012). A Comparative Study of the Implementation of EMI in Europe, Asia and Africa. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 1417–1425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.836

162

9

Promoting Multilingual Pedagogies in Initial English Language Teacher Education: Reflections from Multilingual Turkey Irem Çomoğlu, Ali Öztüfekçi and Kenan Dikilitaş

Introduction Although one widespread outcome of multilingualism on a societal level is the need to cherish and acknowledge multilingualism in educational spaces (Alisaari et al., 2019; Bergroth et al., 2021; Flores & García, 2017; Makalela, 2015), multilingual pedagogies in education have mostly been considered as adjustments to monolingual pedagogies to teach and learn one additional separate language (Flores & García, 2017). Recently, however, multilingual pedagogies have started to acknowledge bi/multilingual individuals’ fluid language practices and have focused on creating educational spaces where such bi/multilingualism is also enacted in classrooms (e.g., Catalano & Hamman, 2016; Cenoz & Gorter, 2017; Creese & Blackledge, 2015; Galante, 2020; García, 2018; French, 2019; Jessner, 2017; Tian et al., 2022; Woll, 2018). These recent initiatives, according to Haukas (2016), have commonalities. Firstly, students’ whole linguistic repertoires are not thought of as deficient; rather, their entire linguistic abilities are considered to have facilitative roles in the process of language learning. Secondly, teachers provide opportunities for students to develop a cross-linguistic awareness whereby they are encouraged to establish links between the language/s that are available at their disposal. Third, teachers have the opportunity to encourage students to become aware of and transfer language learning strategies between all the languages that they know. Therefore, it can be argued that the multilingual approach has moved away from

163

164

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

the traditional and monoglossic beliefs that languages are separate entities in an individual’s brain to taking advantage of and cherishing students’ full linguistic repertoires when using and learning languages (Vikoy & Haukas, 2021; Wei & García, 2022). Considering the numerous benefits of multilingual pedagogies (Catalano et al., 2018; Iversen, 2021; Kleyn & García, 2019; Turnbull, 2021; Wernicke et al., 2021), it can be argued that it is of utmost importance to incorporate such innovations into pre-service teacher education. However, monoglossic ideologies in foreign language instruction still prevail today (Otwinowska, 2017); thus, taking on an endeavour of finding space for multilingualism in pre-service teacher education is a long-awaited necessity. Within the Turkish context, for instance, Bayyurt et al. (2019) point out that it is necessary to educate pre-/inservice teachers with an awareness into the utmost importance of the involvement of English as a lingua franca (ELF) perspective in their language teaching practices in multilingual contexts. Furthermore, Bayyurt et al. (2019) emphasize that pre-service teacher education programmes in English as a foreign language (EFL) contexts like Turkey should align teacher education aims and processes with these fresh ways of looking at teaching and learning English. Yet, the most recent English language teacher education programme (2018) in Turkey, which was centrally prepared by the Higher Education Council, does not have a compulsory course component on the role of first languages in EMI or multilingual pedagogies in ELT in general. Despite these attempts towards becoming cognizant of the function of English globally, the monolingual bias dominating the field of ELT has led to, albeit unconsciously, monolingual pedagogical approaches. As a result, these approaches have contributed to the perpetuation of the myth of the ‘native’ monolingual speaker as the ideal (Strobbe et al., 2017). As such, this study aims to explore the process of how pre-service EFL teachers engaged in EMI-oriented topics including translanguaging and raised awareness into multilingual pedagogies in ELT. Such being the case, we argue that a paradigm shift encompassing multilingualism in pedagogical decision-making circles is necessary for pre-service EFL teachers in the hopes of promoting and cherishing bi/multilinguals’ full linguistic repertoire. To follow this change, pre-service EFL teachers need to become caring and competent teachers with a thorough understanding of multilingual pedagogies and the ability to implement these pedagogies to better support and foster language learning processes of learners (Deroo & Ponzio, 2021; Ebe & Chapman-Santiago, 2016; García & Wei, 2014; García-Mateus & Palmer, 2017).

Promoting Multilingual Pedagogies

165

Multilingual pedagogies in initial English language teacher education Today, EFL teachers in non-Anglophone countries are educated to teach English based on methods characterized by monoglossic ideologies (Bakhtin, 1981; Caldas, 2019; Flores & Schissel, 2014). This suggests that there is a scarcity of educational spaces for the development of bi/multilingualism due to language policies that accentuate such ideologies. However, leading scholars (e.g., Canagarajah, 1999; García, 2009; Mazrui, 2004; Pennycook, 2017) have pointed out that the teaching and learning of English must be freed from ‘linguistic imperialism’ (Phillipson, 1992). Such one-size-fits-all language policies and ideologies overlook the diversity existent in bi/multilinguals and are blind to their rich cultural and linguistic resources (García & Kleifgen, 2018). To this end, all teachers today could benefit from training tailored to the needs of bi/ multilingual individuals and bi/multilingualism and come to see themselves as ‘bilinguals’ (García, 2009). Therefore, pre-service teacher education also needs to move away from traditional EFL-oriented approaches to language teaching and learning and focus more on training pre-service teachers to embrace multilingual pedagogies (García & Wei, 2014; Haukas, 2016; Portolés & Martí, 2020). In one of the few studies in this area, Caldas (2019) adopted an ethnographic design to examine the language ideology shifts amongst a group of twenty Mexican American/Latinx pre-service bilingual teachers within a translanguaging space, exploring the different language ideological approaches to bilingualism using translanguaging as an instructional tool. The results showed that all the participants agreed that they would use translanguaging as a language policy in their future practices, as well as proposing a combination of approaches depending on their learners’ needs without separating the languages they know. Similarly, Deroo and Ponzio (2021) explored pre-service teachers’ meaningmaking at the intersection of language, identity and power. The findings also revealed that teachers, as adjudicators of language, need to reinforce or redress monoglossic language ideologies. It is well documented that teachers, whether pre-service or in-service, are influenced by their own embodied experiences (e.g., Borg, 2019; Haukas, 2016; Kagan, 1990; Richardson, 1996) and are inclined to replicate such subtractive practices as professionals. Therefore, it is of utmost significance and relevance that they undergo training that will tap into such pedagogical decisions (Birello et al., 2021). In this regard, Birello et al. (2021) examined pre-service teacher

166

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

beliefs in Catalonia about plurilingualism and teaching in diverse classrooms. This action research study concluded that the participating pre-service teachers have incredibly positive ideas regarding being plurilingual speakers; however, when they refer to their future teaching practices, they expressed negative feelings about linguistic diversity in school, which suggests that they are not fully ready to manage inclusive, linguistically diverse classrooms. As such, Birello et al. (2021) argue that a change in basic assumptions is still needed, which should open more multilingual spaces making sure to create deeper connections between theory and practice wherein pre-service teachers could be educated to value their own bi/multilinguality as well as their future students’ linguistic repertoires. Based upon the literature reviewed above, we argue that pre-service EFL teachers need to be educated to develop awareness, understand specific multilingual practices such as translanguaging and translingual practices, as well as lesson planning, involving two or more languages, respectively (Cenoz & Santos, 2020). However, such curricular dimensions and topics are currently absent in teacher education programmes (Arias & Wiley, 2013; Deroo & Ponzio, 2021; Gorter & Arocena, 2020; Paris & Alim, 2017), especially in EFL, where the language is less likely to be used outside formal educational settings, although it is important to note that students increasingly have access to online resources and digital interaction with people from other countries. To this end, in the context of Turkey, pre-service English teacher education programmes are yet to propel themselves away from monolingual (e.g., English-only) policies that fail to perpetuate and capitalize on language learners’ fluid language practices. Specifically speaking, we argue that teachers and teacher educators alike need to move further away from all these traditional, monoglossic language practices to more heteroglossic approaches as classrooms are increasingly becoming multilingual (Cochran-Smith, 2015; Illman & Pietilä, 2018). Therefore, our aim in this study is to highlight opportunities to provide pre-service EFL teachers in such contexts with teaching pedagogies that embrace systematic inclusion of multilingual pedagogies in varying curricular levels with practical processes.

Methodology The study adopted a qualitative case study design and selected one classroom of learners (a bounded system) on the basis of uniqueness – a unique multilingual pedagogy course including EMI-oriented topics for pre-service EFL teachers –

Promoting Multilingual Pedagogies

167

as the unit of analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The study was conducted with a group of pre-service EFL teachers (n=55) within the scope of a twohour elective course at a state university in the west of Turkey during the 2021– 2022 academic year, spring term. The participants read, co-discussed and coreflected on relevant articles about multilingual pedagogy while developing new arguments and insights into their existing language teaching conceptions. During the ten-week course period, we helped them understand multilingual pedagogies and practices which are rarely highlighted in the Turkish context. Each participant provided written consent to participate in the study. We gave participants numbers and used the acronym PST in order to provide confidentiality. The students wrote two written reflections of a minimum of 600 words (one in the sixth week and one in the final week of the course) and we had thirtyminute informal post-lesson conversations with the students (n=8) who were willing to further reflect on issues of multilingual pedagogy. We first individually analysed the data, and then co-discussed initial codes and reached four themes. We used a member-checking technique during the informal conversations with the students – an in-the-moment, question-answer technique that ‘gains participants’ intentionality while also maintaining context’ during the research event (Roller, 2021).

Findings The written data and the conversations we had with the pre-service teachers to explore their learning experiences of multilingual pedagogy in the course and how they view this pedagogy as a practice in their future classrooms yielded four main themes. Below we discuss each theme with excerpts from pre-service teachers’ reflections by also sub-coding them to show thematic coherence.

Understanding multilingual learners Findings from the participants’ reflections highlighted that they had not much considered the existence of multilingual learners in Turkey and the possibility of teaching them English. However, with the help of readings and discussions in this course, they gradually developed an understanding of the individual needs of multilingual learners, as PST24 explained:

168

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Extract 1: Raising awareness of the need for respect for linguistic diversity Before taking this class I never thought of having multilingual classes, but now I know it will happen to me eventually. One of my friends mentioned that his sister, who is an English teacher, had more immigrant students than natives. When I heard it, I immediately empathised with her. Even the idea of teaching a large number of non-native groups of students made me feel desperate, hopeless and devastated at first. However, with the help of this course, now I know what I should or shouldn’t do. There is also the cultural or multicultural aspect of this situation. We can learn a lot from their culture, and they will learn from us. We shouldn’t judge or have awkward looks for unusual things, instead, we should have respect, love and affection.

Having come to the realization that there is a large group of multilingual learners out there in society, the pre-service teachers seemed to develop a sense of social responsibility towards them as future teachers, as the following excerpt from PST3’s reflection displays: ‘Multilingual pedagogies are thus at the centre of all education that meaningfully includes learners, that is, education is not simply done to students. It is something students do and participate in.’ PST35 added: Extract 2: Valuing the role of L1 and L2 use by teachers Before I took this course, multilingual people were just like other people to me. But I now understand that multilingual people are assets, so their teachers should not force them to use L2 only and should combine L1 and L2 in their classes.

The pre-service teachers also started to question the macro-political dimensions of the issue in addition to the instructional planning they themselves could do as English teachers. In his reflection, PST7 elaborated on this issue and asked: ‘Turkey’s demographic structure has evolved exponentially in recent years. Will there be new lessons or curriculum for those people who are considered multilingual? Will the new curriculum and lessons be able to satisfy multilingual learners?’ Similarly, PST11 expressed: ‘If there are two or more languages spoken in a country, the education policies of the country should also follow this direction and create space for the teachers to apply multilingual pedagogies.’ The majority began to recognize the cultural and linguistic assets multilingual learners could bring to the classroom and the changes they could make as teachers to amplify language opportunities for those learners, as PST42 illustrated: ‘Multilingual pedagogy takes place when each student includes their own language and culture into the learning process. This results in a classroom

Promoting Multilingual Pedagogies

169

that combines a diversity of languages and cultures that are accessible and meaningful for multilingual learners.’

Debunking the myth of the native speaker The data analysed revealed that as the pre-service teacher began to better understand multilingual learners and multilingual pedagogies, they were also gradually debunking the myth of native-speakerism, which is still a persistent belief in Turkey. For instance, PST30 referred to Alptekin’s article (2002), which they read and discussed in class: Extract 3: Accommodating the process of seeing self as a proficient language user I feel more at ease now. I do not need to be a native speaker to be a great English teacher. I can just speak and use English in all aspects of my life without feeling like I am being pushed into ‘nativism’, which Alptekin (2002) describes as ‘unrealistic’ and ‘utopic’.

Likewise, another participant, PST27, deeply reflected on her preconceptions concerning the ideology of native-speakerism in ELT and expressed her transformed understanding of the importance of interculturality in the following excerpt: Extract 4: Interculturality as a guide to linguistic empowerment Before taking this course, I believed that language should be provided by native speakers. I also thought that acquiring accents and the culture of inner circle country speakers is inevitable. However, in this course, I learned that successful bilinguals with intercultural insights should serve as pedagogical models rather than monolingual native speakers.

Like the majority of his peers, PST9 stressed the importance of multilingual pedagogy in creating a comfortable teaching and learning environment: ‘Living in an environment where native-speakerism is still favoured, I consider myself lucky to learn about multilingual pedagogy as a teacher. In our course where switching languages is acceptable, I feel free and comfortable expressing myself.’ Another participant, PST54, also turned the spotlight on the harm done by strictly adhering to the ideology of native-speakerism: ‘I came to realise that English is taught in a “native concept” in a non-native context. By insisting on teaching native-like English and forcing ourselves to think like an English person, we harm the teaching and learning process.’

170

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Creating a safe learning environment via one dynamic linguistic repertoire As the participants developed a more comprehensive understanding of multilingual learners and their unique barriers and needs, they could see the facilitating role of L1 and L2 use as one dynamic linguistic repertoire in English language classrooms. For instance, PST32 emphasized a range of communicative and linguistic outcomes of multilingual practices: Extract 5: Conceptualizing the roles of multilingual pedagogy in language learning I would plan my lessons using multilingual pedagogy for several reasons. First, multilingual pedagogy may allow students to absorb new information easier because they are more comfortable while learning them. Secondly, knowledge transfer between languages happens very naturally and as a result, they feed each other, creating more advanced language skills in both L1 and L2. Finally, while reinforcing their language abilities, it may give the students a confidence and self-esteem boost and better expression skills.

The majority of the participants stated that translanguaging practices that they became familiar with in this course would definitely help create a ‘safe’ classroom atmosphere for multilingual learners who are faced with ever-present tensions in an English-only environment. Extract 6: Foregrounding the safety brought by all linguistic repertoire possessed I used to think that L1 use in an English lesson might block learning English. But the articles we read and the videos we watched in this course helped me gain a new perspective on how all languages which the learner speaks would help both teachers and students in the process of teaching and learning. The main advantage is that students feel safe.

Similarly, PST19 expressed that she would actively make space for students’ translanguaging in the classroom and added that this approach gave her hope as a prospective English teacher: Extract 7: Translanguaging inspiring comfort and opening learning spaces I realised that there is an approach that I would feel much more comfortable with, translanguaging. I think students would feel safer and much more comfortable in the classroom. Learning this way of teaching made me more hopeful for my future years as a teacher. I want to give my students the space they need when they feel anxious or stressed during the lessons.

Promoting Multilingual Pedagogies

171

As the course progressed, creating a ‘safe’ learning and teaching environment through multilingual pedagogy seemed to be one of the main goals of the participants, as PST22 explained: ‘Multilingual pedagogy creates a safe environment for learners to be themselves because they can use L1 to communicate, understand and interact better.’ Likewise, PST47 reflected: ‘I would use L1 because most of us feel safer while communicating in L1. Safety must be a crucial point for all teachers, and I won’t discourage the use of L1.’

Generating ‘true concepts’ of multilingual pedagogy As the participants read, co-discussed and co-reflected on relevant articles about multilingual pedagogies, they began to develop new arguments and insights into their existing conceptions of language learning and teaching. In other words, they generated ‘true concepts’ of multilingual pedagogy by combining academic concepts they confronted in the texts and everyday concepts grounded in their learning and/or teaching experiences. To illustrate, the participants critically reflected on their primary and secondary school years and their English teachers’ practices in terms of multilingual pedagogy. Extract 8: Forbidding the use of L1 When I was learning English, especially in my middle school years, my teachers forbade the use of Turkish, and they used only English to teach. Most of the students in my class failed to understand and even grew hatred towards English as a lesson. Now I can see that by letting students use their first language to express themselves and mixing my teaching with L1, I can make my lessons more effective (PST14). Extract 9: Striving to learn in an English-only classroom Until I took this class, I have always thought L1 should be prohibited to use in the classroom. I realised this belief roots back to my fourth-grade English teacher. She never used L1 in the classroom, therefore it was hard for us to understand the lesson. I remember struggling with English. I had to take additional private courses (PST4). Extract 10: Integrating L1 into language teaching In my experiences, when I was in elementary school, my teacher did not eliminate L1 from our lessons. I can now understand that she was using L1 to make us feel safer and make the instructions even more clear for us (PST20).

172

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

By forming ‘true concepts’ of multilingual pedagogy as prospective English teachers, the participants reconsidered their preconceptions related to multilingual pedagogy and even changed their classroom practices, as the following excerpts from two fourth-year pre-service teachers doing their practicum displayed: ‘In the school where I have been doing my practicum, my mentor teacher speaks only English in the class. But after attending this course, I started questioning the scientific basis and efficiency of it’ (PST36); ‘My mentor teacher forced me to use only English, but the kids didn’t understand. I decided to use both L1 and L2 even if it means getting low marks from my mentor teacher. The feedback from the students was amazing!’ (PST52).

Discussion and implications This qualitative case study sought to explore the pre-service EFL teachers’ learning experiences of multilingual pedagogy in an undergraduate course and how they view this pedagogy as an instructional practice in their future classrooms. The findings yielded four main themes, namely: understanding multilingual learners, debunking the myth of the native speaker, creating a safe learning environment via one dynamic linguistic repertoire, and generating ‘true’ concepts of multilingual pedagogy. In line with the emerging themes we presented, Deng and Hayden (2021, p. 419) also argued that pre-service teachers should be ‘more prepared’ to teach in multilingual classrooms so that they can consider diversity ‘as an opportunity to re-examine or even challenge their visions in order to be responsive to multilingual learners’ instead of perceiving it as an ‘obstacle’ in the classroom. The current findings indicate that once the pre-service teachers recognized (through reading, discussing and co-reflecting on relevant research) the possibility of teaching English to multilingual learners in the wider context of Turkey, they began to develop an understanding of multilingual learners (Athanases et al., 2019; Faltis & Valdes, 2016; López & Santibañez, 2018; Sanchez et al., 2017). Research has already highlighted the urgency of making linguistic diversity the norm in schools (Faltis & Valdes, 2016; Palmer & Martínez, 2013). In addition, we argue that enacting linguistically responsive teacher education programmes to address and re-inscribe multilingual learners’ characteristics accordingly is a crucial step in contexts such as Turkey. This understanding informed by coherent reflection on the dynamic nature of multilingualism might create instructional and interactional spaces whereby pre-service teachers

Promoting Multilingual Pedagogies

173

would develop a criticality which resists the rigid separation of languages – a product of monoglossic ideology (García, 2009). As the current findings suggest, it is of utmost significance to educate pre-service EFL teachers to embrace and cherish their future students’ multilinguality, given the ever-growing number of multilingual learners situated within the Turkish context. This emerging understanding of educating students through multilingual instruction helped the pre-service teachers question the notion of native speakerism (Kani & Igsen, 2022), an ideology still prevalent in the Turkish context (see Dikilitaş & Bahrami, 2022; Dikilitaş & Mumford, 2020; Yüzlü & Dikilitaş, 2022). The instructional design of the course enabled the pre-service teachers to first unearth, revisit and understand their lay theories of native speakerism – ‘their content, the principal forces that interact in their formation’ (Sugrue, 1997, p. 215) – and then reconstruct them to bridge the discrepancy between lay theories and relevant research on multilingual pedagogy. The majority of the preservice teachers previously had the idea that the native speaker is the ideal model of L2 competence (e.g., Cummins, 2009; Ortega, 2014), a prevailing dogma of the monolingual principle (Howatt, 1984). However, after reading and discussing relevant literature, they were able to overcome this implicit monolingual bias. Therefore, familiarizing pre-service EFL teachers with multilingual pedagogies in order to build on the natural fluidity and creativity of what multilingual learners can already do with their languages would help reject and resist not only ‘nativespeakerism’ per se, but also acknowledge the inherent heterogeneity of all language use; thus making a strong linkage between theory and practice. With a deepened understanding of teaching through multilingual instruction and the native speaker myth debunked, the pre-service teachers came to realize that creating a safe learning environment via one dynamic linguistic repertoire is possible by inviting other languages (i.e., learners’ home languages) other than English into classrooms to value language diversity. In this way, as Flores (2020) explained, the pre-service teachers could reframe the purpose of language teaching as a way of affirming learners’ rich linguistic practices in a safe learning environment rather than remediating perceived deficits. Therefore, English language teacher education programmes need to reflect and expand learners’ language practices, which requires a shift in how language teaching is (re)conceptualized, to wit: it is not a bounded system to be mastered, but more of a flexible social practice. In doing so, a safe learning environment where the whole linguistic repertoire of learners is leveraged (see Dikilitaş & Bahrami, 2022; Dikilitaş & Mumford, 2020; Yüzlü & Dikilitaş, 2022) can maximize the efficacy of teaching and learning languages and contribute to social justice.

174

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

As the findings suggested, throughout the course, the pre-service teachers (re)visited their related experiences of learning/teaching and had the opportunity to link ‘academic concepts’ to their everyday activities of learning/teaching, a process which helped them gradually generate ‘true’ concepts of multilingual pedagogies and even design their instructional practices accordingly during the practicum (Johnson & Golombek, 2020). As we did in our course on multilingual pedagogies, it is important to provide pre-service teachers with opportunities in tangible ways to take up a theory-based stance and models in order to go about designing innovative classroom pedagogy (Seltzer, 2022). Specifically, preservice teachers, throughout their required coursework, can infuse scholarly work that introduces them to multilingual pedagogies including translanguaging, multilingual micro teachings, critical language awareness, digital storytelling and other multilingual activities into tangible classroom practice in EMI settings, too (Catalano & Hamann, 2016; Christensen, 2017; Seltzer, 2022). Multilingualism, which has become a common social phenomenon in the modern world, is an issue that needs to be embedded in the praxis of teacher education programmes to prepare teachers to welcome linguistic and cultural diversity in their classrooms (Catalano & Hamman, 2016; Wernicke et al., 2021). EMI settings also need to create spaces that benefit emergent bi/multilinguals by providing balanced instruction in multiple languages for better student output (Blair et al., 2018; Chalmers et al., 2019). Thus, teachers knowledgeable in multilingual pedagogies and the positive effects of multilingualism on cognition and personal and social well-being (Schroedler, 2021) in such EMI schools of diverse contexts would valorize the multilingualism of their learners rather than see it as a barrier to teaching and learning and support learners academically and emotionally In conclusion, creating spaces where pre-service EFL teachers grapple with issues that are centred around multilingualism and multilingual pedagogies by ushering in new ways of (re)conceptualizing and (re)visiting their own beliefs and practices (i.e., redressing and rejecting monolingual bias and monoglossic approaches to language education) that extend past their pre-service education into actual classroom practices is of paramount importance. A key goal for initial English language teacher education should be to prioritize pedagogies that dismantle elitist hegemony of any kind, move further towards interrupting normative monolingual ideologies, and accordingly bring to focus a more realistic and inclusive perspective on foreign language education. Honing our understanding of the pedagogical implications of such a stance also requires the acknowledgement of a critical multilingual stance in teacher education.

Promoting Multilingual Pedagogies

175

References Alisaari, J., Heikkola, L. M., Commins, N., & Acquah, E. O. (2019). Monolingual ideologies confronting multilingual realities. Finnish teachers’ beliefs about linguistic diversity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 80, 48–58. Alptekin, C. (2002). Towards intercultural communicative competence in ELT. ELT Journal, 56(1), 57–64. Arias, M. B., & Wiley, T. G. (2013). Language policy and teacher preparation: The implications of a restrictive language policy on teacher preparation. Applied Linguistics Review, 4(1), 83–104. Athanases, S. Z., Banes, L. C., Wong, J. W., & Martinez, D. C. (2019). Exploring linguistic diversity from the inside out: Implications of self-reflexive inquiry for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(5), 581–596. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press. Bayyurt, Y., Yavuz, K. U. R. T., Öztekin, E., Guerra, L., Cavalheiro, L., & Pereira, R. (2019). English language teachers’ awareness of English as a Lingua Franca in multilingual and multicultural contexts. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 185–202. Bergroth, M., Llompart-Esbert, J., Pepiot, N., Sierens, S., Dražnik, T., & Van Der Worp, K. (2021). Whose action research, is it? Promoting linguistically sensitive teacher education in Europe. Educational Action Research, 31(2), 265–284. Birello, M., Llompart-Esbert, J., & Moore, E. (2021). Being plurilingual versus becoming a linguistically sensitive teacher: Tensions in the discourse of initial teacher education students. International Journal of Multilingualism, 18(4), 586–600. Blair, A., Haneda, M., & Bose, F. N. (2018). Reimagining English-medium instructional settings as sites of multilingual and multimodal meaning making. TESOL Quarterly, 52(3), 516–539. Borg, S. (2019). Language teacher cognition: Perspectives and debates. In X. Gao (ed.), Second Handbook of English Language Teaching (pp. 1149–1170). Cham: Springer. Caldas, B. (2019). To switch or not to switch: Bilingual preservice teachers and translanguaging in teaching and learning. TESOL Journal, 10(4), e485. Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Catalano, T., & Hamann, E. T. (2016). Multilingual pedagogies and pre-service teachers: Implementing “language as a resource” orientations in teacher education programs. Bilingual Research Journal, 39(3–4), 263–278. Catalano, T., Shende, M., & Suh, E. K. (2018). Developing multilingual pedagogies and research through language study and reflection. International Journal of Multilingualism, 15(1), 1–18. Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2017). Minority languages and sustainable translanguaging: Threat or opportunity? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38(10), 901–912.

