This article reports on a study of policymaking at transnational and local universities in China concerning English Medium Instruction (EMI) provision, and the impact this has on stakeholder experiences. It explores policymaking at two transnational universities, which are compared and contrasted with data collected at six other Chinese universities that offer EMI programmes. Data were collected via individual and group interviews with 26 key policy stakeholders during fieldwork at the eight universities and centred on language-related policy diffusion surrounding admissions, language support, and language use. Findings revealed a reliance on foundation year studies at transnational universities versus the Gaokao (national college entrance examination) at other universities to ensure students had the requisite proficiency upon admissions. Findings also revealed transnational universities were more likely to offer language support to their students and have language policies governing language use. Overall, the findings reveal a range of affordances and caveats associated with each institution’s contextualized policy making, causing ease and conflict for EMI stakeholders.

This mixed-methods study explores the language-related difficulties and ELT support offered in English-medium programmes at eight universities in China. Data included a student questionnaire (n = 394) measuring the difficulties of 45 academic tasks, organized around the four skills of reading, writing, listening, and speaking. Results revealed students faced the largest difficulties with productive skills, especially writing. To explore structural language support for overcoming such challenges, fieldwork interviews with twenty-six senior faculty at eight universities in four cities in China were conducted. These revealed three main types of institutional support: concurrent language support from English language teachers offered alongside English medium programmes; preparatory programmes taken before students enrolled in English medium courses, which were prevalent in language-specialist universities; and self-access learning and writing centres, which were found at two transnational universities. When structural support was lacking, content teachers reported making grassroots efforts to help students understand content via use of the students’ multilingual repertoires in explanations, interactions, and materials.

English Medium Instruction (EMI) has been defined as ‘the use of the English language to teach academic subjects (other than English itself) in countries or jurisdictions where the first language (L1) of the majority of the population is not English’ (Macaro, 2018, p. 19). This definition has proved to be controversial but has underpinned the work of our research group, from whose collective perspective this article is written. Debates have centred on the role that English language development plays in EMI contexts, and whether this current definitional scope is too narrow in its exclusion of English medium educational practices in Anglophone settings. Pecorari and Malmström (2018), for example, observe that some members of the EMI research community interpret EMI more broadly to include ‘contexts in which English is a dominant language and in which English language development is supported and actively worked for’ (p. 507). Similarly, Baker and Hüttner (2016, p. 502) state that excluding Anglophone contexts from EMI is ‘unhelpful’ by failing to include the experiences of multilingual students in Anglophone universities who learn through their second language (L2). A focus on multilingualism is also one of the driving forces behind the emergence of new terminology that seeks to shift focus towards the contexts of education, rather than instruction and pedagogy. Dafouz and Smit (2016), for example, prefer the term English-Medium Education in Multilingual University Settings (EMEMUS), because the ‘label is semantically wider, as it does not specify any particular pedagogical approach or research agenda’ (p. 399).

No abstract