176

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Cenoz, J., & Santos, A. (2020). Implementing pedagogical translanguaging in trilingual schools. System, 92, 102273. Chalmers, H., Lightbown, P., Spada, N., Murphy, V., Gallagher, E. & Marsh, D. (2019). The Role of the First Language in English Medium Instruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://www.oup. com.cn/test/oup-expert-english-mediuminstruction.pdf Christensen, L. (2017). Reading, Writing, and Rising Up: Teaching about Social Justice and the Power of the Written Word (2nd ed.). Mitwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools. Cochran-Smith, M. (2015). Teacher communities for equity. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 51(3), 109–113. Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2015). Translanguaging and identity in educational settings. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 20–35. Cummins, J. (2009). Pedagogies of choice: Challenging coercive relations of power in classrooms and communities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12(3), 261–271. Deng, Q. & Hayden, H. E. (2021). How preservice teachers begin to develop equitable visions for teaching multilingual learners. Peabody Journal of Education, 96(4), 406–422. Deroo, M. R., & Ponzio, C. M. (2021). Fostering pre-service teachers’ critical multilingual language awareness: Use of multimodal compositions to confront hegemonic language ideologies. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 22(2), 181–197. Dikilitaş, K., & Bahrami, V. (2022). Teacher identity (re)construction in collaborative bilingual education: The emergence of dyadic identity. TESOL Quarterly. http://doi. org/10.1002/tesq.3168 Dikilitaş, K., & Mumford, S. E. (2020). Preschool English teachers gaining bilingual competencies in a monolingual context. System, 91, 102264. Ebe, A. E., & Chapman-Santiago, C. (2016). Student voices shining through. In O. García & T. Kleyn (eds), Translanguaging with Multilingual Students (pp. 57–82). New York: Routledge. Faltis, C. J. & Valdes, G. (2016). Preparing teachers for teaching in and advocating for linguistically diverse classrooms: A vade mecum for teacher educators. In H. G. Drew & A. B. Courtney (eds), Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 549–592). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Flores, N. (2020). From academic language to language architecture: Challenging raciolinguistic ideologies in research and practice. Theory Into Practice, 59(1), 22–31. Flores, N., & García, O. (2017). A critical review of bilingual education in the United States: From basements and pride to boutiques and profit. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 14–29. Flores, N., & Schissel, J. L. (2014). Dynamic bilingualism as the norm: Envisioning a heteroglossic approach to standards-based reform. TESOL Quarterly, 48(3), 454–479.

Promoting Multilingual Pedagogies

177

French, M. (2019). Multilingual pedagogies in practice. TESOL in Context, 28(1), 21–44. Galante, A. (2020). Plurilingualism and TESOL in two Canadian post-secondary institutions: Towards context-specific perspectives. In S. Lau & S. Van Viegen (eds), Plurilingual Pedagogies: Critical and Creative Endeavours for Equitable Language in Education. (pp. 237–252). Cham: Springer. García, O. (2009). Emergent Bilinguals and TESOL: What’s in a name? TESOL Quarterly, 43(2), 322–326. García, O. (2018). The multiplicities of multilingual interaction. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(7), 881–891. García, O., & Kleifgen, J. A. (2018). Educating Emergent Bilinguals: Policies, Programs, and Practices for English Learners. New York: Teachers College Press. García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Language, bilingualism and education. In Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education (pp. 46–62). New York: Pulgrave Macmillan. García-Mateus, S., & Palmer, D. (2017). Translanguaging pedagogies for positive identities in two-way dual language bilingual education. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 16(4), 245–255. Gorter, D., & Arocena, E. (2020). Teachers’ beliefs about multilingualism in a course on translanguaging. System, 92, 102272. Haukas, A. (2016). Teachers’ beliefs about multilingualism and a multilingual pedagogical approach. International Journal of Multilingualism, 13(1), 1–18. Higher Education Council (2018). English language teacher education program. https:// www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/Kurumsal/egitim_ogretim_dairesi/Yeni-OgretmenYetistirme-Lisans-Programlari/Ingilizce_Ogretmenligi_Lisans_Programi.pdf Howatt, A. P. (1984). Language teaching traditions: 1884 revisited. ELT Journal, 38(4), 279–282. Illman, V., & Pietilä, P. (2018). Multilingualism as a resource in the foreign language classroom. ELT Journal, 72(3), 237–248. Iversen, J. Y. (2021). Negotiating language ideologies: Pre-service teachers’ perspectives on multilingual practices in mainstream education. International Journal of Multilingualism, 18(3), 421–434. Jessner, U. (2017). Multicompetence approaches to language proficiency development in multilingual education. In O. García, A. Lin & S. May (eds), Bilingual and Multilingual Education. Encyclopaedia of Language and Education, 3rd edn., 161–173. Cham: Springer. Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, P. R. (2020). Informing and transforming language teacher education pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 24(1), 116–127. Kagan, D. M. (1990). Ways of evaluating teacher cognition: Inferences concerning the Goldilocks principle. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 419–469. Kani, Z. G., & Igsen, H. (2022). Bilingual English teachers’ perspectives on “Englishonly” policies in an EFL Setting. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 17(1), 127–141.

178

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Kleyn, T., & García, O. (2019). Translanguaging as an act of transformation: Restructuring teaching and learning for emergent bilingual students. In De Oliveira (ed.), The Handbook of TESOL in K-12 (pp. 69–82). Malden: John Wiley & Sons. López, F., & Santibañez, L. (2018). Teacher preparation for emergent bilingual students: Implications of evidence for policy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(36), 1–47. Makalela, L. (2015). Moving out of linguistic boxes: The effects of translanguaging strategies for multilingual classrooms. Language and Education, 29(3), 200–217. Mazrui, A. M. (2004). English in Africa: After the Cold War (Vol. 126). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Ortega, L. (2014). Ways forward for a bi/multilingual turn in SLA. In S. May (ed.), The Multilingual Turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and Bilingual Education (pp. 32–53). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Otwinowska, A. (2017). English teachers’ language awareness: away with the monolingual bias? Language Awareness, 26(4), 304–324. Palmer, D., & Martínez, R. A. (2013). Teacher agency in bilingual spaces: A fresh look at preparing teachers to educate Latina/o bilingual children. Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 269–297. Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (eds) (2017). Culturally Sustaining Pedagogies: Teaching and Learning for Justice in a Changing World. New York: Teachers College Press. Pennycook, A. (2017). Translanguaging and semiotic assemblages. International Journal of Multilingualism, 14(3), 269–282. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Portolés, L., & Martí, O. (2020). Teachers’ beliefs about multilingual pedagogies and the role of initial training. International Journal of Multilingualism, 17(2), 248–264. Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, 2(102–119), 273–290. Roller, M. (2021, November 29). Member checking & the importance of context. Research Design Review. https://researchdesignreview.com/2021/11/29/memberchecking-importance-context/ Sánchez, M. T., García, O., & Solorza, C. (2017). Reframing language allocation policy in dual language bilingual education. Bilingual Research Journal, 41(1), 37–51. Schroedler, T. (2021). What is Multilingualism? Towards an inclusive understanding. In M. Wernicke, S. Hammer & A. Hansen (eds), Preparing Teachers to Work with Multilingual Learners (pp. 17–37). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Seltzer, K. (2022). Enacting a critical translingual approach in teacher preparation: Disrupting oppressive language ideologies and fostering the personal, political, and pedagogical stances of preservice teachers of English. TESOL Journal, 13(2), 1–11. Strobbe, L., Van Der Wildt, A., Van Avermaet, P., Van Gorp, K., Van den Branden, K., & Van Houtte, M. (2017). How school teams perceive and handle multilingualism: The impact of a school’s pupil composition. Teaching and Teacher Education, 64, 93–104.

Promoting Multilingual Pedagogies

179

Sugrue, C. (1997). Student teachers’ lay theories and teaching identities: Their implications for professional development. European Journal of Teacher Education, 20(3), 213–225. Tian, Z., Robinson, E., & McConnell, J. (2022). Tales from a shared journey of teaching and researching translanguaging. RELC Journal, 53(2), 416–430. Turnbull, B. (2021). Am I bilingual? Reporting on the self-reflections of Japanese EFL learners. International Journal of Bilingualism, 25(5), 1327–1348. Vikoy, A., & Haukas, A. (2021). Norwegian L1 teachers’ beliefs about a multilingual approach in increasingly diverse classrooms. International Journal of Multilingualism, 20(3), 912–931. Wei, L., & García, O. (2022). Not a first language but one repertoire: Translanguaging as a decolonizing project. RELC Journal, 53(2), 313–324. Wernicke, M., Hammer, S., Hansen, A., & Schroedler, T. (eds) (2021). Preparing Teachers to Work with Multilingual Learners. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Woll, N. (2018). Investigating dimensions of metalinguistic awareness: What thinkaloud protocols revealed about the cognitive processes involved in positive transfer from L2 to L3. Language Awareness, 27(1–2), 167–185. Yüzlü, M., & Dikilitaş, K. (2022). Translanguaging in the development of EFL learners’ foreign language skills in Turkish context. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 16(2), 176–190.

180

10

Lecturers’ Multilingual Practices and Ideologies on Disciplinary Vocabulary: English and Local Languages in Technology Marta Aguilar-Pérez

Introduction A remarkable amount of literature abounds on the Englishization in higher education and its impact on multilingual universities (Kuteeva et al., 2020; Henriksen et al., 2019; Wilkinson & Gabriëls, 2021). In the case of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM), the presence of English is pervasive and wide encompassing, and is viewed as the academic lingua franca – the language of technology and knowledge construction and disssemination. This points to Graddol’s language hierarchy, the role of technology in the positioning of a language (Graddol, 1997) and the centripetal forces pulling toward English and the big languages (Bakhtin, 1981). Englishization of universities is both shaped by and is shaping multilingual practices in different ways across the planet. One of the consequences of this Englishization, spurred by the widespread use of English Medium of Instruction (EMI) to internationalize universities, is that local languages may be felt to be competing with English and, ‘because EMI treats language as a neutral vehicle for communication, the L1 of learners in EMI settings is generally disregarded’ (Pecorari, 2020, p. 21). As identified by Kuteeva et al. (2020, 2021) two paradoxes emerge, the former being the ‘paradox of internationalization’, namely, that the more languages teachers and students speak, the more likely they are to adopt English as their language of communication. The latter is the ‘paradox of widening participation’, i.e. there is a need for students and other university stakeholders with minority or migration backgrounds to adapt their language uses to the standard variety of the national

181

182

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

language(s) and/or English. From the Nordic perspective, these paradoxes reflect an ongoing ‘duel of monolingualisms’ at universities (Kuteeva et al., 2021). The Englishization trend can take different shapes in different places in the world; many times the Englishization underlying disciplinary multilingualism ranges from teachers’ sporadically shifting languages in class, content teachers teaching in L1 and rewarding students who write their reports in English and not in L1, to teachers using materials in English and conveying oral output in their L1. In Europe, although the European Council is committed to promoting linguistic diversity, advocating for a conception of multilingualism that goes beyond the English-only policy, the implementation of EMI as an internationalization lynchpin could undermine the status of national and minority languages and lead to certain domain loss among national languages in highly international universities (Hultgren, 2016). In the context under study, a bilingual region in Spain where Catalan (L1) co-exists with Spanish (L2), ‘it does not come as a surprise that EMI has brought about social, political, educational, and linguistic tensions’ (Lasagabaster, 2021, p. 79). Thus, some tension may be expected in Catalonia, Spain, where Catalan, the minority language, is felt to be in need of protection vis-à-vis Spanish, and where English comes into play in the ecology of the two national languages. Universities in these bilingual regions, then, may be torn between the national policy of enforcing the minority languages (Catalan, Basque or Galician), while also catering for Spanish teaching, and the drive to internationalize by implementing EMI. In contexts where the presence of EMI is greatly felt, the intricacies of Englishization in Spain are still to be unearthed, as multilingualism can appear interacting between L1 and L2 or between L1 or L2 and English. Frequent switches to English (L3) in the ecology of the other national languages in Spain have been studied together with the ensuing conflicts in EMI teachers’ identity and practices (González-Ardeo, 2014; Block, 2020; Lasagabaster, 2021; SernaBermejo & Lasagabaster, 2022). Studying STEM teachers’ language practices in L1, L2 and English (L3) can help us unveil underlying motivations for STEM lecturers to shift languages, in particular if these lecturers are bilingual speakers. While multilingualism and in particular translanguaging practices (García & Wei, 2014) have been identified as a useful resource for teachers and students to build on their linguistic repertoires, thus underscoring pedagogical advantages, the kind of multilingualism that is actually taking place may not always originate in pedagogy and may vary in type and frequency. In EMI studies on multilingualism, the English dominance in specialized vocabulary, so salient in L1 teaching, is hidden and veiled under the language of instruction, causing

Lecturers’ Multilingual Practices and Ideologies on Disciplinary Vocabulary

183

these studies to point to pedagogical and affective functions only. Without leaving the STEM discipline, research within English for Specific Purposes (ESP) has long focused on the importance of teaching and learning academic and technical vocabulary in English. Many of these ESP studies, however, do not contextualize the Englishization of technical words with regards to EMI or L1; they usually consider it a given that English specialized vocabulary has become embedded in STEM, somehow legitimizing English monolingualism. The practice of changing to English when conveying disciplinary content through specialized terminology could result from Englishized contexts or from not meriting attention, particularly in a bilingual community that is also striving to maintain a balance between Catalan and Spanish, and where English could be perceived as a menace. In order to elucidate the use of specialized terminology in English by STEM lecturers teaching in L1 (Catalan), L2 (Spanish) and L3 (EMI) at a bilingual technical university in Catalonia, studies from the ESP and EMI strands will be considered. In this study, I therefore seek to examine STEM lecturers’ multilingual practices when teaching in their mother tongue and through the medium of English and what factors interact with their multilingualism, in particular when it comes to specialized terminology. Additionally, I also aim to probe how STEM bilingual content teachers perceive their multilingual use of specialized terminology when teaching through English and in their mother tongue. Unlike Block (2021), my gaze is not on how Catalan and Spanish compete with English in EMI classrooms but rather on how the languages (L1 Catalan, L2 Spanish and L3 English) co-exist and become entangled in their discourse. This apparently fluid trilingualism in the shape of brief, but sometimes frequent, shifts to another language may have to be attributed to other disciplinary factors than pedagogy or EMI.

Background Specialized vocabulary constitutes an integral part of ESP because this disciplinespecific terminology is intrinsic to the learning of disciplinary knowledge (Coxhead, 2013) and to the understanding of concepts and relations between phenomena. Particularly in the STEM disciplines, where English is dominating, students have to develop the specialist language and terminology of their discipline, adapting it ‘in order to make meaning and engage with disciplinary knowledge’ (Woodward-Kron, 2008, p. 246). Specialized vocabulary, fundamental for students to become acquainted with a discipline in science and technology, can be

184

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

subdivided into technical and non-technical vocabulary (Dudley-Evans & St John 1998; Baker 1988; Chirobocea-Tudor, 2018) or between common core (basic) and non-common core vocabulary pre-existing to varieties (Basturkmen, 2006). Trimble (1985) distinguished between semi-technical vocabulary (vocabulary with one or more meanings in general language but which takes on extended meanings in technical contexts, like ‘resistance’ and ‘gate’ from electronics), and technical vocabulary (terminology that has specialized and restricted meanings in certain disciplines and which may vary in meaning across disciplines). Most importantly, ‘this vocabulary is acting as a carrier of content’ (Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998, p. 81), which is why ‘academic vocabulary and semi-technical vocabulary should be given priority in teaching by ESP teachers’ (p. 83). It is therefore not surprising to find that with the recent developments in EMI, the role of domain-specific vocabulary has received some attention given the importance attached by both EMI teachers and students to learn and unpack discipline-specific vocabulary in English. Dang (2022), for example, studies vocabulary in academic lectures in EMI courses, non-EMI courses and open-access EMI courses to examine the vocabulary load of the three types of academic lectures. In sum, specialized vocabulary is very important to increase lecture understanding given that these discipline-specific terms pose problems to EMI students (Evans & Morrison, 2011; Uchihara & Harada 2018). EMI lecturers’ multilingual practices have also been examined under the lens of codeswitching and translanguaging. Drawing on different theories, codeswitching refers to shifting in and out of two separate languages or codes. The concept of translanguaging, however, contends the tenet of codeswitching that linguistic systems are completely different entities and instead regards languages as dynamic. Indeed, García and Li Wei (2014) view translanguaging as going beyond the multicompetence of bilingual speakers, implying that language practices do not function separately, but rather as a combination of meaning-making features which in the classroom facilitates fuller understanding, participation and involvement. By incorporating students’ full linguistic repertoire, they become very powerful in developing students’ subject disciplinary language (Mazak & Carroll, 2016). Within the Spanish EMI setting, Sanchez-García (2018) analysed EMI teachers’ codeswitching when they give disciplinary terminology in Spanish and English and identified four pedagogical purposes, viz., disciplinary knowledge construction, classroom management, interpersonal relations and affective meaning. In her study, EMI lecturers resorted to Spanish when they had linguistic difficulties in English, most of the time to explain non-technical language. This finding resonates with An et al.’s (2019) analysis of language-

Lecturers’ Multilingual Practices and Ideologies on Disciplinary Vocabulary

185

related episodes in EMI science classes in Chinese high schools, where around 80 per cent of the time was spent on everyday vocabulary-focused episodes. Given that much of the language development occurring at university, regardless of the language of instruction, is a disciplinary subject learned through specific terminology along with the concepts represented by the terms (Pecorari, 2020), more attention should be paid to EMI teachers’ frequent embedding of specialized terminology. The STEM EMI teachers’ agency in helping their students deal with ‘disciplinary discourse with linguistic appropriateness (mostly in terms of technical and specialized vocabulary)’ (Mancho-Barés & AguilarPérez, 2020, p. 277) points to teachers acting as language experts. A phenomenon akin to translanguaging is EMI teachers’ changing identities. A plethora of research on EMI teacher identity has underlined a sense of competence and expertise, but more needs to be known about these lecturers’ identity when, teaching in a bilingual setting in L1 and L2, English becomes L3. Apart from reifying their profile of international researchers, STEM teachers are also seen to deploy a strong group identification and display their ability to communicate as insiders and legitimate members, in Hyland’s (2012) sense of group membership or disciplinary identity (Block, 2021). The meaning and scope of teacher identity remain elusive, yet it seems that multiple selves tend to emerge in STEM EMI (Block, 2021; Moncada-Comas, 2022) as an outcome of both internal and external factors, since the conceptions of identity change according to the existing educational, political and historical contexts. Briefly, English being conceptualized as an aseptic international code, the Anglophonedominated reality is fed and shaped by disciplinary internalization, so studying the interaction between the role of individual agency to resist or accept English and L1/L2 and the role of historical and epistemological structures can help us elucidate the intricacies of multilingualism, which cannot be exclusively attributed to EMI engulfing higher education. I build on the premise that multilingual practices of STEM bilingual teachers, when transmitting content to students, will reflect the ‘English monolingualism push’ in the transmission of their disciplinary expertise. Seeking to understand the complexities of learning and teaching engineering in the local language and English, I aim to explore the extent to which the use of English borrowings (Hultgren 2016) in specialized terminology permeates engineering instruction teaching, regardless of the language of instruction, placing centre stage the notion of functional epistemic monolingualism (Kuteeva et al., 2020, p. 38). My objective is to understand the linguistic ecology in a bilingual community and the presence of English when an engineering course is taught in Spanish, Catalan

186

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

and English, and see if STEM teachers’ translanguaging practices arise from the language of instruction, from their willingness to communicate specialized knowledge in a quick way, from the nature of the discipline itself, or from their self-regulation to protect their mother tongue. Teachers’ agency in teaching disciplinary knowledge is certainly transmitting a disciplinary multilingual identity among students who see their teachers ‘assign specific languages to specific functions rather than blending them simultaneously’ (Kuteeva et al., 2020, p. 10). With these objectives in mind, I set out with the following research questions: RQ1 – Do these engineering teachers resort to multilingual practices? What sort of practices are they? RQ2 – What do these engineering teachers recall of these practices? RQ3 – What are these teachers’ language ideologies regarding their multilingual practices?

Method Participants and data collection The study participants are three engineering teachers from the same technical university in Catalonia; they are male, aged between 45 and 55 and have a long experience as teachers and researchers. They have a very high international profile, with long experience in publishing in international journals and attending international conferences. Teacher 1 belongs to the Electronics Engineering department and lectures advanced electronics to master’s students. The others, from the Electrical Engineering department, teach different courses – while Teacher 2 teaches a basic course on the conventional types of electrical machines to second-year undergraduates, Teacher 3 lectures on electric vehicles, a course based on rather current technology and cutting-edge knowledge to lastyear undergraduates.

Data Analysis My observation of classes largely consisted of first observing, note-taking and recording the classes, then interviewing lecturers and finally analysing data. Regarding class observation, Teacher 3 (EMI)’s lesson was video recorded in 2018, with data coming from a previous research project (see Acknowledgements).

Lecturers’ Multilingual Practices and Ideologies on Disciplinary Vocabulary

187

Teachers 1 (L1 Catalan) and 2 (in L2 Spanish) were observed and audio-recorded during spring 2022. Though I observed Teacher 2 in his mother tongue in the spring of 2022, I had also previously collected data from this teacher and his students in EMI in the autumn of 2021. Regarding interviews, between 35 and 45 minutes long, the teachers were interviewed at the end of the spring semester (2021/22) following the same guiding questions that enquired into their monoand multilingual practices, to stimulate recall of their use of English (particularly in specialized terminology) in their classes and discipline. Interviews were recorded and conducted in their mother tongue, Catalan (Teachers 1 and 3) and Spanish (Teacher 2). The teachers signed their consent following my university’s ethical code on data privacy. Relevant data is summarized in Table 10.1. The data collected in classroom was analysed as follows. After watching/listening to the lectures, I wrote down all the episodes where another language was used. Likewise, the slides used in the observed classes were also analysed for language shifts (see Table 10.2). The interviews, orthographically transcribed, were coded by identifying answers that referred to the teachers’ ideologies on the role of specialized terminology and their monolingual and/or translingual practices in their classes. Given that Teachers 2 and 3 teach both in their mother tongue and through English every year, the same question was repeated to check if these practices changed according to the language of instruction. I also paid attention to how they positioned Table 10.1 Participants and courses observed

Language and length of the class observed Mother tongue Course title and discipline

Programme

Teachers’ usual lecturing language

Teacher 1

Teacher 2

Teacher 3

Catalan (L1) class 1:08

Spanish (L2) class 1:26

EMI (L3) class 1:26

Catalan Advanced Electronics (designing and programming a controller for a vending machine) Electronics E. Master’s programme (year 1) Catalan (L1)

Spanish Electrical Machines Electrical E. (conventional knowledge)

Catalan Electric Vehicles Electrical E. (current topic)

Bachelor’s programme (year 2) Spanish (L2) and English (L3)

Bachelor’s programme (year 4) Catalan, Spanish and English (L1, L2, L3)

188

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

their mono- or multilingual practices according to the discipline being taught. During the interview I used stimulated recall in two ways: first by asking them if they remembered changing language(s) in the course under study and then by showing them an example of multilingualism I had identified, to know their assessment of these practices. Second, after a short explanation of the types of vocabulary (general, semi-technical and technical vocabulary) with an example of a semi-technical term (‘gate’ in general English has a different meaning from ‘gate’ in electronics), I asked them if they had many of these ‘tricky’ words in the course, in what language they taught them, and if they were able to give me examples. As the interview aimed specifically at multilingualism, it was relatively easy to identify and compare patterned similarities and differences in their responses.

Findings Analysis of the classes yielded insights into the language practices. The first finding was that none of the three teachers had a strictly monolingual-only policy and that the translanguaging practices that I identified were never sentence-long, usually comprising a one-word technical or semi-technical term. Two of the three teachers hardly ever shifted language in their lesson (see Table 10.2) and all the observed multilingual shifts were always teacher-led. Let us illustrate the different nature of these teachers’ multilingual practices. For Teacher 1 (L1 Catalan), the porosity of his Catalan explanations was conspicuous, as it was constantly interspersed with one- or two-word technical terms in English. He taught how to design a vending machine so he used programming language, by default in English. Teacher 1 spoke a very accurate and formal Catalan, carefully choosing academic Catalan words but constantly interweaving his speech with a steady and extensive use of technical English words from programming language (in italics): Teacher 1 Switch state és S0 si, if i igual al valor 00 és igual a S1 i out igual a 0. Else, else és important, if, segona branca, if igual a zero 0 state igual a S2 out igual a 0 ((blackboard)) Else, com que és la tercera posició i última (2) else, 2. Ara només cal dir, l’estat else serà el mateix . . .. . . El case S1 ((blackboard)) Case 1. Doncs i igual a 0 de 1. Doncs anem a l’estat S2 i la sortida 0 (he writes ‘out’). Else if, in 1 0 igual a F0, tornem a l’estat F0, i sortida ara 1, out 1 ((blackboard)) Else i sortida igual a 0. M’ he deixat els breaks, val?

Lecturers’ Multilingual Practices and Ideologies on Disciplinary Vocabulary

189

Likewise, while the slides he showed were all in English, his oral output – but for programming language – was always in Catalan, reflecting the teacher’s effort to use technical Catalan whenever possible. He said ‘when we declare the state variable’ (quan declarem la variable d’estats) while it may have been easier for him to use ‘state variable’ in English. Regarding Teacher 2 (L2 Spanish), his class on conventional electrical machines was overwhelmingly in Spanish except for some slides in the middle of his class, which were written in Catalan but which he explained in Spanish while pointing to them, automatically translating from Catalan to Spanish. For example, one could read the following text on one of the slides in Catalan: un punt de treball que lliura a la xarxa una potència activa, and while pointing to this sentence he said in Spanish el punto de trabajo que suministra a la red una potencia activa (‘an operating point that supplies power to the grid’). This is a habitual practice among bilinguals (Catalan–Spanish) in Catalonia. Similarly, one can also feel the teacher’s effort to use formal and academic Spanish, using specialized terms in Spanish. Only two technical words were used in English, one where translation in Spanish does exist (Table 10.2), and near the end, in an aside to his students, he used the word flow in its conversational meaning (complaining about background noise): me rompe el flow de la clase (‘my flow is broken’). The last example performs the function of classroom management (Sánchez-García 2018). Thus, his use of English was minimal, virtually inexistent, and he never actually uttered a word in Catalan. As to Teacher 3 (EMI), his class was in English except for the occasional use of Catalan. He used Catalan either because he could not find the one-word technical term in English and asked for students’ help (‘manguera /hose/, can you help?’; ‘manivela /hand cranck/, how is it in English?’) or because, after first using the word in English, he himself provided the translation in Catalan to ensure that local students followed (‘the clutch, the embrague, vale?; a valve, a vàlvula, yes?’). All multilingual examples revolved around technical terms. It was seen that Teachers L1 and L2 attempted to use proper formal and academic Catalan or Spanish – Teacher 1 (Catalan) used so many technical terms in English because no translation exists, and Teacher 2 (Spanish) with minimal use of English and no oral use of Catalan, used technical and semitechnical vocabulary in Spanish. The accounts they gave will be analysed later. With the purpose of examining these practices in depth and seeing how conscious teachers were of their multilingual practices, in the interview I asked them if and what they recalled of their multilingualism. A revealing finding is

190

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Table 10.2 Multilingual instances identified Teacher 1 (L1 Catalan) Teacher’s oral Pervasive and output conspicuous interspersing of one- or two-word technical words in English Examples of Examples of multilingual technical English practices terms uttered many times: else, if, in, out, break, default, bit, byte, switch, case, state, then (programming language)

Slides

Blackboard

All in English (programming language) Constant use of blackboard

Teacher 2 (L2 Spanish)

Teacher 3 (EMI)

Speaks predominantly in Spanish, including technical terms English translanguaging: 2 translanguaging instances of technical terms: ‘máquina brushless’; ‘Slip’ 1 Conversational term: Me rompe el flow de la clase (My flow is broken) (implicit) Catalan translanguaging: Translating into Spanish while reading from slides written in Catalan 6 slides in Spanish, 2 in Catalan.

Speaks predominantly in English 5 technical instances in Catalan: ‘the embrague; catenàries; a vàlvula; manguera; manivela Confirmation checks vale? (‘OK?’)

Little use of blackboard (a formula)

Little use of blackboard (two English terms written)

All in English

they all recall English acronyms (see Table 10.3). Second, except for Teacher 1 (Catalan), the result of the teachers’ stimulated recall of their multilingualism was modest: they only gave a few examples because they could not remember more words. Teacher 3 said that he was conscious of his use of English in his L1 and L2 classes, justifying it as follows: Interviewer: So you’re conscious. Teacher 3: Yes, on some specific occasions, exceptions, you have to use the word in English. For example, ‘driver’, in Catalan it’s driver. Well, it should be ‘controlador’ but everyone uses driver. Uhm, another is Offset, meaning ‘deviation’ or ‘bias’. It’s difficult to give my course without using English, as you can see. Oh, we also have drain and source, the Mosfets have a drain and a source.

Lecturers’ Multilingual Practices and Ideologies on Disciplinary Vocabulary

191

Mosfet is an acronym, like a proper name, nobody uses ‘Metal Oxide Semiconductor Field Effect Transistor’, so cumbersome[. . .] It’s important for students to learn terminology in English but it’s also good that the technical language is learnt in Catalan. It’s not easy to find the balance because sometimes in Catalan the word doesn’t exist or sometimes in English it’s one word, but the translation in Catalan is convoluted and long.

When asked if he translated or switched often to other languages in his English lessons, he clearly distinguished his practices in EMI classes from his practices when teaching in L1 and L2: Teacher 3: In EMI, if I find the word in English, I use it in English. Sometimes I can’t find the word because I don’t know it. I’m conscious this has happened to me, but usually about something more general from engineering . . . The highly specialized terms I know them very well. It’s more generic engineering words that I may not remember [. . .] In my L1 and L2 classes, I think students don’t have any difficulty in changing languages all the time. They study in English because my slides are in English, but you explain in Catalan or Spanish . . . Possibly because we’re bilinguals, just see how we use TV, we constantly change from Catalan to Spanish a hundred times every day, uhm, don’t remember in what language we watched a film.

He also added that he internalized certain words in English as a student, because his teachers taught him these concepts in English. These practices are then a core part of the disciplinary knowledge and literacy that is taught from expert to novice. Teacher 3 actually thinks that in the future his students will use these English terms, particularly if it is a new concept that they have learnt with him. Teacher 2 (L2 Spanish) needed time to remember and gave the translanguaging example (‘máquina brushless’), which he also uses in its Spanish counterpart (sin escobillas). He gave the following normalized account of the extensive use of English acronyms he needs in his research, revealing that he is not consciously compartmentalizing the two languages: Teacher 2 Interviewer: In the case of the English acronyms in your specialty, do you regret your students learn those terms in English and not in Spanish? Or the other way round? Teacher 2: The truth is I’ve never given a thought to this. I see them as being the same. For me it’s as if I’d Spanishized them, I’ve always seen the terms in the same way. I’ve incorporated them in my language, and it’s as if there was a mixture of both.

192

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Teacher 1 (L1 Catalan), however, stands out as a teacher who has given more reflection and deliberately taken an active stance towards using technical Catalan accurately. He often consults TermCat and a specialized online dictionary (Optimot) from the Catalan philologic institution (Institut d’Estudis Catalans) to check if a technical term in English has its Catalan translation, which rarely happens in programming. However, it is interesting to see how he refused to accept the English discipline-specific borrowings as domain loss (Hultgren, 2016): Teacher 1: As I’m reivindicative of Catalan (chuckles) I like teaching in Catalan because, uhm, there’s the TermCat and the Optimot tool. These guys are doing a serious, important work to adapt specialized terminology coming from technology to Catalan, ok? Many times, in fact, incorporating words rather than changing them or providing the parallel translation, right? I think it’s a way to teach my lessons in Catalan, it gives you the opportunity to keep your language . . . The people from Optimot have taken a pragmatic decision, we incorporate into Catalan the words without an equivalent word in Catalan. And this is good, it gives you an easy use of the language, right? . . . at least in this course, which is programming language . . . because of this permeability that we take for granted.

His pragmatism then makes him accept that (Catalan) monolingualism is impossible, that technical Catalan must be permeable due to the (English) functional epistemic monolingualism push, without renouncing his concern for Catalan. In his classes, he was careful to make a rich use of academic Catalan and used the (few) Catalan technical terms that appear in the Optimot, using English only when there was no translation. The underlying non-randomness of the effort to speak accurate Catalan with so many English loans is captured in this excerpt, implying that EMI would be ‘the natural’ language to teach his course: Teacher 1: Here we’ve got the problem of Catalan Spanish English. French has been cornered. It’s crystal clear for me, we must look after Catalan. Spanish people look after Spanish, they’ve got their institutions, their universities and associations to work and protect Spanish . . . in class, yes, if I speak a good English, I then teach in English and then you needn’t make translations from here and there. But it’s our responsibility, of those of us that want to protect Catalan, to teach in Catalan.

Teacher 1 defined himself as not being a ‘purist’. Actually, it has to be noted that he never used any blending in his lesson as other colleagues may do (e.g. ‘shiftat’, in Aguilar-Pérez & Arnó-Macià 2020, p. 167). Table 10.3 summarises the few words in English that teachers were able to recall during the interview (excluding two examples that Teacher 2 sent via mail days later).

Lecturers’ Multilingual Practices and Ideologies on Disciplinary Vocabulary

193

Table 10.3 Stimulated recall of technical words and acronyms in English Teacher 1

Teacher 2

Teacher 3

Brushless machine Drive; Offset; Drain; Stimulated recall She recalled all of – or ‘máquina sin Source of technical and words I had semi-technical identified, plus: escobillas’’; Slip words command, sentence and randomize – aleatori Stimulated recall LFSR (Linear From his research: MOSFET (Metal of acronyms in Feedback Shift HVDC (High Oxide English Register); Voltage Direct Semiconductor MEMRISTOR Current); VSC Field Effect (Memory Resistor); (Voltage Source Transistor) RRAM (RAM Converters) Resistor); ROBDD (Reduced Order Binary Decision Diagram), or BDD

The teachers’ ideologies concerning their short multilingual shifts were seen to be framed as, first, disciplinary knowledge or (English) epistemic monolingualism (Kuteeva et al., 2020) and second, as a way to economize. Interestingly, all teachers stated that the nature and origin of the discipline determine the presence of English. Teacher 1 (L1 Catalan) gave a long account legitimizing the high use of English loans intertwined in his discourse on the grounds of the chronological and geographical origin of the underlying technology: Teacher 1: When electrical engineering was developed at the end of the 19th century there wasn’t as much transfer. Uhm, the person who invented something created school and everything was slower and there was more time for people to adapt new terminology to their language . . . texts were printed and there was translation and revision, this depuration, there was this opportunity to nationalize and depurate. Now everything happens so quickly, nobody translates, there’s no time. [. . .] It has to do with the age and time the programming language was born. In the 20th century there’s this moment when the biggest expenditure ever was made, during the space project. During WWII a huge investment was made on the space race, and there, for the navigation systems in the space, they needed computers, machines, programming languages. That was the cradle. It took place in the US, so everything was in English. Is.

194

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Teacher 2 (L2 Spanish) answered along the same lines but fine-tuned the assumption on the nature and origin of the discipline by referring to the topic itself. He attributed the existence of Spanish terminology to how specialized or conventional the course/topic is (electrical machines), indexing the specificity to the programme type: Teacher 2: There are many more English terms in electronics than in our area. Electricity is more classical, electrical machines have always been there, when English was not so important. But electronics is more recent, more recent breakthroughs [. . .] For you to see how powerful classical technology is, an example is a word in the induction machine when I teach in Spanish. I say ‘deslizamiento’, ‘lliscament’ in Catalan, in English it’s Slip. But Slip hasn’t eaten up deslizamiento because the induction machine is a classical machine . . . The machines I teach are conventional machines, the course is for undergraduates. If it was a master’s course, covering different machines, probably more words in English would appear to describe these more modern machines.

Teacher 2 then is able to stick to Spanish monolingualism because of the conventional content of the course. Teacher 3 (EMI) also explained that classical electrical engineering has few English borrowings: ‘At the beginning of the 20th century, there were French and German words, technology was in Europe and people translated. And from 50s and 60s on, US technology booms and they impose English and that’s it.’ The older teachers report having had to learn all specialized terminology in English during their PhD and onwards, on their own, given that when they were students, their teachers used Spanish terminology and basic textbooks (translated from English to Spanish). The second reason teachers mentioned to account for their English multilingualism, normalizing English epistemic monolingualism, is the economy of language and time efficiency at an era of quick advances: Teacher 1: It’s the dynamics of inventing new words in electrical and electronics engineering. Interviewer: The first term to be coined is the one that will eventually become accepted? Teacher 1: It’s not so straightforward. An example is BDD, Binary Decision Diagram. In fact, it should be Reduced Order Binary Decision Diagram, ROBDD. The first acronym invented by a Japanese was ROBDD, but it was too long and it’s become BDD. People know that it should be ROBDD and when they read BDD, they know it’s ROBDD. You’re always coding and decoding, all the time. In class you do the same, you explain the full meaning the first time and then just the acronym. It’s an effort to economize language.

Lecturers’ Multilingual Practices and Ideologies on Disciplinary Vocabulary

195

This drive for efficiency (at the heart of the engineering profession and featuring knowledge construction) percolates into these teachers’ teaching, shaping new generations of engineers. The economy of language not only allows them to express many ideas in a synthetic manner through acronyms and technical terminology in English – a tacit rule that has been working since the Second World War – but also in the language choices they make: preparing materials and slides exclusively in English, irrespective of the language of instruction, because when anything needs to be updated, they only have to do that once (‘it’s an economy of effort at the end of the day’, Teacher 3).

Discussion Though this study is based on a small corpus of data and my presence may have interfered, the identified multilingual ideologies may be representative of other STEM teachers at the university under study. We have seen, responding to the first research question, that English multilingual practices of STEM teachers amount to brief shifts to English (one- or two-word specialized terms) and that the discipline and topic determine their frequency and dynamics. These practices arise from English epistemic monolingualism (concealed in EMI) and mirror how embedded English has become in STEM disciplinary knowledge, particularly in more recent technological fields where the carrier of content (Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998), i.e. specialized vocabulary, has no translation in the local language. The multilingual practices between the two national languages, Catalan and Spanish, are fluid and implicit, emulating the everyday shifting between languages among bilingual speakers in Catalonia, which encourages some teachers to follow the same ‘natural and normal’ policy of having slides in one language and oral output in another. Concerning the second research question (What do they recall?), findings confirm the all-encompassing presence of English technical terminology and acronyms in STEM research, percolating through their teaching. With a dynamic and ever-changing linguistic repertoire as a result of their situated experiences and background, as bilinguals, their automatism of translanguaging seems internalized, which may account for their initially modest recall and scant reflection. Transmitted from teacher to student as part of their mastery of disciplinary knowledge, the ‘duel of monolingualisms’ identified in Nordic institutions (Kuteeva et al., 2021) is somehow present here, yet in a triadic way. However, because some minority language speakers are resistant to

196

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

neglecting their L1 without relinquishing their (Englishized) disciplinary practices (Kuteeva et al., 2021), their resistance is shaped as a resilient pragmatism that allows them to teach in their mother tongue and follow English monolingualism – teaching complex concepts using English technical terms and acronyms that they quickly code and decode. The last question (What are these teachers’ language ideologies regarding their plurilingual practices?) yields interesting findings on their multilingual practices, which hint at the greater importance of structure, understood as a society’s capacity to constrain the individual if compared with individual agency. Not hinging from EMI but from the English epistemic monolingualism in knowledge production, this ubiquitous one/two-word multilingualism emerges as an unavoidably embedded feature in STEM. Pervasive in all languages of instruction, albeit in different frequencies, it is viewed as a repercussion of the development and historical origins of the discipline. When English is associated with a profession (electronics, electrical engineering, programming) and language is essentialized (Kuteeva et al., 2020, p. 32), Spanish and minority language (Catalan) teachers pragmatically accept the increasing porosity of their language, normalizing ubiquitous ‘surrogates’ with no equivalent specialized term in L1-L2. Only when asked about domain loss do teachers acknowledge the ‘Anglophone push’ and the speed of technological advances causing the inexistence of updated specialized textbooks/bookshops in L1-L2. Teachers’ accounts of their plurilingual practices differ in their verbalized preoccupation about the retreating use of Catalan, the minority language: Teacher 1 adheres to teaching in L1 (Catalan) and rejects EMI (an identity and political choice); while Teacher 2 uses the technical terms in Spanish, a Spanish monolingualism he would not attain was the course on recent technology; Teacher 3 uses all slides in English but considers it is necessary for students to learn specialized terminology in their L1, so he translanguages for pedagogic purposes (‘clutch – embrague’). The role of individual agency is visible, yet assisted by institutional tools like Optimot and TermCat, without which Teachers 1 and 3 would be resourceless. Aligning with Lasagabaster, for minority language STEM teachers to enjoy linguistic security, authorities should provide tools and support ‘to diminish linguistic tensions and underpin the desired linguistic ecology’ (Lasagabaster, 2021, p. 90). While the language choice is there, this choice is however conditioned by structure. The findings in this study support the claim made by Cots et al. regarding the need to decentre individual agency and acknowledge ‘the role of social structure as a source of opportunities and constraints for the deployment of the individual’s agency’(Cots et al., 2021, p. 180).

Lecturers’ Multilingual Practices and Ideologies on Disciplinary Vocabulary

197

Finally, I would like to note that my findings reflect multilingualism rather than plurilingualism. Following the terminology of European institutions, ‘multilingualism’ refers exclusively to the presence of several languages in a geographical area, independently of those who use them, whereas ‘plurilingualism’ entails both a conception of the speaker as fundamentally plural and a value itself, at the centre of linguistic tolerance (Cots et al., 2021). English is the main academic lingua franca, dominant in the business and technology worlds, and is perpetuating its power at the risk of rendering other languages invisible or superfluous. In a recent workshop on Artificial Intelligence I attended, translanguaging of technical borrowings pervaded all the Spanish masters students’ presentations, who made a massive, extensive, use of English (e.g. ‘Nos gustaria hacer un seeding; el streaming data y el pipelining; el hash de la imagen; el tagging mediante el clustering; el trigger; entrenar mediante un set de train’). The conspicuous, non-epidermic, translanguaging in these students’ oral output and slides, apart from perpetuating their content teachers’ translanguaging in class and reflecting all their reading on the topic, is worth further study.

Acknowledgements This research was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness in two research projects (PID2019-107451GB-I00/AEI/10.13039/501100011033, and previously FFI2016-76383-P).

References Aguilar-Pérez, M., & Arnó-Macià, E. (2020). He’s a good lecturer in any language: Shifting from L1 to English. In M. Sánchez-Pérez (ed.), Teacher Training for English-Medium Instruction in Higher Education, 153–177. Hershey, PA: IGI-Global. An, J., Macaro, E., & Childs, A. (2019). Language focused episodes by monolingual teachers in English Medium Instruction science lessons. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 7, 166–191. Baker, M. (1988). Sub-technical vocabulary and the ESP teacher: An analysis of some rhetorical items in medical journal articles. Reading in a Foreign Language, 4: 91–105. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Austin, Tx: University of Texas. Basturkmen, H. (2006).Ideas and Options in English for Specific Purposes. New Jersey : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

198

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Block, D. (2021). Emergent STEM lecturer identities: The shaping effects of EMI in action in an internationalized and Englishised HE context. Language Teaching, 54, 388–406. Chirobocea-Tudor, O. (2018). Vocabulary acquisition in ESP: Perspectives, strategies and resources. Studii si Cercetari Filologice: Seria Limbi Straine Aplicate, 171–180. Cots, J. M., Mitchell, R., & Beaven, A. (2021). Structure and agency in the development of plurilingual identities in study abroad. In M. Howard (ed.), Study Abroad and the Second Language Learner, 165–188. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Coxhead, A. (2013). Vocabulary and ESP. In B. Partridge and S. Starfield (eds), The Handbook of English for Specific Purposes, 115–132. Boston: Wiley & Blackwell. Dang, T. N. Y. (2022). Vocabulary in academic lectures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 58, 101–123. Dudley-Evans, T., & St John, M. J. (1998), Developments in English for Specific Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Evans, S., & Morrison, B. (2011). The first term at university: Implications for EAP. ELT Journal, 65, 387–397. García, O. & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism, and Education. London: Palgrave MacMillan. González-Ardeo, J. M. (2014). Trilingual identity of engineering students in the Basque Country. International Journal of Multilingualism, 11, 23–40. Graddol, D. (1997). The future of English? A guide to forecasting of popularity of the English language in the 21st century’. The British Council. Retrieved from: https:// www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/english-next Henriksen, B., Holmen, A., & Kling, J. (2019). English Medium Instruction in Multilingual and Multicultural Universities. New York: Routledge. Hultgren, A. K. (2016). Domain loss: The rise and demise of a concept. In A. Linn (ed.), Investigating English in Europe: Contexts and Agendas, 153–158. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Hyland, K. (2012). Disciplinary Identities, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kuteeva, M., Kaufhold, K., & Hynninen, N. (eds) (2020), Language Perceptions and Practices in Multilingual Universities. London: Palgrave MacMillan. Kuteeva, M., Kaufhold, K., & Hynninen, N. (2021). Nordic universities at the crossroads: Societal responsibility, language perceptions, and policies. In B. M Apelgren, A. M Eriksson and S. Strömberg (eds), Language Matters in Higher Education Contexts. Policy and Practice, 71–87. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers. Lasagabaster, D. (2021). EMI in Spain. Striving to maintain a multilingual balance. In R. Wilkinson and R. Gabriëls (eds), The Englishization of Higher Education in Europe, 77–95. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University. Mancho-Barés, G., & Aguilar-Pérez, M. (2020). EMI lecturers’ practices in correcting English. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 8, 257–284. Mazak, C., & Carroll, K. (2016). Translanguaging in Higher Education: Beyond Monolingual Ideologies. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Lecturers’ Multilingual Practices and Ideologies on Disciplinary Vocabulary

199

Moncada-Comas, B. (2022). The Role of the L1 in EMI Classroom Practices: Exploring Identity Shifts through Language Choice. CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 5, 23–36. Pecorari, D. (2020). English medium instruction: Disintegrating language and content? In S. Dimova & J. Kling (eds), Integrating Content and Language in Multilingual Universities, 15–36. Switzerland: Springer Nature. Sanchez-García, D. (2018). Codeswitching practices in the discourse of two lecturers in English-medium instruction at university. ELIA, 18, 105–135. Serna-Bermejo, I., & Lasagabaster, D. (2022). ‘Translanguaging in Basque and English: Practices and attitudes of university teachers and students’. International Journal of Multilingualism. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2022.2086984 Trimble, L. (1985). English for Science and Technology: A Discourse Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Uchihara, T., & Harada, T. (2018). Roles of vocabulary knowledge for success in EMI: Self-perceptions and academic outcomes of Japanese undergraduates. TESOL Quarterly, 52, 564–587. Wilkinson, R., & Gabriëls, R. (2021). The Englishization of Higher Education in Europe. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University. Woordward-Kron, R. (2008). More than just jargon. The nature and the role of specialist language in learning disciplinary knowledge. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 234–249.

200

11

Remapping Sociolinguistics Boundaries and Spaces through Translanguaging Science Discourses: Critical Voices from Iraq Sami Alhasnawi

Setting the stage As inextricably related to ELFA, the denationalistic, transhybridized, fluid and diversified forms and practices of English in academic settings, e.g., Mauranen (2912) and Björkman (2013), the adoption of EMI policy has become increasingly a common practice for universities across the world for international visibility and academician and student recruitment (e.g., Lasagabaster, 2022). In this, recent research has highlighted how the ‘E’ as MI is commonly assumed to provide students with a space to practice their Englishes in presumed ‘authentic’ settings and to maximize their future job prospects in the worldwide workforce and market. As such, it ‘seems to be a firmly rooted unquestioned assumption amongst many academics and students that it is somehow “natural” to study in the medium of English’ (Louber & Troudi, 2019, p. 59). Nonetheless, the increasing tendency towards English as ‘the only and sometimes compulsory’ MI never goes without pointing out variant disadvantages as evidenced by researchers in their diverse settings (see next section: Literature review). Like so many other non-English countries, Iraq has shown its increasing tendency towards Anglicizing academia at the tertiary level. In this, individuals’ (teachers and students) beliefs/voices around the academic adoption of the ‘E’ have commonly been, to my knowledge, sidelined in research on EMI in Iraqi universities. To date, this is the first research attempt to bridge such a gap (albeit limited to investigating postgraduate students’ beliefs towards EMI across their science disciplines). This study aims to critically understand the extent to which

201

202

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

English as a language of global reach may (or may not) be accepted by the participating students as ‘the most appropriate form of instruction’ and how it intricately works with their local language (Arabic) and other non-linguistic modalities to shape their academic discourses (on translanguaging, see, e.g., Canagarajah, 2013; Lin, 2018; García & Wei, 2014). A research focus like this helps avoid ‘obstructing’ the potential role(s) of other languages in knowledge construction and meaning-making as related to EMI policy in university classrooms (e.g., Liddicoat, 2016, p. 2). This, in turn, minimizes the ‘oppressive’ role English may have in EMI sites (Giroux, 2017). Further, it contributes to understanding to what extent EMI policy comes in line with or against students’ language beliefs and practices in their different academic units within the same non-Anglophone university (e.g., Spolsky, 2004). As in Ricento (2006, p. 21), EMI policy to some degree has ‘a direct bearing on our place in society and what we might (or might not) be able to achieve’. In this sense, EMI policy ‘cannot stand alone, but is rather connected to political, social, and economic dimensions’ (Shohamy, 2006, p. 77). Despite its focus on an Iraqi university, the findings in this work, I strongly believe, can significantly extrapolate to other local and international universities sharing relatively the same sociolinguistic, histocultural tendency towards internationalizing academia through English. In light of this, the present study is designed to start with presenting, albeit briefly, earlier studies on EMI across the world. Following this, it showcases the study in terms of its context, methodology, findings and discussion to end with concluding remarks and implications for further research.

Literature Review Terminology-related considerations The ‘E’ in EMI indicates its use as ‘a tool’ for teaching ‘non-language academic content subjects’ (Lo & Lo, 2014, p. 47). As Solloway (2017, pp. 28–30) explains, different programmatic titles may inherently be used to refer to EMI. These can be mainly represented by ‘content-based foreign language instruction’, ‘contentbased second language instruction’, ‘content-based language instruction’, ‘contentbased instruction’ (CBI), ‘use of a second language as the language of learning and teaching’, ‘foreign language-mediated teaching’, ‘foreign language medium instruction’, ‘integrated language and content instruction’, ‘English-medium education’ (EME), and recently ‘content and language integrated learning’ (CLIL).

Remapping Sociolinguistic Boundaries and Spaces

203

For Coleman (2006), the first ‘L’ in CLIL is normally expected and accepted to euphemize the use of English as MI in the world (cf. Doiz et al., 2012). So, CLIL is quite often assumed to mean ‘CEIL’ (Dalton-Puffer, 2011, p. 183). In this, the ‘E’ is considered as an additional, second or foreign language (Kuteeva, 2020). However, CEIL can neither theoretically nor practically be used as an alternative to English language education, but rather as ‘extra opportunities’ for students to have their English proficiency developed (Chang, 2010, p. 76). In much the same way, Hüttner et al. (2013, p. 278) consider the courses taught through English as ‘an extra provision of English practice, made more enjoyable precisely by the absence of clear curricular aims and thus also forms of assessment for the language component of the class’. Despite being adopted to serve as both mobility and internationalization-athome programmes (see Lasagabaster, 2022, p. 6), the ‘E’ as MI in this context is a translingual practice wherein it inexorably intertwines with the students’ L1 (Arabic) to respond to certain ecolinguistic issues (e.g., García & Wei, 2014).

Earlier studies on English-medium instruction (EMI) Regardless of the negative propaganda towards the increasing adoption of ELFA in virtue of being so-called a ‘killer language’ (Coleman, 2006, p. 1) and ‘linguistic imperialism’ (Phillipson, 1992), ‘EMI is still a growing phenomenon’ (Rahman & Singh, 2021, p. 1). This inherently explains why it is hard to give reliable statistical data on the EME courses in world universities (Coleman, 2006). Research shows that EMI policy is commonly conceived as the prime consequence of internationalization (Doiz et al., 2012). The implementation of the EMI policy mainly aims to achieve academic internationalization, student exchanges, teaching and research materials available, staff mobility, graduate employability and CLIL (Lasagabaster, 2022). As related to research on CBI and CLIL in North America and Europe respectively (Chang, 2010), the underlying assumption of EMI is that students in their different majors (science, mathematics, history, etc.) are expected to have their linguistic and content literacies synergistically (or naturally) developed as a result of their exposure to disciplinary discourses through EMI. In EMI settings, language mastery is viewed as a ‘by-product’ of learning/teaching content knowledge (Wanphet & Tantawy, 2017). As such, EMI programmes are expected to offer an ‘immersion experience’ to the students by bringing English as LF to learn in their very local speech community (Solloway, 2016). Such an assumption lends itself to further research from different angles across the world

204

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

to understand how the ‘E’ is ecologically perceived, valued and how it interactively works with the students’ L1s to serve their diverse academic ends. In USA universities, Moody et al. (2019) examined bi/multilingual graduate students’ perceptions about translingual practices across their different settings. In this, the authors found out students’ ‘highly’ positive and supportive beliefs about translanguaging as a natural pedagogical technique and communicative strategy to respond to their linguistically and academically diverse needs, but at the same time as an indicator of the students’ ‘low L2 proficiency’. With their focus on the adoption of English at a bilingual university in the Basque Country in Spain, Doiz et al. (2012) further identified their participating students’ resistance to EMI and their international counterparts’ preference for English-based practices. Such a dichotomy clearly evidences the kind of challenges students may encounter when responding to the force of internationalization to go in line with their national ethos. In a similar vein, Rivera and Mazak (2017) investigated the impact of students’ predisposed attitudes in respect of translanguaging in an upper-level psychology class. In this context, Rivera and Mazak found out students’ preference to translanguaging as a normal and appropriate practice to facilitate classroom discussion among them as a bilingual academic community. However, translingual practices were considered as a ‘somewhat unprofessional’ or ‘unprofessional’ practice and impractical in terms of content clarification on the professional level for the majority of the participants (see also, e.g., Mazak & Herbas-Donoso, 2014, on the pedagogical roles of translanguaging in Spain). Research on EMI across Europe extended to be linked to students’ confidence and their future academic ambition and career. In a Nordic university setting, Bukve (2018) documented students’ positive attitudes towards the practical uses and outcomes of EMI in comparison to their L1 (Norwegian) across their Law, Philosophy and Natural Sciences disciplines. Bukve also explored the correlation between EMI and the participating students’ confidence and plans to pursue their studies abroad. In Asia, Chang (2010) in Taiwan examined university undergraduate students’ perspectives on content courses taught in English, the role of EMI in developing their language proficiency, and the potential difficulties they encounter in such settings. Consequently, Chang identified students’ agreement on the positive role of EMI courses through developing their listening skills in English. However, Chang warned against implementing EMI policy without taking learners’ proficiency in English on board and the potential impact of this on their comprehension of the content. As such, English language courses, in Chang’s

Remapping Sociolinguistic Boundaries and Spaces

205

view, should be broad enough to equip learners with their ‘actual’ linguistic needs to respond to their disciplinary demands. Similar views are highlighted by other researchers in different contexts, e.g., Huang (2015) in Taiwan, Byun et al. (2011) in Korea, Hu (2005) and Hyland (1997) in China. In Turkey, students’ attitudes towards EMI and the potential merits and drawbacks of this compared to Turkish as the medium of instruction (TMI) have also been addressed. In comparing the perception of two final-year engineering students at a Turkish university, Kırkgöz (2014, pp. 455–456), for example, found out that the choice of EMI or TMI had a significant impact on the quantity and quality of disciplinary knowledge, time, classroom participation and the nature of students’ discourses in context. EMI was positively perceived as a means to ‘enhance’ English language proficiency, access primary sources and follow up the development in their field, and English as a significant instrument for their future jobs on the part of EMI students; however, TMI was considered more ‘effective’ in terms of helping students to gain an easier and further detailed comprehension to content knowledge as part of their ‘long-lasting retention’. So, EMI was associated with the students’‘short-term objectives’,‘superficial and time-consuming learning’ of disciplinary knowledge as and EMI students in Kırkgoz’s context were also found more inclined to ‘memorize’ their content material just for passing exams. The ‘negative’ impact of EMI further extended to influence students’ classroom participation and the shape and content of their ‘specialist’ discourses as being ‘at the superficial level’ in comparison to those in TMI. As for the TMI, students’ incompetence in English was identified as a barrier to knowing more about current and future primary source knowledge and work skills required to join the global market. More on Turkish students’ preference for EMI, challenges, and the potential role of EMI in enhancing students’ language proficiency is in, e.g., Ekoç (2020), Cosgun and Hasırcı (2017), and Yildiz et al. (2017). In the Gulf states, research on EMI has highlighted the pedagogical and academic significance of embracing a translingual approach wherein English and Arabic can be intertwined in response to contextual demands. A translingual education policy in such settings is expected to demarginalize Arabic and adds to its visibility at the academic level in terms of research publication and translation in the Arab region. This is part and parcel of linguistic justice towards Arabic and its fate as the language of its local learners’ religion (Islam) and heritage. In research on the effectiveness of EMI across six major United Arab Emirates (UAE) universities, Belhiah and Elhami (2014), for instance, found that students’ low proficiency in English has led students to struggle to learn the subject matter. In this respect, implementing a bilingual curriculum and teaching through

206

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

English and Arabic is suggested to promote students’ language and biliteracy skills. In Belhiah and Elhami’s view, English in this sense serves to work on the ‘demand side’ rather than the ‘supply one’, which serves to preserve students’ national identity and indigenous culture. Further, Wanphet and Tantawy (2017) identified their participating instructors’ flexible translingual approach to EMI in terms of switching to Arabic to ensure students’ understanding in science classes in the UAE. With the researchers’ (ibid.) mixed methods approach to data, preference for the implementation of ‘English-only’ for science education on the part of the majority of the students and 50 per cent of the instructors regardless of its potential issues on students’ linguistic and academic skills and the effect of that on their classroom activities and practices was also documented. So, while English is seen ‘as vital to maximizing UAE nationals’ educational and career opportunities in a globalizing economy’, its expansion is still, however, ‘perceived as posing a threat’ (Belhiah & Elhami, 2014, n.p.). In the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), EMI is conceived as ‘somewhat artificial’ and ‘a barrier to conducive learning and overall competence in academic disciplines’ (Louber & Troudi, 2019, pp. 68, 69). In this context, Louber and Troudi (2019) evidenced the gap between EMI policy and teacher-students’ actual practices in terms of their recourse to Arabic as ‘a de facto MI’ in their engineering context. For Louber and Troudi, this is because learners are not prepared well in the pre-university EFL classes to meet their actual needs in EMI courses. In very much the same way, Alazemi (2017) earlier reported that EMI is viewed as ‘an extra burden’ by the participating students and that the impact of EMI policy does not only affect students’ understanding of their content, but also the position of Arabic as a symbol of their national identity and its role in academia. As such, Louber and Troudi (2019) and Alazemi (2017) call for EMI policymakers to balance between the pressures of the global market and the position of English compared to Arabic (as a symbol of their cultural heritage, religion and nationality) and the educational needs of their own local communities and constraints. Based on the literature reviewed in this context, it is important to note the fact that the sole use of the ‘E’ as MI can neither guarantee students’ linguistic nor academic literacy nor their prospects for successful participation in the world market (e.g., Samuelson & Freedman, 2010). In line with Macaro et al. (2018), I would strongly argue for the need to explore students’ beliefs/voices towards EMI and how this may (or may not) come as a result of potential overt/ covert contextual factors across their different academic disciplines. A research focus like this assists the researcher to provide an ‘insider view’ to uncover the

Remapping Sociolinguistic Boundaries and Spaces

207

impact of ecolinguistic aspects on students’ sociolinguistic stereotypes as relevant to their disciplinary needs and beings (see e.g., Bukve, 2018, and also van Lier, 2004 on language ecology). From this work perspective, there is a paucity (if not absence) and necessity of research on postgraduate students’ beliefs around EMI policy and how the ‘E’ most likely comes to interact with their L1 (Arabic) and other non-linguistic resources as relevant to their ‘whole linguistic repertoire’, in Cenoz’s (2019) sense, across science majors in Iraq. As such, this study aims to address postgraduate students’ beliefs on translanguaging (Anglicizing and/or Arabizing) science discourses in an Iraq-based university, the pros and cons this may entail, and their insights into better science education through EMI for learning to think and do science. Such a research aim helps the participants to critically question and comment on the relevance and practicality of holding and supporting any binary stance towards languages (English and Arabic in this context). It also assists them to speak up and contribute in pushing the boundaries for (re-)mapping sociolingustics spaces across their academic disciplines.

The study Based on its aim, this study endeavours to answer the following research questions: RQ1: What are the participating students’ beliefs about the adoption of a worldwide dominant language like English compared to Arabic as MI across their science disciplines? RQ2: What are the students’ beliefs about the potential implicit/explicit pros and cons of teaching content through EMI, AMI (or both as a translingual pedagogy) and what this may entail in respect of disciplinary knowledge understanding, language (English) development, and academic participation? RQ3: What are the participating students’ perspectives on developing EMI policy across their academic contexts? Answering such questions inevitably contributes to the increasing line of research on the global dominance of English as MI in the HE domain and the potential impact of this on individuals’ sociolinguistic practices, disciplinary and language literacy development, and local linguacultural values associated with their indigenous language(s).

208

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Research context In response to the pre-eminent spread of English as LF for international/ intercultural communication in the academic and non-academic domains, state and private universities in Iraq (as in almost every country in the world) have recently become more and more inclined to Anglicizing academia. English is considered the only foreign language through which the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (MoHESR) in Iraq can achieve its ‘transnational policy’ after 2003. In this respect, English has significantly pervaded the HE domain in administrative, educational and scientific research. Such a dominating role comes in contrast to the sociolinguistic profile of the academic community (admin staff, teaching faculty and student cohort) in Iraq wherein the great majority of its population is ‘mono-linguacultural’ and Arabic is the official language. In this, the Kurdistan region in the northern part of Iraq is an exceptional case as Kurd is the first official language for education. As for the university context in this work, it is very local in the southern part of Iraq and all teaching faculty and student cohort are Iraqi from the same city or neighbouring ones. Despite its geographical, academic and sociolinguistic profile, the university is giving a high priority to promoting proficiency in English on the part of its students and teaching faculty in hopes of achieving ‘highquality’ academic qualifications for graduates and contributing to worldwide competitiveness and economics. Students are required to have at least one year of preparatory English course (two hours per week) as a first-year core module. For postgraduate programmes, they need to submit evidence of taking EMI courses along with the TOEFL certificate as mandatory requirements of application for their different science majors. An English-support module based on the Headway Book Series is further decided for students to have in their first semester (two hours per week). In response to the university policy towards furthering research impact internationally, they must also prove their publication in very wellestablished journals indexed in Scopus, Clarivate and the like, prior to their thesis submission. In the Viva, students’ international publications are of more than double value (5 scores for every single international contribution and 2 scores for the local). As such, English has become a prerequisite for the university to ‘guarantee’ its international visibility (academic identity). Based on earlier studies (e.g., Alhasnawi, 2021), I would here further argue that the over-enthusiasm related to the manipulation of the ‘E’ in academia, especially as MI, is normally uncritically associated with only the outcomes and prospects, turning a blind eye (deliberately or not) to its potential drawbacks on

Remapping Sociolinguistic Boundaries and Spaces

209

the ground. As Byun et al. (2011, pp. 432, 436), I would say it is more a ‘policy fashion’ than a realistic ‘cure-all’ for the linguistic and content challenges students currently encounter, a scenario that must set alarm bells ringing.

Data collection and analysis In this study, a qualitative approach is used for the data collection by conducting semi-structured interviews with two male and three female postgraduate students from Mathematics, Environmental Engineering, Computer Engineering, and Learning Technology. In line with earlier studies on learner beliefs in different contexts (e.g., Hüttner et al., 2013; White, 1999), such a research instrument provides an emic account of the researched issue as embodied by the interviewees’ discourses (Lichtman, 2013). With the view that beliefs are inherent in students’ contexts (Allen, 1996), a contextual approach is employed in this contribution to exploring participants’ beliefs/voices about their EMI experiences. This, in turn, helps discover how dynamic, changing and relatively shared constructions of the interviewees’ reported beliefs are as relevant to academic culture(s) across disciplines (see, e.g., Bernat & Gvozdenko, 2005 on the nature of beliefs and individual learner differences). In response to ethical procedures required in this context and prior to obtaining consent forms, students were clearly and thoroughly informed about the research aim and focus, research instruments, their roles and rights. Linked to the confidentiality of their voluntary participation, the students were given pseudonyms. The interview grid was mainly based on questions related to the students’ sociolinguistic and educational profiles, their views on the potential significance assigned to ELFA and how this may implicitly or explicitly impact the sociocultural, historical and national values they embrace towards their indigenous language and culture, what pros and cons (if any) whether all the modules were solely Anglicized, Arabized or translanguaged and their feelings in any case, their views on their instructors’ classroom discourses, feedback and the given materials across their disciplines. The students were further invited to offer insights into a better educational scenario through EMI. Interviewees were allowed to answer in the way and language they like (Arabic, English or codeswitch). The five interviews were flexibly decided to ensure convenience for all parties. All were conducted and audio-recorded by the researcher at the university. Each lasted around 47 to 53 minutes. The collected data were then

210

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

transcribed/translated and approached with qualitative content analysis to code using the NVivo 12 software package.

Findings In the analysis, I categorized participants’ reported beliefs/voices into three main (mother) codes: English/Arabic and global changes; English/Arabic and local challenges; and Suggestions for a better EMI scenario in the HE context of the study. However, such categorization does not mean that the beliefs identified are separable clusters, a point that evidences the inevitable and intricate overlap of the belief sets concerning the macro and micro aspects of English as documented herein.

English/Arabic and global changes As shown below, this code encapsulates students’ beliefs towards the power of English, the sociocultural and academic values that stand behind Anglicizing academia internationally and what linguistic threat this may (or may not) imply against its users’ indigenous languages.

The compulsion of English Participants’ commonality in relation to the worldwide compulsion of English over other languages including their own indigenous Arabic is documented in this context. As an example, English is, for Sura in Mathematics, conceptualized as ‘a diplomatic passport for all types of affairs . . . gives its speakers an international identity, global recognition and inclusion’. Further, Sura believes that ‘speakers with their different L1s like Arabs are like ambassadors letting the world know more about their own diverse cultural values and norms and they in return know more about others’ through English’. Taken further, this question has led to discussing the sociocultural and academic value(s) the power of English may entail from the participants’ perspective.

Sociocultural and academic value(s) of English The belief that the world is increasingly going towards more and more English across diverse domains of life and that education is no exception has come to be intricately shared among the participants. In bi/multilingual communication

Remapping Sociolinguistic Boundaries and Spaces

211

contexts, English is always there as the first foreign language to learn and use despite the communication function(s) of other languages. To explain, although Nadia in Learning Technology thinks that Arabic is the ‘top option’, English is still ‘the eminent academic language’ to respond to the global demands/changes and satisfy her own academic and non-academic needs. Further, Sura and Muna (in Mathematics and Environmental Engineering respectively) believe that English should be ‘the top language’ to be followed by Arabic and French in their bi/multilingual hierarchy. As part of her critical stance towards English, however, Sura later said that, ‘I always think about the question that why do not they [Anglophone speakers] “force” themselves to learn our own Arabic? I envy them hhh I mean why do not they have Arabic as an obligatory, or even optional, course . . . this is just to be fair with other languages.’

Linguistic threat of English As for the threat English potentially entails against the instrumental (academic and non-academic) value of Arabic, students commonly believe that English is a must and Arabic is of a supplementary/facilitative role. As an example, Mustafa in Computer Science thinks that ‘dominance of English in general, and academia in particular, must not be given a political frame . . . English is no more than a tool of communication like any other language, say, sign language’. In a similar vein, Nadia in Learning Technology considers ‘English and Arabic are normally infused to bridge “linguistic inadequacy” for understanding and shaping our science discourses’. A further view related to the pragmatic function of English is expressed by Mazin in Mathematics saying that, ‘English is better than Arabic for me as we at the end need to write our theses in English, Scopus publication [and] my PhD in the future. I need it more than Arabic . . . Arabic is my mother tongue and English is the language of science in the world.’ Despite the positive stance the participants reported in respect of the dominance of English to respond to the changes and demands of the contemporary world, English across their EMI domains has never been their ‘comfort zone’ wherein its diverse uses inexorably red-flag certain ecological, maybe individual, challenges.

English/Arabic and local challenges Addressing the academic and language literacy practices and achievement as related to the practical implementation of the ‘E’ as MI across their different university disciplines, I managed to identify their reiteration of the following

212

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

challenges and reasons for why ‘English-only’, ‘English plus Arabic’ and ‘Arabiconly’, albeit very rare in this context, come to be the norm as part and parcel of their academic culture(s).

English as a tool and burden The point that English is the ‘only tool’ to access primary sources, but it at the same time is a burden on the shoulder of the participants to have their academic mission accomplished, has commonly been shared among the interviewees. In comparison to Arabic, English is, for all, considered the paramount key to valuable knowledge. Linked to this, Mustafa’s view, for instance, is that ‘computer science is from A to Z American and I cannot imagine any contribution in any other language, say Arabic, as rich, valuable, relevant and practical as it is in English’. For him, ‘this is a fact regardless of Al-Khwarizmi’s historic contribution in my field, the world of computer science is now of and to English . . . it is through English you know who Al-Khwarizmi is and what he did’. Such a fact, Mustafa adds, never goes without devoting more time and money to join private English learning institutes and software programs and applications. In a like manner, Muna believes that ‘almost all what we have in my study is in English and Arabic is not the right choice to know what environmental engineering is’. She further explained her point with reference to the difficulty she already experienced in writing a research paper on a particular core theory in her MSc course wherein English was the only barrier for her to accomplish the assignment and that QQ software was of no use in this respect.

Challenge of English in academic writing For the five participants, writing in English has been identified as the most intricate skill to master. Despite being able to read and understand their instructors’ discourses, content materials and sources, participants believe that writing in English is the most challenging aspect they currently encounter. In Computer Science, Mustafa referred to writing ‘an introduction’ and ‘discussion of the results’ as highly difficult parts of research writing. For Sura, the fact that mathematics discourses are normally constructed by the use of certain symbols, numbers, graphs and formulae does not actually lessen the pressure of English in her writing. In Environmental Engineering, Muna said that ‘I used to waste at least 30 per cent of my scores in the Hydrology module as this was the value for discussing certain theories through English-only in the exam, and 70 per cent of the score was on mathematics.’

Remapping Sociolinguistic Boundaries and Spaces

213

English and lack of linguistic equivalence In discussing translingual pedagogy, the lack of linguistic equivalence to the majority of their discipline-specific terminologies has been identified as the prime source for the participants’ heavy reliance on ‘English-only’. In this respect, Arabic is, in Mustafa’s eyes, ‘infertile’ when it comes to translating for example, ‘crumpled neural network’. Finding no linguistic counterpart to ‘cryptosystem’ in Sura’s math-coding is identified as a further example of the ‘infertility’ of Arabic, which is a point of challenge for them to have Arabic as the ‘right alternative’ for science communication. This explains why ‘English is better than Arabic’ in Mazin’s view to think and do mathematics.

English as a psychological threat For three female participants, the ‘E’ as MI has come to be identified as a pedagogical tool that threatens their psychological well-being. As evidenced in Nadia’s words, ‘when the teacher goes to English to explain how certain computer applications may serve students’ learning in their majors, I really feel irritated . . . but when mixed with Arabic, whenever possible and effective of course, that hysteria moment could be lessened’. Further words related to psychological wellbeing have been identified in both Mathematics and Environmental Engineering. That is, Sura’s view was that learning English and how to use it ‘in my communication makes me get butterflies in my stomach . . . English is my phobia’. Similarly, Muna associated English with ‘fear’ and ‘threat’ to her selfconfidence and social being as a member of her academic environment. In light of the aforementioned beliefs, I move next to present students’ insights into an effective EMI policy relevant to their actual needs and practices and the role of English courses in that.

Suggestions for a better EMI scenario in the HE context of the study Following up on the pros and cons underneath the implementation of the ‘E’ as MI, the participating students brought the following points to the table to get EMI policy off the ground. ●

Discipline-specific English courses are eminently required. In this, language teachers need to think outside the box wherein their teaching practice must not only focus on grammar as relevant to ‘common English’, but rather on the grammar of their disciplines. For both Mustafa and Sura, courses like these should be optional, free of charge and based on the individuals’

214

●

●

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

language levels, needs and prospects. In their views, this makes a radical change to what they used to have in their ‘supplementary’ English courses. There should be an English preparatory school for at least one year for the students to be on the ball prior to having access to their different majors. In Muna’s view, ‘such a preparatory year is important for the students to know more about their language skills and to put that in an academic context as in the American university at the North of Iraq’. As for the teaching faculty, the participants commonly preferred local teachers (especially those who did their higher degrees in any of the Anglophone universities) over native English-speaking language teachers. For them, local teachers are more apt to situate their teaching practices to address their local language challenges. In Mustafa’s words, ‘I think local teachers are easier to approach and befriend as s/he understands my linguacultural needs . . . similar to what is going on in Finland’. However, Nadia, Sura and Mustafa further suggested choosing Anglophone (British in particular) language teachers who are bilingual (competent in Arabic) as an alternative to local teachers. In their views, British English teachers can teach ‘original’, ‘delicate’, ‘clear’, ‘correct’, ‘slow’ and ‘understandable’ English compared to American, Australian and Canadian ones.

Discussion Based on the beliefs cited above, it seems that the students are aware of the socioeconomic and academic incentives behind the unseizable power and spread of English as LF. Compared to Arabic, students expressed their positive stance towards the ‘E’ as MI for being a globally valued instrument for future studies and job markets, and the most effective tool to access ‘primary’, ‘original’ and ‘updated’ sources, and gaining an in-depth understanding of the content in their fields (albeit challenging in some respects). Research has already highlighted a similar finding in different EMI contexts (e.g., Bukve, 2018; Kırkgöz, 2014). Further, that the worldwide spread of English threatens the sociopragmatic function(s) and the value of its non-Anglophone speakers’ L1s in academic and non-academic domains is not evidenced in this context. From the participating students’ perspective, the dominance of English, in general, is more linked to individuals’ global engagement and interconnectivity at different levels than to their local (national) deep-rooted sociocultural and religious values and practices. As in Hüttner et al. (2013, p. 280), English in this context is conceptualized and accepted

Remapping Sociolinguistic Boundaries and Spaces

215

‘as the major global language for professional success . . . as well as a means of communication in a multilingual work environment’. As such, this relatively comes in contrast to the expected threat of English against Arabic and its historical implications referred to in Alazemi (2017) and Louber and Troudi (2019). However, there are still psychological issues related to the ‘E’ in EMI as highlighted by the female participants (cf. Bukve, 2018; Belhia & Elhami, 2014). Such findings, in turn, provide an answer to RQ1 in this context. Regarding RQ2, it seems that EMI is more like a double-edged sword. The findings come to show that while the ‘E’ as MI serves students’ wants to respond to their own discipline-specific needs and global changes, it is at the same time a point of challenge. Students’ voices were so clear about the role of EMI in enhancing their disciplinary English in terms of knowledge-construction and meaning-making processes. However, English has also come as ‘an impediment’ for the students to do well in exams despite the flexible approach teachers follow in evaluating students’ English. This is not only related to students’ limited vocabulary (see, e.g., Chang, 2010, p. 70), but also to their writing skills. Linked to this, the synergical development of students’ content and language literacies through EMI courses has neither been confirmed nor can be taken for granted in this context (Wanphet & Tantawy, 2017), but rather the ‘E’ in science education (Environmental Engineering and Mathematics in this work) seems to be of ‘a debilitating effect’ on students’ motivation, performance and morale (cf. Belhia & Elhami, 2014). Such a finding echoes earlier research in Hong Kong universities (e.g., Hyland 1997), but contradicts, for instance, Chang (2010, p. 68) and Kırkgöz (2014, p. 46) in terms of enhancing students’ English proficiency through EMI in Taiwan and Turkey respectively. As do Hüttner et al. (2013, p. 280), I would therefore say that there is no ‘two subjects for the price of one’ wherein EMI courses can by no means be considered an alternative to EFL education. As for classroom practices, translanguaging emerged as a fluid/flexible approach adopted by academic members across their disciplines to ease learning and teaching content. Translanguaging is then a routine strategy for individuals to push the sociolinguistics boundaries for (re-)mapping their own spaces across disciplines. This resonates with earlier research on EMI in other Arab countries like KSA (e.g., Louber & Troudi, 2019). Despite the relatively positive views towards translingual pedagogy, it still reflects individuals’ ‘low proficiency’ in English. This is already pointed out in multilingual settings by Moody et al. (2019). In line with Rahman and Singh (2021, pp. 9, 11), this is a common scenario especially when translation is not viable. That is, English is the only tool for discussing terminologies whereas Arabic is implemented for further detailed

216

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

information for conceptual understanding (cf. Rivera & Mazak, 2017; Mazak & Herbas-Donoso, 2014). In contrast to Belhia and Elhami (2014), it was the translingual pedagogy that more helped the students to grasp detailed content knowledge than their ‘strong background in English’ or ‘the opportunity to practice English’ across science disciplines. As such, there must be ‘a threshold level of learner proficiency in the medium language’ (Hu, 2005, pp. 18, 9). Otherwise, education through EMI will continue to be our inevitable concern (Rahman & Singh, 2021). In answering RQ3, the study showed that the students seemed to be unhappy with the general (supplementary) English courses offered to them despite the great emphasis on and efforts allotted to this in their university. As in Chang (2010, p. 74), English courses like these in this context do not come to match students’ actual needs and practices across their disciplines. As already highlighted in Korea and Taiwan (e.g., Byun et al., 2011; Huang, 2015 respectively), embracing a general approach to the implementation of EMI without considering the potential impact of ecolinguistic factors as related to English language proficiency and its dynamic nature across university disciplines can never be a strategy for quality education (see, e.g., Kırkgöz, 2014, and also Yildiz et al., 2017, p. 396, on developing English language skills through setting out ‘a production-based curricula’ at the preparatory-year language programmes).

Conclusion It seems worth noting that the reported beliefs in this context come to reveal the participants’ positive stance towards MoHESR’s EMI policy. This can be attributed to their critical awareness of the uncontrollable power of English and its spread to respond to global changes. In this sense, the implementation of the ‘E’ as MI is more conceived as natural than artificial to students with more space to do science across their disciplines. It is further worth taking on board that translingual pedagogy is by itself the ‘de facto’ of the egalitarian nature of discourses in EMI settings. This is not to resist the power of English (cf. Belhiah & Elhami, 2014; Doiz et al., 2012 among others), but rather to assist individuals to respond to local needs and challenges (if any) across their majors (e.g., Mazak & Herbas-Donoso, 2014; Wanphet & Tantawy, 2017). Simply put, if ‘Englishonly’ is inclusively considered as a standard/ideal practice for what EMI means, sociolingustics boundaries will continue to be firmly established and science education will persist as an irresistible issue. To respond to the ecolinguistic

Remapping Sociolinguistic Boundaries and Spaces

217

atmosphere across academic disciplines, this study highlights the need to set out EFL curricula and pedagogy in a way that meets the linguistic competence required on the part of the students in their different majors (cf. Byun et al., 2011; Chang, 2010). Due to the limited nature of this work, further research on the ‘E’ as MI and how it may or may not be intertwined with students’ local languages and other modes of communication across universities or university disciplines is still desperately required. This can be achieved through embracing different research tools for collecting different datasets as beliefs documented in this context are undeniably no more than ‘snips’ of certain ‘phenomena’ the participants experienced in their EMI environments, especially when classroom observations were not conducted to penetrate and witness such ‘phenomena’ on the ground. As such, generalizability is not an end in this study (cf. Alhasnawi, 2021; Louber & Troudi, 2019). However, the study significantly overlaps with theoretical implications and findings of earlier research on Anglicizing academic discourses to respond to global changes and potential challenges students may encounter at the university level (Alazemi, 2017; Canagarajah, 2013; Ekoç, 2020; García & Wei, 2014 to mention but a few).

References Alazemi, A. (2017). Teaching of Academic Subjects in English and the Challenges Kuwaiti Students Face. Doctoral dissertation, University of Exeter. Alhasnawi, S. (2021). Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices with respect to Translanguaging University Mathematics in Iraq. Linguistics and Education, 63, 100930. Allen, L. (1996). The Evaluation of a Learner’s Beliefs about Language Learning. Carleton Papers in Applied Language Studies, 13, 67–80. Belhiah, H., & Elhami, M. (2014). English as a Medium of Instruction in the Gulf: When Students and Teachers Speak. Language Policy, 14(1), 3–23. Bernat, E., & Gvozdenko, I. (2005). Beliefs about Language Learning: Current Knowledge, Pedagogical Implications, and New Research Directions. TESL-EJ, 9, 1–21. Björkman, B. (2013). English as an Academic Lingua Franca. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Bukve, T. (2018). Students’ Perspectives on English Medium Instruction: A Surveybased Study at a Norwegian University. NJES Nordic Journal of English Studies, 17(2), 215–242. Byun, K., Chu, H., Kim, M., Park, I., Kim, S., & Jung, J. (2011). English-Medium Teaching in Korean Higher Education: Policy Debates and Reality. Higher Education, 62(4), 431–449.

218

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations. Routledge. Cenoz, J. (2019). Translanguaging Pedagogies and English as a Lingua Franca. Language Teaching, 52(1), 71–85. Chang, Y.-Y. (2010). English-Medium Instruction for Subject Courses in Tertiary Education: Reactions from Taiwanese Undergraduate Students. Taiwan International ESP Journal, 2(1), 55–84. Coleman, J. A. (2006). English-Medium Teaching in European Higher Education. Language Teaching, 39(1), 1–14. Cosgun, G., & Hasirci, B. (2017). The Impact of English Medium Instruction (EMI) on Students’ Language Abilities. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 9(2), 11–20. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204. Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., and Sierra, J. (eds) (2012). English-Medium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Ekoç, A. (2020). English Medium Instruction (EMI) from the Perspectives of Students at a Technical University in Turkey. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 44(2), 231–243. García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Language, Bilingualism and Education. In Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education (46–62). London: Palgrave. Giroux, H. A. (2017). Democratic Education under Siege in a Neoliberal Society. In C. Wright-Maley & T. Davis (eds), Teaching for Democracy in An Age of Economic Disparity (13–24). New York: Routledge. Hu, G. (2005). English Language Education in China: Policies, Progress, and Problems. Language Policy, 4(1), 5–24. Huang, D.-F. (2015). Exploring and Assessing Effectiveness of English Medium Instruction Courses: The Students’ Perspectives. Procedia, 173, 71–78. Hüttner, J., Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U. (2013). The Power of Beliefs: Lay Theories and their Influence on the Implementation of CLIL Programmes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 267–284. Hyland, K. (1997). Is EAP Necessary? A Survey of Hong Kong Undergraduates. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 7(2), 77–99. Kırkgöz, Y. (2014). Students’ Perceptions of English Language Versus Turkish Language Used in the Medium of Instruction in Higher Education in Turkey. Turkish Studies, 9(12), 443–459. Kuteeva, M. (2020). Revisiting the ‘E’ in EMI: Students’ Perceptions of Standard English, Lingua Franca and Translingual Practices. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(3), 287–300. Lasagabaster, D. (2022). English-Medium Instruction in Higher Education. Elements in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lichtman, M. (2013). Qualitative Research in Education: A User’s Guide. Newcastle: Sage.

Remapping Sociolinguistic Boundaries and Spaces

219

Liddicoat, A. J. (2016). Language Planning in Universities: Teaching, Research and Administration. Current Issues in Language Planning, 17(3–4), 231–241. Lin, A. M. Y. (2018). Theories of Trans/languaging and Trans-semiotizing: Implications for Content-Based Education Classrooms. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(1), 5–16. Lo, Y. Y., & Lo, E. S. C. (2014). A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of English-Medium Education in Hong Kong. Review of Educational Research, 84(1), 47–73. Louber, I., & Troudi, S. (2019). “Most of the Teaching is in Arabic Anyway”, English as a Medium of Instruction in Saudi Arabia, between De Facto and Official Language Policy. International Journal of Bias, Identity and Diversities in Education, 4(2), 59–73. Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J. & Dearden, J. (2018). A Systematic Review of English Medium Instruction in Higher Education. Language Teaching, 51(1), 36–76. Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-Native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mazak, C. M., & Herbas-Donoso, C. (2014). Translanguaging Practices and Language Ideologies in Puerto Rican University Science Education. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 11(1), 27–49. Moody, S., Chowdhury, M., & Eslami, Z. (2019). Graduate Students’ Perceptions of Translanguaging. English Teaching and Learning, 43(1), 85–103. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rahman, M. M., & Singh, M. K. M. (2021). English Medium University STEM Teachers’ and Students’ Ideologies in Constructing Content Knowledge through Translanguaging. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25(7), 1–19. Ricento, T. (ed.) (2006). An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method. London: Blackwell. Rivera, A. J., & Mazak, C. M. (2017). Analyzing Student Perceptions on Translanguaging: A Case Study of a Puerto Rican University Classroom Perceptions. HOW, 24(1), 122–138. Samuelson, B. L., & Freedman, S. W. (2010). Language Policy, Multilingual Education, and Power in Rwanda. Language Policy, 9(3), 191–215. Shohamy, E. G. (2006). Language policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches. New York: Psychology Press. Solloway, A. J. (2016). English-medium Instruction in Higher Education in the United Arab Emirates: the perspectives of Students. Doctoral dissertation, University of Exeter. Spolsky, B. (2004). Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. van Lier, L. (2004). The Ecology and Semiotics of Language Learning: A Sociocultural Perspective. Dordrecht: Springer. Wanphet, P., & Tantawy, N. (2017). Effectiveness of the Policy of English as a Medium of Instruction: Perspectives and Outcomes from the Instructors and Students of

220

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

University Science Courses at a University in the UAE. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 17(2), 145–172. White, C. (1999). Expectations and Emergent Beliefs of Self-Instructed Language Learners. System, 27(4), 443–457. Yıldız, M., Soruç, A., & Griffiths, C. (2017). Challenges and Needs of Students in the EMI Classroom. Konin Language Studies, 5(4), 387–402.

12

Plurilingualism and Interculturality from the Perspectives of English Language Teachers Emine Pehlivan Şişman and Kağan Büyükkarcı

Introduction Today’s world is experiencing an unprecedented change due to accelerated globalization. Although it is commonly used in every field, the term ‘globalization’ has not yet been given a single definition. It is the interconnectedness of people and civilizations (Wilkinson, 2021), the strengthening of local and global social relations (Giddens, 1990), a process of ever-changing communications, events, actions and relationships in national and international spheres (Held et al., 1999), and a collection of social processes that expand, diversify, widen and deepen global social links and exchange ties while improving awareness of local and international relationships (Steger, 2003). Rather than its definition or affecting factors, this study focuses on the most important requirement that globalization has generated: a need for effective communication. We live in super-diverse societies due to migration flows (Latest Thinking, 2019). The number of international migrants is estimated at around 281 million, representing 3.6 per cent of the world’s population (International Organization for Migration & United Nations, 2022, p. 40). People take their languages and cultures with them wherever they go. English is the language of communication when individuals from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds come together. However, knowing the lingua franca does not necessarily make communication simpler. Because everyone perceives the world through unique lenses, being a world citizen who appreciates difference and interacts effectively in a variety of settings has gained great attention. Researchers and educators from all over the world have been searching for years to integrate linguistic and cultural diversity into the classroom. According to Byram (1997), a sense of otherness is essential to foreign language teaching because it requires students to 221

222

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

interact with both familiar and unfamiliar experiences through the medium of a foreign language. The purpose of foreign language teaching is not only to educate students linguistically, but also to heighten their sense of ‘otherness’ and prepare them to interact effectively with people from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Thus, the notion of plurilingual and pluricultural competence emerged (Cost et al., 2009). After a while, it evolved into plurilingual and intercultural competence, where ‘inter-’ emphasizes both the relational aspect and the diversity of the social actor’s cultural resources (Beacco, 2022). Foreign language teachers play a vital role in training students to become global citizens since they have prior experience studying a foreign language and culture (Risager, 2007). Language teachers, according to Byram (1997), should support learners to acquire intercultural awareness and appreciate the culture, beliefs and behaviours of others through activities. Because it is challenging to cover all languages and cultures in a single classroom, language teachers must enlighten their students on pluralistic approaches to languages and cultures. A plurilingual and intercultural education may help to raise a plurilingual person who is competent in a ‘repertoire of languages’ and who upholds plurilingual tolerance for all languages and variations. This research aims to add to the literature by unearthing English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers’ knowledge of plurilingualism and interculturality (PI), as well as their perspectives on these themes, in order to better understand the role they play in developing global citizens. The impact of demographic differences on EFL teachers’ PI perceptions was also examined. First, age was a focus because digitalization has given young people more intercultural experiences, making them more open to diversity and eager to meet foreigners (Lifintsev & Wellbrock, 2019). Second, the quantity of foreign languages spoken was researched since learning a foreign language includes comprehending its culture, which broadens learners’ perspectives and fosters intercultural communication. Third, undergraduate degrees’ impact on PI was questioned since English language and literature and American culture and literature graduates spend more time studying cultural topics than English language teaching graduates. Fourth, the number of English teachers in Turkey with a master’s degree or higher increased from 184 in 2013 to 310 in 2021 (Council of Higher Education Information Management System, 2021). Due to the link between education level and tolerance found in many social science studies (e.g., Scheepers et al., 2002; Stouffer, 1955; Sullivan & Transue, 1999, as cited in Janmaat & Keating, 2019), the educational level of EFL teachers was also investigated. Next, as teachers develop materials for the age groups they teach

Plurilingualism and Interculturality

223

and reflect the settings to which they are most commonly exposed, this study examined the impacts of teaching level on the PI. Finally, seniority’s effect on PI was questioned as experienced instructors encounter more people from varied backgrounds than less experienced ones.

Literature review Globalization and English medium instruction Globalization is the most important factor influencing social, economic and political changes in the local environment, and English is the language that connects the global and the local, resulting in a wide range of norms and approaches throughout the world (Seidlhofer, 2001). In fact, English has become ‘both a result and a reinforcement’ of globalization and has evolved naturally over years (Seidlhofer, 2011, as cited in Alptekin, 2012, p. 248). As a consequence of both globalization and diversity, higher education (HE) has increased its emphasis on internationalization (Ampuja, 2015; Smit, 2010). In order to keep up with the demands of globalization and the growth of English as a lingua franca (ELF) of science and academia, a rising number of HE institutions have chosen to teach part or all of their fields of study in English (Rose et al., 2022). Since the 1990s, English Medium Instruction (EMI) has continuously risen, with the assumption that immersion in an English-only setting is the best method to learn English (Wei, 2020). The motivation behind these initiatives is the belief that proficiency in English will open doors to a wider range of opportunities (Adamson & Feng, 2009; Hu, 2007). Many EMI universities have asserted their status as international institutions on the basis of such linguistic variety and the use of English in the classroom (Jenkins, 2014). Yet, their claim to be international, which takes into account the different Englishes and other languages spoken on their campuses, is unclear (Karakaş & Jenkins, 2022). This surge in universities’ internationalization efforts has led some scholars to associate ‘internationalization’ with ‘Englishization’, a considerably larger usage of English in non-Anglophone HE contexts (Jenkins, 2019). While teaching at EMI, lecturers often feel that their English language skills are lacking (Duarte & van der Ploeg, 2019). This is related to the difficulties in developing instructional strategies that help students overcome language barriers and participate in class discussions. Knapp (2014) says that instructors should use students’ plurilingual competence to clarify meaning, increase the depth of processing, and make

224

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

learned knowledge available in different linguistic contexts. He says this would help students develop multilingual academic literacy. In addition, a study on language learning and teaching at a Swedish university found that students had trouble explaining disciplinary concepts in English, and teachers often feel like teaching through EMI was a burden because they had to provide more support to their students so that they can understand the lecture (Airey, 2011). To understand the role of ELF in EMI, Jenkins (2019) argues that people need to know that English is used by many more non-native speakers than native speakers, that their communication is different from that between native English speakers, that good English in ELF contexts has nothing to do with how much it sounds like a native language, and that no one user’s way of using English is better than any other user’s. It all depends on how well they can communicate in situations where they use English as a common language, and this requires good language skills and the ability to translanguage (Jenkins, 2019). In general, using more than one language in the classroom is a good way to ensure that the academic knowledge is comprehended by the students. As a result, plurilingual education and translanguaging practices have emerged as potential solutions to these problems.

Translanguaging and plurilingualism Plurilingualism is the capacity to use more than one language (Council of Europe, 2016a). It is the ability to cultivate a diverse repertoire of linguistic and cultural resources in order to engage with individuals from various cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Rather than focusing on a specific language to be learned, the plurilingual approach focuses on the learner and the development of their unique plurilingual repertoire. Linguistic repertoire refers to all the languages or language varieties a person has acquired at home, school, independently, etc. and for which he/she has different skills (speaking, reading, etc.) and degrees of proficiency (Council of Europe, 2007). Plurilingual education refers to a teaching strategy that tries to increase student awareness of their language repertoire, emphasize its value, and broaden it by introducing them to less common or less known languages (Council of Europe, 2007). It is a teaching approach designed to help students expand their language repertoire while also using the resources of that repertoire to improve their overall learning. In fact, increasing students’ awareness of and appreciation for all languages can help them form positive perceptions of their own and other people’s linguistic repertoires, leading to a greater openness to diversity. Thus, plurilingual

Plurilingualism and Interculturality

225

education is a tool for promoting democratic and participatory citizenship among individuals (Council of Europe, 2007). In general, pluralistic approaches are ways of teaching and learning that involve more than one language or culture (Candelier et al., 2012). The theory of translanguaging is founded on the idea that plurilinguals have an integrated linguistic repertoire from which they may flexibly and intentionally choose certain appropriate elements to accomplish their communication goals in various settings (Vogel & García, 2017). Translanguaging theory, as indicated by the prefix trans, views communication behaviours as ‘transcending autonomous languages’ (Canagarajah, 2018), and so provides a completely different perspective than the idea of the plurilingual speaker holding two or more independent language systems (Vogel & García, 2017). From a pedagogical perspective, translanguaging views plurilingualism as a resource that may be used by the whole classroom. In order to improve students’ cognitive processes, recognize linguistic variety and increase their knowledge and awareness of languages, translanguaging activities make use of all of the students’ linguistic repertoires and their dynamic language practices (Vogel & García, 2017). The ‘ideal native speaker’ is no longer considered the standard against which one must measure one’s own knowledge of one or two, or even three languages; rather, ‘mastery’ of many languages is considered a desirable goal. The objective is to create a language repertoire in which all linguistic abilities may find their place (Council of Europe, 2001). In the field of translanguaging, languages are no longer viewed as distinct categories that can be distinguished from one another as theoretical linguistics has historically defined them; rather, the boundaries between them are fuzzy and permeable. This concept implies that bi/ multilinguals rely on their linguistic resources to express themselves according to context and communication goals, rather than using different languages (Kubota, 2020). In a similar fashion, the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) (Council of Europe, 2001) promotes plurilingualism by providing updated concepts for teaching different contemporary languages. It refers to a person’s total linguistic knowledge, experience and skills rather than a collection of skills in many standardized language systems. In a plurilingual perspective of language, the boundaries between languages are more blurred and flexible, allowing people to develop their own distinctive linguistic competence in the form of an individual linguistic repertoire (Cenoz & Gorter, 2013). In short, plurilingualism promotes learners’ use of many linguistic resources to express themselves and enhance learning, much like translanguaging does.

226

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Plurilingual and intercultural competence Plurilingualism is a state of mind, a way of life. In research and pedagogy, it means the ability to accept complexity and coexist with imbalance in a dynamic, creative and transformative way (Piccardo, 2022). The intercultural approach seeks to build a broad range of skills, attitudes and knowledge related to the linguistic and cultural diversity that will enable individuals to engage in intercultural communication (Byram, 1997). The notion of plurilingual and intercultural competence (PIC) emerged to fulfil communication needs in diverse contexts. People use numerous linguistic registers depending on the context, so they adopt different cultural repertoires. PIC is not new in our lives, but developing it through language learning is a novel concept (Bernaus et al., 2007). PIC is best described as follows: [T]he ability to use languages for the purposes of communication and to take part in intercultural interaction, where a person, viewed as a social actor has proficiency, of varying degrees, in several languages and experience of several cultures. This is not seen as the superposition or juxtaposition of distinct competencies, but rather as the existence of a complex or even composite competence on which the social actor may draw (Coste et al., 2009, p. v).

PIC is the capacity to utilize languages for communication and intercultural dialogue when a social actor has mastery in several languages and familiarity with other cultures. This is not seen as stacking or putting different skills together, but as the existence of a complex or even combined skill that the social actor can use. It is the ability to use a range of linguistic and cultural resources to meet communication needs or interact with others, while also growing one’s linguistic and cultural repertoire (Byram, et al., 2013). People with a high level of PIC are able to adapt their language use to the social context, overcome language barriers, recognize cultural similarities and differences, grasp different cultural practices and norms, and adapt their language appropriately to social circumstances, including mixing or switching languages at the discourse level (Council of Europe, 2018). The use of more than one language to obtain information, communicate and apply cultural knowledge in communicating with people from diverse backgrounds is often under-appreciated in English as a Second Language (ESL) (Galante, 2019) and English as a Foreign Language (EFL) programmes. Even bilingual parents do better when they go with the flow and mix languages according to their children’s communication needs (Anthony-Newman, 2022). This is also true for learners at school. It is believed that a pluralistic approach to languages and cultures leads to learners

Plurilingualism and Interculturality

227

feeling more comfortable and enjoying the flexible linguistic and cultural demands and opportunities for interaction in diverse societies (Galante, 2019). Many years ago, on the same topic, Alptekin (2002) argued for a new educational strategy for adapting English to intercultural communication. Instead of native English speakers or adapting the language and culture of a nation, bilinguals with intercultural competence (IC) should serve as role models. In fact, IC has long been a research interest in language teaching but plurilingualism is seldom emphasized. Previous studies have shown that foreign language teachers have a positive perception of IC and try to incorporate it into their teaching (Atay et al., 2009; Ay, 2018; Bayyurt, 2006; Estaji & Rahimi, 2018; Fungchomchoei & Kardkarnklai, 2016; Gu, 2016; Han & Song, 2011; LarzénÖstermark, 2008; Özbakır-Kuzu, 2018). However, either lack of information about interculturality or ineffective sources of materials or procedures prevented them from promoting IC in their courses. Due to the novelty of PIC as a concept, most research focuses on IC, with few exceptions that emphasize plurilingualism (Chen & Hélot, 2018; Çelik, 2013; Galante, 2020; Savski, 2019). Consequently, this paper reports on a research which asked: 1. To what extent are English language teachers in Turkey knowledgeable about PIC? 2. What are the attitudes of English language teachers in Turkey towards PIC? 3. Do the demographic differences (age, number of foreign languages spoken, undergraduate major, educational level, teaching level, seniority) have an impact on teachers’ perceptions about PIC?

Methodology Research design Combining quantitative and qualitative methodologies to reduce their limitations (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004) and to make a more meaningful analysis (Caracelli & Greene, 1997; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998), a mixed-methods approach was utilized in this study. Researchers often utilize the sequential mixed-methods explanatory design among nearly forty mixed-methods study designs (Ivankova et al., 2006). This entails gathering first quantitative and then qualitative data as in Figure 12.1. Correspondingly, two scales were administered to in-service English language teachers during the quantitative phase of this study. After analysing the

228

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Figure 12.1 Explanatory sequential design.

quantitative data, individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with volunteer teachers. Consequently, the qualitative phase strengthened the quantitative phase, and the two phases were interconnected throughout the study’s intermediate stage.

Participants Participants in the quantitative phase of the research were 156 English language teachers working at primary, secondary and tertiary levels in Turkey. According to the demographic statistics, the research was comprised of 133 female and 23 male EFL instructors. There were 60 teachers between the ages of 20 and 29, 63 between the ages of 30 and 39, and 33 over the age of 40. Also, 93 participants spoke at least one foreign language, and 63 of them spoke more than two. Besides, there were 128 English Language Teaching graduates, and 28 English Language and Literature or American Culture and Literature or TESOL graduates; 118 of the participants held a bachelor’s degree, while 38 held postgraduate degrees. In addition, 31 teachers worked at pre-primary or primary, 76 at secondary, and 49 at tertiary levels. Furthermore, 43 participants had 0 to 5 years of job experience, 48 had 6 to 10 years of teaching experience, 32 had 11 to 15 years of experience, and 33 had above 16 years of experience. The demographic features of the participants are summarized in Table 12.1. Due to the lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic, the participants were contacted online. Although the number of participants in on-site data collecting can be controlled, attendees might be hesitant to provide honest answers (Lefever et al., 2007). Online research, on the other hand, makes participants feel more secure and autonomous, and they are more inclined to provide honest responses since their contributions are kept anonymous and they may finish the survey privately (McDermott & Roen, 2012; Willis, 2011). Furthermore, possible drawbacks such as personal bias caused by the researcher’s presence can be minimized (Denissen et al., 2010; Gunter et al., 2002). Despite the fact that it is prompted by the unforeseen constraints of COVID-19, online data collecting for this research was assumed to provide more reliable findings.

Plurilingualism and Interculturality

229

Table 12.1 Background of the participants Demographic information Age

Subgroups

20–29 30–39 40 and more Number of foreign languages 1 2 and more Undergraduate major English Language Teaching English Language and Literature, American Culture and Literature, TESOL Highest level of formal Bachelor’s degree education Master’s degree and/or doctorate Current level they teach Pre-primary or primary Secondary Tertiary Years of seniority 0–5 6–10 11–15

Number of participants 60 63 33 93 63 128 28

118 38 31 76 49 43 48 32

The data for the qualitative phase were gathered via semi-structured interviews in written form using Google Docs with twelve English language teachers on the basis of their voluntary involvement.

Scales: PIKS and PIAS By using a descriptive survey model of quantitative research, two scales were designed to shed light on EFL teachers’ knowledge base and attitudes about plurilingualism and interculturality. After a literature review, the Framework of Reference for Pluralistic Approaches to Languages and Cultures (FREPA) was selected as the item pool. It is a project of the European Centre for Modern Languages that defines plurilingual and intercultural competence in three categories: knowledge, skills and attitude (Council of Europe), 2012). Only the descriptors in the knowledge and attitude categories were used in the research

230

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

since it is impossible to evaluate skills without observation and through scales. FREPA descriptors labelled as ‘necessary’ and ‘important’ in the knowledge and attitude categories were used. Sixty-four descriptors from the knowledge category were selected for the Plurilingual and Intercultural Knowledge Scale (PIKS), and seventeen descriptors from the attitude category were used to form the Plurilingual and Intercultural Attitude Scale (PIAS). The scales were piloted with 346 prospective English language teachers who had finished most of their ELT programme courses and were doing their practicum. On a 5-point Likert scale, participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement: SA = Strongly agree, A = Agree, N = Neither agree nor disagree, D = Disagree, SD = Strongly disagree. Following this, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to determine the construct validity. The scree plot was used to determine the number of extracted factors based on the exploratory factor analysis results. Cronbach’s alpha was used to determine the reliability of the scales and each of their three subcategories. In accordance with the views of the experts, some items were revised and others were eliminated. By adapting the necessary FREPA descriptors, twenty items for the PIKS and fourteen items for the PIAS were obtained. The scale development study confirmed the validity and high reliability of PIKS and PIAS. The development phases of PIKS and PIAS were presented with details in Özdemir, PehlivanŞişman and Büyükkarcı’s (2019) study.

Individual semi-structured interviews One of the most prevalent data collection strategies in the social sciences is qualitative semi-structured interviews (Bradford & Cullen, 2012) which allow researchers to investigate the subjective perspectives of participants (Flick, 2009), to be flexible while still getting sufficient responses to the study questions (Creswell, 2013), to compare responses among participants (Patton, 2002), to digress and scrutinize for further information (Mackey & Gass, 2005), to investigate a certain subject while enabling the participant to respond in their own words and to explore concerns and themes that are important to them (Borg, 2006; Choak, 2012; Dörnyei, 2007; Mackey & Gass, 2005). After a deep literature review, semi-structured interview questions about plurilingualism and interculturality were formed in accordance with expert views. Seven questions in total were asked to find out EFL teachers’ thoughts on linguistic and cultural diversity, how they integrate IC into their classes, and the significance of IC in teacher training.

Plurilingualism and Interculturality

231

Findings EFL teachers’ knowledge level in plurilingualism and interculturality After the scale development study, both PIKS and PIAS were administered successively to in-service EFL teachers (n = 156) as part of the present study’s initial phase to determine their knowledge levels and attitudes towards PIC. The means, standard deviations and range of scores for all independent and dependent variables in research should be presented to provide a descriptive analysis of data (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). So, descriptive analysis of the current study’s data for each research question was described through means, standard deviations and range of scores. The Cronbach’s alpha for PIKS (α = 0.82) showed that it is highly reliable. Descriptive statistics for PIKS are presented in Table 12. 2. According to Table 12.2, the overall mean score of the EFL teachers’ knowledge level is 4.31 out of 5. The mean score for the first subcategory, ‘plurilingualism, similarities and differences of languages’, is M = 4.56, for the second, ‘cultural diversity, intercultural relations and culture learning/ acquisition’, it is M = 3.95, and for the third, ‘general characteristics, similarities and differences of cultures’, it is M = 4.44. Overall, data indicate that EFL teachers in Turkey are knowledgeable in PI. In addition, individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with twelve volunteer participants after the implementation of PIKS and PIAS to collect qualitative data. Thematic analysis was used to scrutinize the interviewees’ replies. The questions were put into groups based on their themes and then divided by codes. The responses of interviewees were categorized into seven themes: ‘plurilingualism’, ‘Raising students’ awareness about plurilingualism’, ‘culture’, ‘intercultural competence’, ‘integrating IC in education’, ‘trained about IC’, and ‘IC implementation methods’. Table 12.3 presents all themes, categories, codes and the quantity (N) of replies. Table 12.2 Descriptive statistics for PIKS Subcategories

N

Mean

Sd

Plurilingualism, similarities and differences of languages Cultural diversity, intercultural relations and culture learning/ acquisition General characteristics, similarities and differences of cultures Total PIKS

7

4.56

0.61

7

3.95

0.63

6

4.44

0.56

20

4.31

0.51

232

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Table 12.3 Thematic analysis of interview results Themes

Categories

Codes

N

Plurilingualism

Aware Partly aware

Raising students’ awareness of plurilingualism

Agree

Using more than one language Using more than two languages Multiculturalism Knowing more than two cultures Important

8 2 1 1 11

Not important Shared set of norms of a particular society Phenomenon affects people in all aspects and differs societies The way of life Behaviours of a society Language, traditions and history Effective integration into multicultural contexts Appropriate interaction with people from different cultural backgrounds Speaking a foreign language is not enough for effective communication Constructive process independent of cultural judgements Combination of skills to communicate a foreigner Sharing different attitudes in your own society Integral part, necessary, first aim, quite important, vital Important, supportive Learned during MA Not educated Youtube videos, newspaper, news bulletin, articles Special days in the target culture Erasmus+, eTwining

1 3

Culture

Disagree Aware

Partly aware Intercultural competence

Aware

Partly aware

Unaware Integrating IC in education

Strongly agree

Agree Trained about IC Agree Disagree IC implementation Authentic methods materials International Projects Others

‘focusing on content’, group discussion, role play

1 4 3 1 2 6 1 1 1 1 6 6 2 10 4 2 3 3

Plurilingualism and Interculturality

233

The results revealed that EFL teachers had a basic understanding of plurilingualism, culture and intercultural competence. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses are compatible in terms of teachers’ knowledge level in PI. In addition, they especially suggested exchange programmes to improve learners’ intercultural competence.

EFL teachers’ attitudes towards plurilingualism and interculturality To uncover EFL teachers’ attitudes towards PI, PIAS was implemented. According to calculations, PIAS (α = 0.87) was found highly reliable. The same procedure with PIKS were followed for calculations. Descriptive statistics for PIAS are presented in Table 12.4 and the results show that the first subcategory, ‘respect and curiosity to languages and cultures’ ranked the highest with M = 4.58. The mean score for ‘readiness to adapt languages and cultures’ is M = 4.23. The last subcategory has the lowest score with M = 3.71, which is between Neutral and Agree. Nevertheless, the total mean PIAS score (M = 4.20) points out that EFL teachers generally had positive views regarding PI. Moreover, the qualitative results in Table 12.3 revealed that EFL teachers had favourable perceptions of PI and tried their best to include it in language education. So, the quantitative and qualitative phases of the study have matching results for teachers’ attitudes towards PI. In a nutshell, it was discovered that EFL teachers were familiar with PI and had a favourable attitude about integrating them into language education.

Influence of demographic features on plurilingualism and interculturality The impact of demographic differences on EFL teachers’ perceptions regarding PI was investigated in terms of age, quantity of foreign languages, undergraduate major, educational level, teaching level and work experience. Comparing the characteristics of the participant EFL teachers, some parametric findings were

Table 12.4 Descriptive statistics for PIAS Subcategories

N

Mean

Sd

Respect and curiosity to languages and cultures Readiness to adapt languages and cultures Stance towards languages and cultures Total PIAS

5 5 4 14

4.58 4.23 3.71 4.20

0.62 0.57 0.79 0.51

234

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

obtained. The central limit theorem states that if the sample sizes are large enough (n ≥ 30), the distribution of sample means approximates a normal distribution (Arsham, 2009). Based on this, the results were all parametric. Furthermore, independent samples t-test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used as parametric test procedures. The independent samples t-test compares the means of two separate groups while a single factor (independent) variable generates an analysis of variance for a quantitative dependent variable in one-way ANOVA. In addition, post hoc tests were performed to determine which means differ after the completion of the study in order to identify differences among the means (IBM SPSS, 2021). As a consequence, no statistically significant difference was detected among EFL teachers based on their demographic backgrounds. Yet, seniority affected their attitudes towards PI. Because ANOVA was insufficient to distinguish the different groups, post hoc testing was used to determine which groups were distinct (Cevahir, 2020). As a result of Tukey (p = 0.02) and Bonferroni (p = 0.03) post hoc tests, participants with a maximum of five years of work experience had more favourable attitudes towards PI than those with fifteen years or more. However, this factor had a medium effect (6 per cent) according to the eta square coefficient calculation (ƞ2 = 0.06). Additionally, interview replies showed that EFL instructors with master’s or doctorate degrees were more educated about PI than teachers with bachelor’s degrees, in contrast to the quantitative data about the influence of educational level. However, qualitative data were collected from twelve EFL instructors while quantitative data were obtained from 156 participants.

Discussion and conclusion Globalization, which has made the physical and online mobility of individuals both a burden and an opportunity for schools and society, has created new difficulties for language and culture teaching (Melo-Pfeifer, 2015). Since it is difficult for most people to bridge cultural and linguistic differences, it is crucial to improve PIC to keep up with the challenges of the modern world. Since applying EMI was found insufficient to fulfil communication needs in diverse settings (Kim et al., 2017), PIC has become an essential reference to rethink pedagogical interaction, aims, topics and language teaching strategies (Council of Europe, 2016b). It is the ability to use a diverse repertoire of linguistic and cultural resources to meet communication needs or to connect with others while

Plurilingualism and Interculturality

235

developing this repertoire (ibid.). The primary role of foreign language teachers is to help students become global citizens (Byram, 1997). Therefore, the capacity of teachers to develop learners’ PIC is crucial. With this regard, the purpose of this study was to determine EFL teachers’ level of knowledge and attitudes towards PIC. To this end, their knowledge level and attitudes were first examined using scales. Then, the effect of age, the number of foreign languages, the field of study, level of education, teaching level and professional experience was examined. Following the scales, individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with the volunteers to gain in-depth information. This chapter has investigated the perceptions of EFL teachers in plurilingualism and interculturality. The data collected through scales revealed that EFL teachers in Turkey are knowledgeable in plurilingualism and interculturality, and they have positive attitudes towards them. When the total mean scores of the two scales were compared, it can be said that EFL teachers scored a little bit higher in terms of knowledge base than attitudes with respect to PIC. There was only one contrasting result between quantitative and qualitative findings. While the educational level of EFL teachers does not affect their PI according to the scale results, two EFL teachers with postgraduate degrees emphasized that they were educated about IC during their MA and PhD studies in semi-structured interviews. Yet, the number of participants made this conclusion insufficient to generalize. According to the demographic statistics, there was basically no influence on EFL instructors’ PIC level except for teaching experience. Teachers having no more than five years of job experience outperform teachers with fifteen years of teaching experience in terms of positive attitudes towards PIC. However, seniority was not a determining factor. Furthermore, the positive impact of international projects on developing IC was highly emphasized by interviewees. In light of the reviewed literature, the results of this study are compatible with most of the previous findings. For instance, the IC knowledge of EFL teachers was found high (Atay et al., 2009), and they had favourable attitudes towards PIC (Ay, 2018; Bastos & Araújo e Sá, 2014; Estaji & Rahimi, 2018; Gu, 2016; Güven, 2015; Han & Song, 2011; İşcan et al., 2017; Larzén-Östermark, 2008; Özbakır-Kuzu, 2018; Yıldız, 2016; Young & Sachdev, 2011). In addition, age was not an influencing factor in developing PIC (Çetin-Köroğlu, 2013; Yıldız, 2016); ELT graduates had more favourable perceptions about IC compared to other departments’ graduates (Yıldız, 2016); EFL teachers’ level of education did not affect their PIC (Yıldız, 2016); and teaching level did not affect teachers’ understanding and attitudes with regard to PIC (Estaji & Rahimi, 2018). On the other hand, there were a few studies that obtained opposite results. For example,

236

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

EFL teachers’ awareness of plurilingualism was found lacking (Çelik, 2013); non-ELT graduates attached more importance to culture teaching studies (Ay, 2018; Kuru-Gönen & Sağlam, 2012); tertiary-level teachers had more positive attitudes towards teaching culture in education in a previous study in Turkey (Ay, 2018); and Çetin-Köroğlu (2013) claimed that teaching experience had no significant effect on EFL teachers’ perspectives of IC. As mentioned earlier, most of the research has focused on IC, while plurilingualism has rarely been addressed. The purpose of this study was to add to the literature by revealing the level of knowledge and attitudes of EFL teachers about plurilingualism and interculturality, and their role in developing students as global citizens. Although this study was well-designed and conducted, it has some weaknesses. First of all, using a sample to draw conclusions about a population is never entirely satisfactory because the sample never accurately reflects the population. The differences between the population and the sample should be minor and random if the sample is large enough and randomly selected. However, there is no correct answer for sample size (Fraenkel et al., 2012). The correct answer is to collect the largest sample possible. Due to the limitations of COVID-19, the data had to be collected online on a voluntary basis. For this study, 156 English language teachers could be reached. Consequently, the findings may be inadequate for generalization. The research was limited to teachers of English as a foreign language, but it might be expanded with the involvement of additional foreign language teachers. The FREPA’s ‘skills’ section descriptors were also left out of the research since they would be impossible to evaluate using scales and interviews. It takes time to observe skills in any field, and different evaluation techniques must be adjusted. In the future, this gap may be bridged by means of longitudinal research. This research focused on communication and diversity in general. Communication is inherently intercultural. A person’s family, birthplace, socioeconomic status, political view, ethnicity, religion and gender define his/her culture. Language is the instrument of culture, thus mastering it is crucial to communication. This may be accomplished through fostering a sense of otherness and respect for differences, i.e. by fostering plurilingual and intercultural competence. Diversity is everywhere. The vital role that educators play in fostering peace in society should be acknowledged. Given that English is an international language, English language teachers play a significant part in educating students to become global citizens. Above all, teachers must be prepared for a variety of educational environments and encouraged via continual professional development activities such as international projects. Additionally, they should be supplied with

Plurilingualism and Interculturality

237

the necessary resources for the integration of PIC into language instruction. Global peace requires communal responsibility, so students and teachers must meet individuals from varied language and cultural backgrounds to become democratic international citizens. Real conversation with foreigners for the aim of learning a second or foreign language is significantly more successful than any artificial environment created in the classroom because students are motivated to utilize what they have learned when they are required to converse in a foreign language. This is possible via worldwide projects such as Green Kidz, eTwinning and exchange programmes. Better communication improves connections. In conclusion, the more effectively we communicate, the stronger our connections will be.

References Adamson, B., & Feng, A. (2009). A comparison of trilingual education policies for ethnic minorities in China. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 39(3), 321–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057920802436258 Airey, J. (2011). The relationship between teaching language and student learning in Swedish University Physics. In A. H. Fabricius, I. Klitgård & B. Preisler (eds), Language and Learning in the International University: From English Uniformity to Diversity and Hybridity (pp. 3–18). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Alptekin, C. (2002). Towards intercultural communicative competence in ELT. ELT Journal, 56(1), 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/56.1.57 Alptekin, C. (2012). Understanding English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal, 66(2), 248–251. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccs004 Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4), 290–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315307303542 Ampuja, M. (2015). Globalisation and neoliberalism: A new theory for new times? In J. Zajda (ed.), Second International Handbook of Globalisation, Education and Policy Research (pp. 17–31). Cham: Springer. Anthony-Newman, M. (2022). Plurilingual parenting: why many experts think families who speak multiple languages should just go with the flow. The Conversation, 8 July. https://theconversation.com/plurilingual-parenting-why-many-experts-thinkfamilies-who-speak-multiple-languages-should-just-go-with-the-flow-185255 Arsham, H. (2009). Systems Simulation: The Shortest Route to Applications (9th ed.). http://home.ubalt.edu/ntsbarsh/Business-stat/simulation/sim.htm Atay, D., Kurt, G., Çamlıbel, Z., Ersin, P., & Kaslıoglu, Ö. (2009). The role of intercultural competence in foreign language teaching. İnönü University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 10(3), 123–135. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/ article-file/92286

238

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Ay, N. A. (2018). A look into teachers’ perceptions towards intercultural competence in Turkish EFL context (Publication No. 530037) [Master’s thesis, Çağ University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center. Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Bastos, M., & Araújo e Sá, H. (2014). Pathways to teacher education for intercultural communicative competence: teachers’ perceptions. The Language Learning Journal, 43(2), 1–17. DOI: 10.1080/09571736.2013.869940 Bayyurt, Y. (2006). Non-native English language teachers’ perspective on culture in English as a Foreign Language classrooms. Teacher Development, 10(2), 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530600773366 Beacco, J. C. (2022). Revisiting the ‘plurilingual-intercultural’ orthodoxy. In G. Prasad, N. Auger & E. Le Pichon Vorstman (eds), Multilingualism and Education: Researchers’ Pathways and Perspectives (pp. 54–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bernaus, M., Andrade, A. I., Kervran, M., Murkowska, A., & Saez, F. T. (2007). Plurilingual and Pluricultural Awareness in Language Teacher Education. Council of Europe. http://archive.ecml.at/documents/B2_LEA_E_web.pdf Borg, S. (2006). Teacher Cognition and Language Education: Research and Practice. London: Continuum. Bradford, S., & Cullen, F. (2012). Research and Research Methods for Youth Practitioners. New York: Routledge. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M. (2008). From Foreign Language Education to Education for Intercultural Citizenship: Essays and Reflections. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M. (2020). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence (2nd ed.). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M., Fleming, M., & Pieper, I. (2013). Plurilingual and intercultural education: Introduction to a special issue. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 13, 1–7. DOI: 10.17239/L1ESLL-2012.02.01 Byram, M., Golubeva, I., Hui, H., & Wagner, M. (2017). From Principles to Practice in Education for Intercultural Citizenship. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Canagarajah, S. (2018). Translingual practice as spatial repertoires: Expanding the paradigm beyond structuralist orientations. Applied Linguistics 31(1), 31–54. https:// doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx041 Candelier, M., Camilleri-Grima, A., Castellotti, V., de Pietro, J.-F., Lörincz, I., Meißner, F.-J., Schröder-Sura, A., Noguerol, A., & Molinié, M. (2012). FREPA – A framework of reference for pluralistic approaches to languages and cultures – Competences and resources. Council of Europe. Caracelli, V. J., & Greene, J. C. (1997). Crafting mixed-method evaluation designs. In J. C. Greene & V. J. Caracelli (eds), Advances in Mixed-method Evaluation: The

Plurilingualism and Interculturality

239

Challenges and Benefits of Integrating Diverse Paradigms (pp. 19–32). Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1069 Çelik, S. (2013). Plurilingualism, pluriculturalism, and the CEFR: Are Turkey’s foreign language objectives reflected in classroom instruction? Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 1872–1879. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.265 Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2013). Towards a plurilingual approach in English language teaching: Softening the boundaries between languages. TESOL Quarterly, 47(3), 591–599. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.121 Çetin-Köroğlu, Z. (2013). Language instructors’ perspectives on textbook content in terms of intercultural communicative competence: Gazi University case (Publication No. 328871) [Master’s thesis, Gazi University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center. Cevahir, E. (2020). SPSS ile nicel veri analizi rehberi. Istunbul: Kibele. Chen, Y. Z., & Hélot, C. (2018). The notion of plurilingual and pluricultural competence in the teaching of foreign languages in France. Language Education and Multilingualism 1, 168–187. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02090345/document Choak, C. (2012). Asking questions: Interviews and evaluations. In S. Bradford & F. Cullen (eds), Research and Research Methods for Youth Practitioners (pp. 90–112). New York: Routledge. Coste, D., Moore, D., & Zarate, G. (2009). Plurilingual and pluricultural competence: With a foreword and complementary bibliography. Council of Europe. https://rm.coe. int/168069d29b Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https:// www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages Council of Europe (2007). From linguistic diversity to plurilingual education. Guide for the development of language education policies in Europe. Main version. Language Policy Division. https://rm.coe.int/16802fc1c4 Council of Europe (2012). A framework of reference for pluralistic approaches to languages and cultures: Competences and resources. Council of Europe. https://rm. coe.int/16806ccc0c Council of Europe (2016a). Competences for democratic culture: Living together as equals in culturally diverse democratic societies. Council of Europe. Council of Europe (2016b). Guide for the development and implementation of curricula for plurilingual and intercultural education. https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommon SearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016806ae621 Council of Europe (2018). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors. Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volumewith-new-descriptors-2018 /1680787989 Council of Higher Education Information Management System (2021). Higher education statistics: 2013–2014 and 2020–2021. https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr

240

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (5th ed.). Germany : SAGE Publications. Denissen, J. J. A., Neumann, L., & van Zalk, M. (2010). How the Internet is changing the implementation of traditional research methods, people’s daily lives, and the way in which developmental scientists conduct research. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 34, 564–575. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025410383746 Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Duarte, J., & van der Ploeg, M. (2019). Plurilingual lecturers in English medium instruction in the Netherlands: the key to plurilingual approaches in higher education? European Journal of Higher Education, 9(3), 268–284. https://doi.org/10.1 080/21568235.2019.1602476 Estaji, M., & Rahimi, A. (2018). Exploring teachers’ perception of intercultural communicative competence and their practices for teaching culture in EFL classrooms. International Journal of Society, Culture & Language, 6(2), 1–18. http:// www.ijscl.net/article_32636_feb6972c793f403e17ce65712c1c9163.pdf European Commission (2011). Civil society platform on multilingualism 2011: Policy recommendations for the promotion of multilingualism in the European Union. https://elen.ngo/wpcontent/uploads/2016/05/report-civil-society_en.pdf Flick, U. W. E. (2009). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. London: SAGE Publications. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education (8th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. Fungchomchoei, S., & Kardkarnklai, U. (2016). Exploring the intercultural competence of Thai secondary education teachers and its implications in English language teaching. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 236, 240–247. DOI: 10.1016/j. sbspro.2016.12.017 Galante, A. (2019). It’s time to change the way we teach English. The Conversation, 15 January. https://theconversation.com/its-time-to-change-the-way-we-teachenglish-109273 Galante, A. (2020). Plurilingual and pluricultural competence (PPC) scale: the inseparability of language and culture. International Journal of Multilingualism. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2020.1753747 Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Gu, X. (2016). Assessment of intercultural communicative competence in FL education: A survey on EFL teachers’ perception and practice in China. Language and Intercultural Communication, 16(2), 254–273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2 015.1083575 Gunter, B., Nicholas, D., Huntington, P., & Williams, P. (2002). Online versus offline research: Implications for evaluating digital media. Aslib Proceedings, 54, 229239.

Plurilingualism and Interculturality

241

Güven, S. (2015). EFL learners’ attitudes towards learning intercultural communicative competence. (Publication No. 381122) [Master’s thesis, İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center. Han, X., & Song, L. (2011). Teacher cognition of intercultural communicative competence in the Chinese ELT context. Intercultural Communication Studies, 20, 175–192. https://www-s3-live.kent.edu/s3fs-root/s3fs-public/ file/13XiaohuiHanLiSong.pdf Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D., & Perraton, J. (1999). Global Transformations: Politics, economics and Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press. Hu, G. (2007). The juggernaut of Chinese-English bilingual education. In A. Feng (ed.), Bilingual Education in China: Practices, Policies and Concepts (pp. 94–126). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. IBM SPSS (2021). IBM Documentation. IBM SPSS Statistics. https://www.ibm.com/ docs/en International Organization for Migration & United Nations (2022). World Migration Report 2022 (p. 40). Geneva: International Organization for Migration. https:// worldmigrationreport.iom.int/wmr-2022-interactive/ İşcan, A., Karagöz, B., & Konyar, M. (2017). Cultural transfer and creating cultural awareness in teaching Turkish as a foreign language: A sample from Gaziosmanpaşa University, Tömer. Journal of Education and Practice 8(9), 53–63. Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(3), 3–20. DOI: 10.1177/1525822X05282260 Janmaat, J. G., & Keating, A. (2019). Are today’s youth more tolerant? Trends in tolerance among young people in Britain. Ethnicities, 19(1), 44–65. https://doi. org/10.1177/1468796817723682 Jenkins, J. (2014). English as a Lingua Franca in the International University. The Politics of Academic English Language Policy. ?: Routledge. Jenkins, J. (2019). English medium instruction in higher education: The role of English as lingua franca. In X. Gao (ed.), Second Handbook of English Language Teaching (pp. 1–18). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58542-0_7-1 Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26. http://dx.doi. org/10.3102/0013189X033007014 Karakaş, A., & Jenkins, J. (2022). Academic English Language policies and practices of English-Medium Instruction universities in Turkey from Policy Actors’ Eyes. In Y. Kirkgöz and A. Karakaş (eds), English as the Medium of Instruction in Turkish Higher Education. Multilingual Education (pp. 3–25). Cham: Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-88597-7_1 Kim, J., Choi, J., & Tatar, B. (2017). English-medium instruction and intercultural sensitivity: A Korean case study. Journal of Studies in International Education, 21(5), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315317720767

242

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Knapp, A. (2014). Language choice and the construction of knowledge in higher education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics 2(2), 165–203. https://doi. org/10.1515/eujal-2014-0012 Kubota, R. (2020). Promoting and problematizing multi/plural approaches in language pedagogy. In S. M. C. Lau & S. Van Viegen (eds), Plurilingual Pedagogies: Critical and Creative Endeavors for Equitable Language in Education (pp. 303–321). Cham: Springer. Kuru-Gönen, S. İ., & Sağlam, S. (2012). Teaching culture in the FL classroom: Teachers’ perspectives. International Journal of Global Education, 1(3), 26–46. http://www.ijge. net/index.php/ijge/article/view/60/61 Larzén-Östermark, E. (2008). The intercultural dimension in EFL-teaching: A study of conceptions among Finland-Swedish comprehensive school teachers. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52(5), 527–547. DOI: 10.1080/00313830802346405 Latest Thinking (2019). Super-diversity in societies explained by Steven Vertovec [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-AHVnHxT38 Lefever, S., Dal, M., & Matthíasdóttir, A. (2007). Online data collection in academic research: advantages and limitations. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(4), 574–582. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00638.x Lifintsev, D., & Wellbrock, W. (2019). Cross-cultural communication in the digital age. Estudos em Comunicação, 28(1), 93–104. DOI : 10.25768/fal.ec.n28.a05 Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second Language Research: Methodology and Design. New Jersey : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. McDermott, E., & Roen, K. (2012). Youth on the virtual edge: Researching marginalized sexualities and genders online. Qualitative Health Research, 22(4), 560–570. Melo-Pfeifer, S. (2015). Blogs and the development of plurilingual and intercultural competence: Report of a co-actional approach in Portuguese foreign language classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(3), 220–240. DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2013.818556 Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Moliner, O., Sales, A., Ferrandex, R., & Traver, J. (2011). Inclusive cultures, policies and practices in Spanish compulsory secondary education schools: Teachers’ perceptions in ordinary and specific teaching contexts. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15, 557–572. Özbakır-Kuzu, F. (2018). English language instructors’ views and practices of intercultural competence activities at university contexts (Publication No. 530066) [Master’s thesis, Çağ University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center. Özdemir, A., Pehlivan-Şişman, E., & Büyükkarcı, K. (2021). Pluralistic approaches to languages and cultures: a scale development study. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 17(2), 848–865. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1288300.pdf Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Plurilingualism and Interculturality

243

Piccardo, E. (2022). Cultivating plurilingual gardens. In G. Prasad, N. Auger, & E. Le Pichon Vorstman (eds), Multilingualism and Education: Researchers’ Pathways and Perspectives (pp. 222–231). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Risager, K. (2007). Language and Culture Pedagogy: From a National to a Transnational Paradigm. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Rose, H., Sahan, K., & Zhou, S. (2022). Global English medium instruction: Perspectives at the crossroads of Global Englishes and EMI. Asian Englishes, 24(2), 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2022.2056794 Savski, K. (2019). Putting the plurilingual/pluricultural back into CEFR: Reflecting on policy reform in Thailand and Malaysia. Journal of Asia TEFL, 16, 644–652. https:// doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2019.16.2.13.644 Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11(2), 133–158. DOI: 10.1111/1473-4192.00011 Smit, U. (2010). English as a Lingua Franca in Higher Education: A Longitudinal Study of Classroom Discourse. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/ 10.1515/9783110215519 Steger, M. B. (2003). Globalization: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Vogel, S., & García, O. (2017). Translanguaging. In G. W. Noblit (ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedias: Education, (pp. 1–21). https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/ 9780190264093.013.181 Wei, L. (2020). Dialogue/Response—Engaging translanguaging pedagogies in higher education. In S. M. C. Lau & S. Van Viegen (eds), Plurilingual Pedagogies: Critical and Creative Endeavors for Equitable Language in Education (pp. 271–276). Cham: Springer. Wilkinson, M. (2021). Globalization. In Robert A. Segal & Nickolas P. Roubekas (eds), The Wiley Blackwell Companion to the Study of Religion (pp. 277–288). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9781119092797.ch18 Willis, P. (2011). Talking sexuality online: Technical, methodological and ethical considerations of online research with sexual minority youth. Qualitative Social Work, 11, 141–155. Yıldız, İ. M. (2016). Tertiary level EFL teachers’ perceptions and practices of ICC. (Publication No. 441148) [Master’s thesis, İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center. Young, J. T., & Sachdev, I. (2011). Intercultural communicative competence: Exploring English language teachers’ beliefs and practices. Language Awareness, 20(2), 8198. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2010.540328

244

13

Operationalizing an Approach to Multilingualism with Pre-service English as an Additional Language (EAL) Teachers in an EMI Context Anna Krulatz, MaryAnn Christison, Yaqiong (Sue) Xu and Dianna Walla

Background and context With global migration at an all-time high (IOM, 2022) and the influx of newcomers – refugees, migrant workers at all levels and international students – classrooms in many countries and jurisdictions are becoming increasingly multilingual. This rapid increase in multilingualism worldwide has resulted in what May (2019) referred to as the multilingual turn, and its impact has been felt at all levels of education – primary, secondary and postsecondary – albeit in different ways. Many countries, particularly BANA countries (i.e., Britain, Australasia and North America) and countries like Norway, which accept large numbers of immigrants, have felt the strongest impact in primary and secondary schools. In London alone, over 300 different languages are spoken by children in schools (Martin, 2010), and there are 400 home languages in U.S. public schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2021) and 300 languages in Australian schools (QUT, n.d.). Among linguistic minority children in Norway’s public schools, about 200 languages are represented (Özerk, 2013). At the same time, the number of international students in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) worldwide has continued to increase annually. Ten per cent of HEI students in the United Kingdom (Eudera, 2022) and 4.7 per cent in the United States (IIE, 2022) are international with total numbers of 610,130 and 948,519 respectively. In response to globalization and the spread of multilingualism in HEIs in Europe, English has become the common medium of

245

246

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

instruction (Deardon, 2014; Kirkpatrick, 2014, 2017), and English-medium instruction (EMI) courses have been increasing at an unprecedented rate in a wide range of disciplines (Curle et al., 2020). The move to EMI instruction in many HEIs in non-Anglophone contexts has brought with it many challenges, among them the education of EMI teachers to work effectively with English learners in EMI contexts.

English-medium instruction Dearden (2014, p. 2) defined EMI as ‘the use of the English language to teach academic subjects in countries or jurisdictions where the first language (L1) of the majority of the population is not English’. Historically, typical pedagogical practices for EMI in HEIs have concentrated on the delivery of disciplinary content knowledge in English (Aguilar, 2017) and did not include a focus on learning English (Dearden, 2014; Macaro, 2018). However, there are many students enrolled in EMI courses who are considered English learners and who are in the process of acquiring academic English skills. For these students, there is an expectation that enrolment in EMI courses will offer opportunities for the improvement of English skills as well as the development of disciplinary knowledge (Altay & Yuksel, 2022). Without a specific focus on English, a growing number of EMI students will continue to have difficulty understanding course content in EMI, including reading required texts and comprehending lectures in English. Attaching success in EMI courses in HEI contexts to levels of language proficiency could lead to unfortunate consequences for students not only in terms of how successful they can be in the courses but also how difficult it may be for them to access certain educational opportunities beyond their coursework (García, 2009, 2011; García et al., 2008, 2012). To ameliorate the language-proficiency bias in EMI, pedagogical practices must shift to include methods that support English learners in gaining specific knowledge in the discipline at the same time they are enhancing and developing their English skills. Adding a focus on English language development to EMI courses is not without its challenges. First, as disciplinary experts, EMI teachers may not have the pedagogical and metalinguistic skills to address the needs of English learners without additional professional development opportunities. Another challenge that EMI teachers face is that in some contexts, the population of English learners is increasing and becoming more linguistically and culturally diverse. With migration at an all-time high and multilingualism on the rise, there

Operationalizing an Approach to Multilingualism with Pre-Service English

247

continues to be an increase in number of international students studying in English-medium HEIs, particularly across Europe. When EMI classrooms comprise linguistically and culturally diverse English learners, it is important for EMI teachers to challenge common monolingual practices in their courses (Hall & Cook, 2012; Menken & Sanchez, 2019) and enact the multilingual turn (May 2014, 2019). To do so requires that EMI teachers recognize learners’ pre-existing knowledge base as well as the value that home and other languages can play in the development of English skills (Cenoz & Gorter, 2014, 2019). Without the inclusion of language objectives and the recognition of multilingualism as a resource, it is difficult for EMI teachers who work in linguistically and culturally diverse contexts to implement pedagogies that allow learners to develop content-area expertise, improve their language skills and affirm their multilingual identities (Lucas & Villegas, 2013; Wei, 2008). Research suggests that learners who develop a strong multilingual identity may have improved self-esteem and the motivation needed to maintain the languages they already know as they develop proficiency in additional languages (Fisher et al., 2018; Henry & Thorsen, 2018). By recognizing and supporting pedagogical practices for linguistically and culturally diverse learners within an EMI paradigm, teachers can create opportunities for equal and meaningful participation for all learners, as well as promote the development of both disciplinary knowledge and language skills (Coste, 2014; García & Flores, 2015; Leung & Valdes, 2019). To achieve these goals, it is imperative for EMI practitioners in contexts with linguistically and culturally diverse learners to consider how EMI should be implemented and what language support should be given to English learners (Chan, 2017; Farrell, 2020; Fisher et al., 2018; Galloway & Ruegg, 2020).

English as an additional language Teachers who work in English as additional language (EAL) contexts in primary and secondary schools face issues similar to EMI teachers in HEI contexts relative to enacting the multilingual turn and embracing multilingualism as a core resource. EAL teaching is a professional discipline. In the twenty-first century, EAL has become the term most often used in primary and secondary contexts in place of English language teaching (ELT), English as a second language (ESL), or English as a foreign language (EFL). The term EAL is used to describe the teaching of English to a diverse and heterogeneous group of learners, who are often referred to as multilingual learners (MLs). Additional

248

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

language instruction is a major educational concern in many countries (see, for example, Leung, 2022), so EAL teachers must be prepared to provide high quality education to linguistically and culturally diverse learners in their classrooms (Alisaari et al., 2019; European Commission, 2013) and support EAL learners in English language development as well as accessing grade-level content in English or English and a majority language, for example English and Norwegian in Norway (Sharples, 2021). EAL teachers provide instruction for learners from diverse backgrounds. For example, in some countries and educational systems, local schools provide EAL instruction to children whose parents work in a wide range of jobs such as university professors, CEOs of international companies, and factory and retail workers. EAL learners speak languages other than English or the majority language at home and need support in acquiring English and in viewing their other languages as important resources. In an international context, EAL is also offered in private educational contexts, such as international schools where English is the medium of instruction. Host nationals may send their children to international schools to develop proficiency in English, as well as to acquire other qualifications such as a General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) or an international baccalaureate diploma. While EAL learners need to develop proficiency in English, they may also need to develop proficiency in another majority language (e.g., Norwegian in Norway, German in Germany). This goal is often reached at the expense of home languages (Baker, 2011; Wiley & García, 2016). In most EAL contexts learners’ home languages are abandoned (or even banned) and not valued as important linguistic resources. The persistence of such practices can lead to an increase in the educational gap between additional language learners and majority language students, as well as to identity and generational crises (Cummins et al., 2005).

Language teacher education Societal and educational changes have not only altered the number and types of courses delivered in English but have also shaped and transformed teacher education programmes, particularly teacher education courses and programmes for pre-service EAL teachers. To adequately prepare EAL teachers for working with multilingual learners in diverse primary and secondary school contexts, teacher education courses must not only ensure that teachers have grade-level

Operationalizing an Approach to Multilingualism with Pre-Service English

249

or disciplinary content knowledge but also skills for integrating content and language successfully and specific competences for promoting multilingual practices and dispositions that support and value multilingualism as an important resource (Barros et al., 2020; de Jong & Harper, 2005; Otwinowska, 2014). EMI teachers who are working with English learners from linguistically and culturally diverse backgrounds could benefit from professional development or from teacher education courses, particularly if the courses have been designed for EAL teachers working in multilingual contexts. Both EMI and EAL teachers can be powerful catalysts for change if they are able to embrace more equitable practices with additional language learners and enact the multilingual turn.

The multilingual context To employ multilingual approaches to teaching EMI that challenge the monolingual bias (Hall & Cook, 2012; Menken & Sanchez, 2019), both EMI and EAL teachers must develop instructional strategies that engage learners’ whole linguistic repertories (Cenoz & Gorter, 2014, 2019), enact the multilingual turn (May, 2014, 2019), and promote multilingualism as a core resource. By supporting multilingual practices, EMI teachers can create opportunities for equal and meaningful participation and foster effective disciplinary learning and language development for all learners (Coste, 2014; García & Flores, 2015; Leung & Valdes, 2019). A number of approaches for enacting the multilingual turn have been proposed, including pedagogical translanguaging (Cenoz & Gorter, 2020; García & Kleifgen, 2019), Focus on Multilingualism (Cenoz & Gorter, 2014, 2019), a holistic model for multilingualism in education (Duarte & van der Meij, 2018), and intercomprehension models for teaching typologically related languages (e.g., Hufeisen & Marx, 2007). Most of these models are designed for specific populations of learners, are guided by general principles, or require contextdependent interpretations that may be difficult to apply in practice in some contexts. For instance, pedagogical translanguaging is based on the premise that all languages in the multilingual repertoires of learners should be considered when designing instruction in order to soften the boundaries between languages and develop learners’ metalinguistic awareness. To date, no clear guidelines have yet been provided to support teachers in the implementation of such an approach.

250

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

To address this gap, the Multilingual Approach to Diversity in Education (MADE) draws and expands on the existing models. MADE is unique in that it provides an extensive, holistic instrument with research-based indicators to guide teachers in the delivery of optimal education to multilingual learners in a range of contexts. Each of the indicators is grounded in current research and broken down into observable and measurable features, while each feature can be interpreted and then implemented as appropriate in different pedagogical settings. Below, we present each of the model’s seven indicators, namely: (1) Classrooms and Schools as Multilingual Spaces, (2) Developing and Using Teaching Materials, (3) Interaction and Grouping Configurations, (4) Language and Culture Attitudes, (5) Metacognition and Metalinguistic Awareness, (6) Multiliteracy and (7) Teacher and Learner Language Use.

Classrooms and Schools as Multilingual Spaces The first indicator of the model, Classrooms as Multilingual Spaces, is based on the notion of linguistic landscapes (Gorter, 2013; Landry & Bourhis, 1997), and it stresses the importance of appropriate use for both physical and digital learning spaces. As a part of culturally and linguistically sensitive teaching, classrooms should be organized in ways that reflect the linguistic and cultural diversity of the students (Coelho, 2012; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Lucas & Villegas, 2013). In addition, EAL learners should be involved in the design and organization of classroom spaces, by contributing work and artefacts that can be displayed on classroom bulletin boards or wall, as well as on websites or blogs. When teachers make spaces for learners’ languages and cultures in EMI courses, they show English learners that they recognize their work as valuable and affirm the importance of diverse cultural and linguistic identities among learners (Cummins, 2006).

Developing and Using Teaching Materials Developing and Using Teaching Materials is the second indicator. It emphasizes how teaching materials can be developed and used to promote pedagogical translanguaging (Cenoz & Gorter, 2021), the development of all language skills, and multicompetence, which is the complex linguistic system that characterizes multilingual speakers (Cook, 1992; Cook & Wei, 2016). The indicator is meant to support teachers in determining how to select, create and use materials that are suitable for learners’ levels of language proficiency and cognitive development

Operationalizing an Approach to Multilingualism with Pre-Service English

251

(Tomlinson, 2017). The indicator accentuates the value of using materials that reflect the linguistically and culturally diverse backgrounds of learners.

Interaction and Grouping Configurations Interaction and Grouping Configurations is the third indicator. Its purpose is to encourage teachers to think carefully about how to place learners into groups so that learners can develop their language skills through the negotiation of meaning (Long, 1983, 1996; Pica et al., 1987; Swain, 2005). In addition, teachers should encourage learners to use elaborated responses about lesson concepts that go beyond simple ‘yes’ and ‘no’ answers (Walsh, 2003). Opportunities for scaffolded practice prepare students for independent, real-life interactions and encourage them to draw on their full linguistic repertoires (Cenoz & Gorter, 2021). The indicator also promotes a shift in the role of the teacher from a dispenser of knowledge to a facilitator and mentor, and it positions learners to take centre stage in the classroom.

Language and Culture Attitudes The fourth indicator, Language and Culture Attitudes, supports teachers in developing dispositions towards learning that see all languages and cultures represented in the classroom as legitimate and valuable (Gay, 2018; LadsonBillings, 1995). It focuses on why it is important for teachers to demonstrate an explicit interest in students’ home languages and cultures, allow and value all languages in the classroom, and perform actions that encourage learners to use their full linguistic repertoires (Cenoz & Gorter, 2020). Teachers who are sensitive to linguistic and cultural differences among learners can create classroom spaces in which students’ multilingual identities are supported and respected (Cummins, 2006; Moll et al., 1992, Norton & Toohey, 2011).

Metacognition and Metalinguistic Awareness The fifth indicator in the model, Metacognition and Metalinguistic Awareness, underscores the importance of helping learners understand that they control their own learning (i.e., metacognition). The indicator also focuses on the importance of reflection on language and language learning processes (i.e., metalinguistic awareness). Multilinguals have been characterized as individuals

252

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

who have heightened metacognitive and metalinguistic skills as compared with monolinguals (Bialystok, 2011; Jessner, 2008). Teachers can help multilingual learners develop and refine these skills through pedagogical practices that give them an opportunity to take more responsibility for their own learning, particularly in terms of learning to plan, execute, monitor and assess their own learning (Oxford, 2017).

Multiliteracy The sixth of the seven indicators is Multiliteracy. This indicator helps teachers promote literacy practices across all languages in learners’ linguistic repertoires. The development of literacy skills in languages other than the majority language in primary and secondary schools is often sacrificed or simply overlooked. However, MLs benefit from opportunities to develop literacy skills that span across languages and modalities (Hornberger, 2013). Teachers need to select activities and materials that compel learners to use their literacy skills in different languages in their linguistic repertoires (Christison & Murray, 2020; Cummins, 2011). At the same time, teachers can encourage parents and other caretakers to engage in home language literacy practices outside of school (Paratore & Edwards, 2011).

Teacher and Learner Language Use The final indicator in the model is Teacher and Learner Language Use. This indicator encourages teachers to think about how they use language in the classroom and how they can encourage learners to employ their full linguistic repertoires. It helps teachers to think about how they can modify their language to match the proficiency levels of their learners by using a slower rate of speech, simpler vocabulary and syntax, and even exaggerated pronunciation (Hatch, 1983). Teachers should also plan carefully to provide clear explanations of classroom activities and employ a variety of techniques to make concepts clear. In addition, the indicator prompts teachers to recognize their own multilingual skills and to exemplify multilingual practices such as translanguaging in both written and oral communication (Cenoz & Gorter, 2020; García & Flores, 2015). Finally, the indicator recognizes the importance of creating opportunities for learners to produce language in interaction with others (Swain, 2005) and to deploy their full linguistic repertoires as a central

Operationalizing an Approach to Multilingualism with Pre-Service English

253

component of learning an additional language (Cummins, 2007; Hall & Cook, 2012).

Research design The current research targeted the teaching of academic subjects in a country where the first language of the majority of the population is not English (Macaro & Aizawa, 2022) and tackled issues that are likely to arise for EMI and EAL teachers and learners. The project brought together a number of different fields – EAL teaching in primary schools, disciplinary teaching in secondary contexts, EMI in HEIs, and language teacher education for teachers of EAL in primary and secondary contexts and EMI teachers in HEIs. In the current project, MADE was used in an EMI context to guide EAL preservice teachers enrolled in a fifth-year course in their teacher education programme in planning lessons for linguistically and culturally diverse contexts in primary and secondary schools. In the course, each of the seven indicators of MADE was introduced, and the pre-service teachers were given opportunities for discussion and participation in activities and tasks that addressed each of the indicators. The EAL teachers in the course experienced the type of active learning that they would be expected to deliver to their own EAL learners. The design used for the current research is referred to as action research. The purpose of action research is to solve practical problems through the simultaneous process of taking action and doing research. Action research comprises both a philosophy and a methodology for educational research: researchers and participants co-generate knowledge through a collaborative and systematic process. In the context of the current research, the teacher educators were researchers who were studying their own practice and the pre-service teachers were participants. For the teacher educators, action research offered a way to critically reflect on specific interventions to improve pedagogical practices in context.

The action research cycle The cycle for action research and explanations for how each step in the cycle was operationalized in the current research are depicted in Table 13.1. The action

254

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Table 13.1 Operationalization of the action research cycle Steps in the cycle

Operationalization

Step 1. Identification of a problem.

EAL pre-service teachers were under-prepared in terms of their ability to plan lessons for linguistically diverse learners. Step 2. Develop a plan A plan was created to embed MADE indicators in a to address the problem. teacher education course. The research question (RQ) was articulated: How do pre-service EAL teachers in an EMI context operationalize MADE indicators in lesson plans for linguistically diverse settings? Step 3. Implement the MADE indicators were embedded in a semester-long plan. teacher education course. Step 4. Evaluate the Lesson plans were collected and evaluated against MADE results of the actions indicators. taken. Step 5. Identify a new A new focus for step 2 was determined (e.g., were there problem. MADE indicators that were missing or considered weak in the lesson plans and needed reinforcement?).

research cycle is intended to be repeated over time. The research reported here constituted the first cycle in a predefined iterative process.

Research question The project was guided by the following research question: How do pre-service EAL teachers in an EMI context operationalize MADE indicators in lesson plans for linguistically diverse settings?

Methodology Context for the research The current research project examined how pre-service EAL teachers in an EMI context at a large public university in Norway were able to operationalize their understandings of multilingual teaching practices in their lesson plans following a semester-long course. The course consisted of sixteen four-hour sessions, totalling sixty-four contact hours. The first two sessions introduced the course objectives

Operationalizing an Approach to Multilingualism with Pre-Service English

255

and the MADE framework to the pre-service teachers, while each of the following seven session pairs covered one of the indicators of the MADE framework. The first session of each week introduced a new indicator through lectures and discussion, while the second session of each week involved more active participation, through workshop-style activities in which the EAL pre-service teachers had the opportunity to put the knowledge that they acquired in the previous session into practice.

Participants and sampling The participants were twenty-two pre-service teachers in their fifth year of an integrated master’s programme with an EAL endorsement at a major public university in Norway. They were enrolled in a graduate-level EMI course titled Advanced Teaching Approaches in the English Classroom, which introduced the pre-service teachers to an instructional model for linguistically and culturally diverse pedagogical settings and promoted multilingualism as a core resource. Following a semester-long intervention, in which the seven indicators of the MADE model were introduced and practiced, data from teacher-generated lesson plans and reflections were collected using Inspera, a digital assessment platform. Participants were instructed to create a plan for a ninety-minute EAL lesson or series of shorter lessons to equal ninety minutes. The lesson plans were to follow the principles of MADE, and the pre-service teachers were also asked to write a reflection essay explaining how MADE was operationalized in their lesson plans. Once the lesson plans and reflections were submitted on Inspera, they were automatically anonymized.

Data analysis The twenty-two lesson plans and reflective essays were scored using an analytic rubric that listed the specific criteria for the assessment of each individual submission. The criteria for lesson planning included (a) identifying specific learning objectives, (b) describing learning activities with clear links to objectives, and (c) incorporating at least one feature from each of the seven MADE indicators in the lesson. For the reflective essay, the criteria included providing an introduction to MADE and explaining why it was suitable for linguistically diverse learners and how it promoted learning in multilingual contexts. The maximum possible score was forty points. In addition, the data were coded and analysed thematically using the pre-defined categories derived from the indicators of the MADE model. The findings were used to further the

256

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

researchers’ understandings of the effectiveness of the intervention and the specific challenges that teachers faced in moving to a multilingual paradigm.

Results and discussion This action research project set out to investigate how pre-service EAL teachers in an EMI context were able to operationalize MADE indicators in lesson plans for linguistically diverse settings as a result of participation in an EMI course that introduced these teachers to MADE. The findings suggest that the course was effective in preparing pre-service teachers to plan lessons for linguistically and culturally diverse classrooms using MADE. An analysis of the lesson plans and reflection essay scores (N = 22) resulted in a mean (M) of 34/40 and standard deviation (SD) of 4.2. A mean of 34/40 suggests that the majority of the participating pre-service teachers were able to meet the assessment criteria to a high degree. This interpretation of the data takes into consideration that the mean was also affected by three scores that were below 30. It was clear from these data that some of the pre-service teachers need additional training in using the MADE indicators. It may also be the case that the course instructor might consider making changes to the course to better meet the needs of pre-service teachers who are struggling and at the lower end of the score continuum. The thematic analysis of the submitted lesson plans and reflection essays revealed that most of the participants were able to include all of the seven indicators of MADE to a high degree and in a creative manner. However, there was some variation relative to the specific features of some of the indicators. These findings are summarized below and are illustrated with vignettes for each of the MADE indicators.

Classrooms and Schools as Multilingual Spaces The lesson plans included various ideas for meeting the indicator Classrooms and Schools as Multilingual Spaces. These ranged from creating specially designated multilingual areas in the classrooms, referred to as multilingual corners, where artefacts, decorations and posters created by students are displayed, to assembling collections of digital and print materials (e.g., dictionaries) in different languages for students to use as learning resources. For instance, in one of the lesson plans, the students received a comic strip with empty bubbles and were asked to fill in greetings or farewells in English and at

Operationalizing an Approach to Multilingualism with Pre-Service English

257

least one other language. The comic strips were then posted on the classroom walls. In most of the submitted lesson plans, the key focus was on two features of the indicator, namely on student involvement in the design and organization of classroom spaces, and on the visibility of the linguistic and cultural diversity of the learners. The third feature, which stresses the importance of using classroom spaces appropriately as a part of culturally and linguistically sensitive teaching, was not identified in many of the lesson plans, which suggests that the feature should be addressed in more detail in the future editions of the course.

Developing and Using Teaching Materials To meet the second indicator, Developing and Using Teaching Materials, many of the lesson plans included teaching resources that promoted all language skills (i.e., speaking, listening, reading and writing) as well as strategies that prompted learners to employ different languages in their linguistic repertoires when appropriate through practices such as translation or translanguaging with peers. For instance, in one of the lesson plans, the teacher displayed a poster that explicitly encouraged learners to use various linguistic and non-linguistic means to sustain communication among peers: What do we do if we don’t know the English words? ● ● ● ● ●

Ask your peers! Use your body language! Use your other languages! Draw it! Ask the teacher!

In some of the lesson plans, there was also evidence of the consideration of learners’ diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds when selecting teaching materials. However, few of the lesson plans included differentiation of materials for various proficiency levels, so this feature of the indicator stands out as a potential area for improvement.

Interaction and Grouping Configurations The indicator, Interaction and Grouping Configurations, was addressed in most of the lesson plans through the consideration of learners’ linguistic backgrounds and proficiency in home languages and English. For example, one of the lesson

258

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

plans stated that, ‘The grouping configurations [for this task] are made so that each group has at least one student with good reading competence in English.’ Other lesson plans considered specific needs of individual learners: ‘Aixa and Mashir have been paired since Aixa needs more language support and Mashir has good language skills.’ However, the lesson plans included little to no focus on prompting elaborate responses from the learners, encouraging reflection on lesson content, or ensuring that learners remain on task. These areas should receive more attention in the teacher education course in the future.

Language and Culture Attitudes To include the indicator, Language and Culture Attitudes, many of the lesson plans stressed that the teacher should show an explicit interest in students’ linguistic repertoires. This was frequently manifested through using greetings or farewells in English and students’ home languages. For instance, one of the lesson plans opened with a ‘Meet and greet’ activity, in which students were asked to walk around the room and introduce themselves to their classmates ‘as if they were meeting for the first time’. The students were also encouraged to learn to pronounce one another’s names correctly, the way in which the names are pronounced in the language from which each name originated. Overall, all lesson plans showed evidence that the pre-service teachers were highly sensitive to linguistic and cultural differences that exist among learners.

Metacognition and Metalinguistic Awareness The fifth MADE indicator, Metacognition and Metalinguistic Awareness, appeared to be the most challenging indicator to implement for the participating inservice teachers. Although the features of this indicator are listed in all of the lesson plans, the features are rarely enacted in the lesson activities. For example, in several of the lesson plans, it was stated that ‘students are explicitly taught how to monitor strategy use’ or ‘the teacher promotes metalinguistic awareness by focusing learners’ attention on language as an object of study’. Although the activities that were included in the lessons expected learners to use specific learning strategies or analyse features of language, the lesson plans did not include explicit actions that would scaffold learners through these processes. It can, therefore, be concluded that the development of metacognition and metalinguistic awareness needs to be given more prominence the next time the course is offered.

Operationalizing an Approach to Multilingualism with Pre-Service English

259

Multiliteracy The lesson plans attempted to address the indicator, Multiliteracy, in a number of ways, the most common of which was including print materials in languages other than English. This served to foster learners’ reading and writing skills in different languages through activities such as dual language identity texts and sharing stories in home languages. For example, in one of the lessons, the students, working in small groups, were asked to ‘read their stories in their home language to their group’ and ‘summarize what the stories are about in English’. In another lesson, the students were given access to the Internet and asked to access websites with relevant information in the different languages they knew. Finally, in many of the lesson plans home literacy practices were promoted through assigned homework that required learners to read with parents and siblings at home. The pre-service teachers appeared to have a good grasp of the indicator Multiliteracy.

Teacher and Learner Language Use The last MADE indicator, Teacher and Learner Language Use, was evident in most of the lesson plans as teachers focused on making adjustments in teacher talk to accommodate the language proficiency levels of the learners. The lesson plans also targeted the inclusion of clear, step-by-step explanations for classroom activities. For example, several of the lesson plans opened with the teacher giving a Power Point presentation, which included an overview of learning objectives and lesson activities. These teacher-led activities are important for language learners because they provide learners with both oral and visual input. In many of the lesson plans, there was also an explicit focus on encouraging learners to use their full linguistic repertoires. However, the lesson plans included few techniques to explain new concepts, which is an important component for lessons that are intended to integrate content and language. It can be concluded that the teacher education course could benefit from more extensive focus on making content comprehensible through modelling, the use of visuals, demonstrations and hands-on activities in linguistically and culturally diverse contexts.

Conclusion In this chapter, we presented research that examined the effectiveness of an EMI course for pre-service EAL teachers relative to the teachers’ operationalizations of multilingual teaching practices. The participants were introduced to MADE,

260

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

a holistic approach to teaching in linguistically and culturally diverse contexts. The model consists of seven indicators with specific features for classroom implementation. The effectiveness of the course was examined through the lens of action research. Data consisted of lesson plans and reflection essays submitted by twenty-two course participants. The submissions were scored using an analytic rubric, and a mean score and the standard deviation were calculated. In addition, the submissions were coded and analysed thematically according to the indicators and features of MADE. The findings suggest that pre-service teachers had a solid grasp of the MADE indicators and were able to implement them to a large degree in their lesson plans (M=34/40); however, there was also variation relative to the implementation of the specific indicators and features. Most of the pre-service teachers were able to demonstrate that they had an understanding of the indicators Language and Culture Attitudes and Multiliteracy and had developed abilities to include these indicators in their lesson plans. Features of these two indicators were implemented through a range of appropriate and well-designed activities. However, the thematic analysis revealed that some of the indicators and features of MADE – Classrooms and Schools as Multilingual Spaces, Developing and Using Teaching Materials, Interaction and Grouping Configurations and Teacher and Learner Language Use – were only partially addressed in the lesson plans and reflection essays and should be given more attention the next time the course is offered. Overall, there was little evidence of a thoughtful and well-designed implementation of the indicator, Metacognition and Metalinguistic Awareness. It can therefore be concluded that this indicator was challenging for the majority of the course participants. This indicator focuses on preparing and planning for learning, activating background knowledge, implementing learning strategies (by learners) and scaffolding strategies (by the teacher), monitoring strategy use, and focusing attention on language as an object of study. Without doubt, implementing this indicator requires teachers to possess a heightened level of language awareness, metalinguistic awareness and plurilingual awareness (De Angelis, 2011; Hufeisen, 2011; Otwinowska, 2014). To teach linguistically and culturally diverse learners effectively and enact the multilingual turn in education, teachers need to be able to reflect on and analyse language, to make cross-linguistic comparisons, and to model multilingual language practices such as translanguaging. Acquiring such skills takes time and effort on the part of teachers. These data indicate that a focus on metacognition and metalinguistic awareness should be included in teacher education curricula early on and not only in the final years of study.

Operationalizing an Approach to Multilingualism with Pre-Service English

261

The results of the current study with EAL pre-service teachers in an EMI context who were preparing to teach additional language learners in primary and secondary schools may offer some important insights for the conceptualization of professional development (PD) opportunities for EMI teachers in HEI contexts who have English learners in their classes. EMI HEI teachers are most often socialized to think of themselves first as disciplinary content experts. As a result, they may not have developed the high levels of metalinguistic awareness that are needed to offer effective instruction in EMI courses that include English learners. In this way, EMI teachers in HEI contexts are similar to the EAL teachers in the current study who found operationalizing the MADE indicator Metacognition and Metalinguistic Awareness challenging. Without additional PD, differentiating materials and being able to analyse crosslinguistic features of languages may be extremely difficult. As lectures are still the most popular method of instruction in HEI, EMI teachers are likely to find it challenging to incorporate some of the interaction and grouping features of MADE into their classrooms, such as the use of varied grouping structures to increase interaction, questioning strategies to elicit elaborated responses, and multiple ways to explain new concepts. With the growing numbers of culturally and linguistically diverse learners in both EMI and EAL settings, it is crucial for teachers to be introduced to pedagogical innovations that promote the inclusion of learners’ multilingual repertoires as valuable resources. Both EAL and EMI teachers need ongoing support to bring about changes in their classrooms that are consistent with multilingual pedagogical practices in the twenty-first century.

References Aguilar, M. (2017). Engineering lecturers’ views on CLIL and EMI. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(6), 722–735. Alisaari, J., Heikkola, L. M., Commins, N., & Acquah, E. O. (2019). Monolingual ideologies confronting multilingual realities. Finnish teachers’ beliefs about linguistic diversity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 80(1), 48–58. Altay, M., & Yuksel, D. (2022). An investigation of language-related challenges in full and multilingual English-medium instruction models in Turkey. In M. A. Christison, J. Crandall & D. Christian (eds), Research on Integrating Language and Content in Diverse Contexts (pp. 181–194). New York: Routledge. Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

262

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Barros, S., Domke, L. M., Symons, C., & Ponzio, C. (2020). Challenging monolingual ways of looking at multilingualism: Insights for curriculum development in teacher preparation. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 20(3), 1–16. DOI:10.1080/15348458.1753196 Bialystok, E. (2011). The good, the bad and the indifferent. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(1), 3–11. Candelier, M. (ed.) (2004). Janua Linguarum- The gateway to languages. The introduction of language awareness into the curriculum: Awakening to languages. Council of Europe. Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2014). Focus on multilingualism as an approach in educational contexts. In A. Creese & A. Blackledge (eds), Heteroglossia as Practice and Pedagogy (pp. 239–254). Cham: Springer. Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2019). Multilingualism, translanguaging, and minority languages in SLA. The Modern Language Journal (Supplement 2019), 130–135. Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2020). Teaching English through pedagogical translanguaging. World Englishes, Special Issue, 39(2), 300–311. Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2021). Pedagogical Translanguaging. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chan, E. Y. M. (2017). Narrative inquiry: A dynamic relationship between culture, language, and education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 42(6), 23–34. Christison, M. A., & Murray, D. E. (2020). An overview of multilingual learners’ literacy needs in the 21st century. In G. Neokleous, A. Krulatz & R. Farrelly (eds), The Handbook of Research on Cultivating Literacy in Diverse and Multilingual Classrooms (pp. 1–21). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Coelho, E. (2012). Language and Learning in Multilingual Classrooms: A Practical Approach. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Cook, V. (1992). Evidence for multicompetence. Language Learning, 42(4), 557–591. Cook, V., & Wei, L. (eds) (2016). The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Multicompetence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coste, D. (2014). Plurilingualism and the challenges of education. In P. Grommes & A. Hu (eds), Plurilingual Education. Policies – Practices – Language Development (pp. 15–32). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cummins, J. (2006). Identity texts: The imaginative construction of self through multiliteracy pedagogy. In O. García, T. Skutnabb-Kangas & M. E. Torres-Guzmán (eds), Imagining Multilingual Schools. Languages in Education and Glocalization (pp. 51–68). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 221–241. Cummins, J. (2011). Literacy engagement: Fueling academic growth for English learners. The Reading Teacher, 65(2), 142–146. Cummins, J., Bismilla, V., Chow, P., Cohen, S., Giampapa, F., Leoni, L., Sandhu, P., & Sastri, P. (2005). Affirming identity in multilingual classrooms. Educational Leadership, 63(1), 38–43

Operationalizing an Approach to Multilingualism with Pre-Service English

263

Curle, S., Jablonkai, R. R., Mittelmeier, J., Sahan, K., Veitch, A., & Galloway, N. (2020). English in Higher Education – English Medium. Part 1: Literature Review. https:// researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/english-in-higher-education-englishmedium-part-1-literature-revi De Angelis, J. (2011). Teachers’ beliefs about the role of prior language knowledge in learning and how these influence teaching practices. International Journal of Multilingualism, 8(3), 216–234. Deardon, J. (2014). English as a medium of instruction: A growing global phenomenon. British Council. https://www.britishcouncil.es/sites/default/files/british_council_ english_as_a_medium_of_instruction.pdf de Jong, E. J., & Harper, C. A. (2005). Preparing mainstream teachers for Englishlanguage learners: Is being a good teacher good enough? Teacher Education Quarterly, Spring 2005, 101–124. Duarte, J., & van der Meij, M. (2018). A holistic model for multilingualism in education. EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages, 5(2), 24–43. Eudera (2022). U.K. international students. https://erudera.com/statistics/uk/ukinternational-student-statistics/ European Commission (2013). The teaching and learning international survey (TALIS). Main findings from the survey and implications for education training and policies in Europe. https://www.oecd.org/education/school/EU-TALIS-2013_en.pdf Farrell, T. S. C. (2020). Reflective Teaching (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: TESOL Press. Fisher, L., Evans, M., Forbes, K., Gayton, A., & Liu, Y. (2018). Participative multilingual identity construction in the languages classroom: A multi-theoretical conceptualisation. International Journal of Multilingualism, 17(4), 448–466. Galloway, N., & Ruegg, R. (2020). The provision of student support on English medium instruction programs in Japan and China. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 45, 100846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100846 García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. García, O. (2011). Emergent bilinguals and TESOL: What’s in a name? TESOL Quarterly, 43(2), 322–326. García, O., & Flores, N. (2015). Multilingual pedagogies. In M. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge & A. Creese (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism (pp. 232–246). New York: Routledge. García, O., & Kleifgen, J. A. (2019). Translanguaging and literacies. Reading Research Quarterly, 54(4), 553–571. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.286 García, O., Kleifgen, J. A., & Falchi, L. (2008). From English language learners to emergent bilinguals. Equity Matters. Research Review No. 1. New York: Teachers College Press. García, O., Homonoff Woodley, H., Flores, N., & Chu, H. (2012). Latino emergent bilingual youth in high schools: Transcaring strategies for academic success. Urban Education, 48(6), 798–827.

264

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Gay, G. (2018). Culturally Responsive Teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Gorter, D. (2013). Linguistic landscapes in a multilingual world. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 190–212. Hall, G., & Cook, G. (2012). Own-language use in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 45(3), 271–308. Hatch, E. M. (1983). Psycholinguistics: A Second Language Perspective. New York: Newbury House Publishers. Henry, A., & Thorsen, C. (2018). The ideal multilingual self: Validity, influences on motivation, and role in a multilingual education. International Journal of Multilingualism, 15(4), 349–364. Hornberger, N. (2013). Bilingual literacy. In C. A. Chapelle (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Blackwell. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ epdf/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0095 Hufeisen, B. (2011). Gesamtsprachencurriculum: Überlegungen zu einem prototypischen Modell [Whole language curriculum: Reflections on a prototypical model]. In R. Baur & B. Hufeisen (eds), ‘Vieles ist sehr ähnlich’ – Individuelle und gesellschaftliche Mehrsprachigkeit als bildungspolitische Aufgabe [Much is very similar – Individual and social multilingualism as a task for educational policy] (pp. 265– 282). Germany : Schneider Hohengehren. Hufeisen, B., & Marx, N. (2007). How can DaFnE and EuroComGerm contribute to the concept of receptive multilingualism? Theoretical and practical considerations. In J. D. ten Thije & L. Zeevaert (eds), Receptive Multilingualism. Linguistic Analyses, Language Policies and Didactic Concepts (pp. 307–321). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. IIE (2021–22). Open Doors. Institute for International Education. https:// opendoorsdata.org/annual-release/international-students/ IOM (2022). World Migration Report. International Organization for Migration. https:// worldmigrationreport.iom.int/wmr-2022-interactive/. Jessner, U. (2008). A DST model of multilingualism and the role of metalinguistics awareness. Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 270–293. Kirkpatrick, A. (2014). The languages of HE: EMI and/or ELF and/or multilingualism? Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 4–15. Kirkpatrick, A. (2017). World Englishes: Implications for International Communication and English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. Landry, R., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1997). Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16(1), 23–49. Leung, C. (2022). English as an additional language: A close-to-practice view of teaching professional knowledge and professionalism. Language and Education, 36(2), 170–187.

Operationalizing an Approach to Multilingualism with Pre-Service English

265

Leung, C., & Valdés, G. (2019). Translanguaging and the transdisciplinary framework for language teaching and learning in a multilingual world. Modern Language Journal, 103(2), 348–370. Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126–141. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (eds), Handbook of Language Acquisition (pp. 413–468). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press. Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. M. (2013). Preparing linguistically responsive teachers: Laying the foundation in preservice teacher education. Theory into Practice, 52(2), 98–109. Macaro, E. (2018). English Medium Instruction: Language and Content in Policy and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Macaro, E., & Aizawa, I. (2022). Who owns English medium instruction? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. Published online October 2022. https:// doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2022.2136187. Martin, P. (2010) ‘They have lost their identity but not gained a British one’: Nontraditional multilingual students in higher education in the United Kingdom. Language and Education, 24(1), 9–20. May, S. (ed.) (2014). The Multilingual Turn. Implications for SLA, TESOL, and Bilingual Education. New York: Routledge. May, S. (2019). Negotiating the multilingual turn in SLA. Modern Language Journal, (Supplement 2019), 122–129. Menken, K., & Sanchez, M. T. (2019). Translanguaging in English only schools: From pedagogy to stance in disruption of monolingual policies and practices. TESOL Quarterly, 53(3), 741–767. Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & González, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2011). Ideologies, language learning, and social change. Language Teaching, 49(4), 412–446. Otwinowska, A. (2014). Does multilingualism influence plurilingual awareness of Polish teachers of English? International Journal of Multilingualism, 11(1), 97–119. Oxford, R. L. (2017). Teaching and Researching Language Learning Strategies: Selfregulation in Context (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Özerk, K. (2013). The Norwegian education system, the linguistic diversity in the country, and the education of diverse minority groups. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 6(1), 43–60. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ EJ1053604.pdf Paratore, J. R., & Edwards, P. A. (2011). Parent–teacher partnerships that make a difference in children’s literacy achievement. In L. M. Morrow & L. B. Gambrell (eds), Best Practices in Literacy Instruction (4th ed.) (pp. 436–454). New York: Guilford Press.

266

Multilingual and Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction

Pica, T., Young, R., & Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 737–758. QUT (n.d.). Home languages in schools (HLinS0: Students, families, and teachers learning together. https://research.qut.edu.au/hlins/language-profiles/australia/. Sharples, R. (2021). Teaching EAL: Evidence-based Strategies for the Classroom and School. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 471–483). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Tomlinson, C. A. (2017). How to Differentiate Instruction in Academically Diverse Classrooms (3rd ed.). ASCD. U.S. Department of Education (2021). Our Nation’s English Learners. https://www2.ed. gov/datastory/el-characteristics/index.html Walsh, S. (2003). Developing interactional awareness in the second language classroom through teacher self-evaluations. Language Awareness, 1(2), 124–142. Wei, L. (2008). Research perspectives on bilingualism and multilingualism. In L. Wei & M. G. Moyer (eds), The Blackwell Guide to Research Methods in Bilingualism and Multilingualism (pp. 3–17). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Wiley, T. G., & García, O. (2016). Language planning and policy in language education: Legacies, consequences, and possibilities. Modern Language Journal (Supplement 2016), 48–63.

Index academic disciplines 33, 41, 43 exposure 59 literacies 33 action research 250, 253–254, 256, 260–261 analytic memo 61 anecdotal pattern 61

fields of study 32, 37, 43 first language (L1) 94 flexible language policy 98, 107 functions of language 31, 34, 35, 37, 41

Bahrain 11, 13, 20 Basque 79, 80 bilingualism 78

hard-core EMI 1 heteroglossic 55, 69 higher education 11, 77

classroom artefacts 35, 36, 37, 38 codeswitching 79, 118, 130, 135, 136 communicative competence 151 efficiency 97 compensation strategies 39, 40, 42 CPD 142 critical multilingual stance 175

identities 14, 15, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 identity 53, 55, 64 initial English language teacher education 174 inner-circle 141, 156 interculturality 169, 221–222, 227, 231 international mobility 59 internationalization 96, 203, 204

direct translation 58, 65, 66, 70, 71, 72 disciplinary content knowledge 246–247, 249 cultures and literacies 32, 41, 43 vocabulary 183, 184 discourse analysis 51, 57 discursive practice 66 diverse classrooms 166 domain loss 182, 192

Japanese 118, 135, 136

EAL 247–251, 253–256, 259–261 elaborated responses 251 261 EMEMUS 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 EMI pedagogy 97 English as an additional language, see EAL Englishization 181, 182 English-only policy 97

globalization 223 Gulf Cooperation Countries (GCC) 4, 11, 13

Kuwait 11, 13, 20, 21 language of assessment 4 attitudes 11, 20, 21, 78, 79 beliefs 202 education policy 52, 54, 58, 70 motivation 83, 88 policy 77 proficiency bias 246 Latin American universities 32, 43 linguistic competence 158 diversity 166, 168, 172 landscapes 24 repertoire 54, 55, 69, local language 62

267

268

Index

MADE 250, 253–256, 258–261 metacognition 250–251, 258, 260–261 metalinguistic awareness 249–251, 258, 260–261 minority languages 78, 79, 182, 195, 196 monolingual bias 249 ideologies 15, 22, 23, 24 monolingualism 93, 95, 185, 195 motivations for translanguaging 100, 105 multilingual learners 167, 168, 169, 170, 172, 173, 174 pedagogies 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 171, 173, 174 practices 31, 32, 37, 39, 40, 43, 53, 135 spaces 250–251, 256–257, 260 turn 245, 247, 249, 260 university settings 31, 41 Multilingual Approach to Diversity in Education, see MADE multilingualism 11, 12, 54, 71, 78, 196, 245–247, 249, 255 multiliteracy 250, 252, 259–260 multimodality 57 national language 71 neoliberalism 14, 24 Oman 11, 13, 20 pedagogical translanguaging 94, 249–250 plurilingual and intercultural competence 6

plurilingualism 12, 221, 224, 226 purposeful linguistic simplification 151 Qatar 11, 13, 20 quality aspects in EMI 142 ROAD-MAPPING Framework 4, 35, 37 roles of English 36, 37 scaffolding strategies 260 science discourses 203, 2011 scoping review 15, 16 sense of guilt 104, 107 sociolinguistics 118, 136 boundaries and spaces 217 soft EMI 1 specific-context term 63 STEM 5, 181, 183 teacher agency 185, 196 preparation 142 thematic analysis 256, 260 translingual practice 12, 20, 78, 135, 166 Turkish medium instruction (TMI) 144 United Arab Emirates 11, 13, 20 University of the Basque Country (UPV/ EHU) 79, 80 use of the L1 32, 40, 42, 43

269

270

271

272

273

274