Language ideology of English-medium instruction in higher education

Abstract

English-medium instruction (EMI) has been perceived as a key strategy through which universities, propelled by academic, political, social and economic motives, respond to the influence of globalisation (Altbach & Knight, 2007). This has been fuelled by the fact that English, defined as the global common language, is needed to create the knowledge base in global tertiary education (Fishman, 2000). In the process, English has become the universal second language of advanced education (Brumfit, 2004), due to the value attached to the language in present times and the advantage of using the language in the existing global language order (Zhang, 2017). These motivations have contributed to the global phenomenon of English being the medium of instruction (MOI), and higher education has been the venue where EMI could be implemented more consistently (Dearden, 2014). This has resulted in the generation of a growing body of work on how universities plan their language policies (Liddicoat, 2016).

Supremacy of English Language Proficiency: Identity Transmission and Transgression among Bangladeshi Graduates

“…In the post-colonial era, English has become an essential second language (Rahman & Singh, 2020). Due to the demand of globalisation, Bangladesh has become a part of the neoliberal economy (Anwaruddin, 2013).…”

“…The educated and elite social groups do not use their mother tongue at home because they perceive their westernised lifestyle as superior to that of the locals. They use English as a medium of communication at home and send their children to the English-medium institutions (Islam & Shukran, 2018;Rahman & Singh, 2020;Sultana, 2018;). Furthermore, English-medium schools are growing in Bangladesh as the rich guardians presume that proficiency in English brings good career prospects.…”

The Ideology Towards English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) Adoption in Higher Education in Malaysia: A Case Study

“…According to Spolsky (2009), ideology is the "values or status given to named languages, varieties, and features" (p.4) that play a critical role in this language's selection by its speakers. As a result, language management and language policy and planning (LPP) have become a more regional phenomena (Rahman & Singh, 2020;Rahman et al, 2020a). Therefore, while implementing English as an MOI policy, the language ideologies of the higher education stakeholders must be acknowledged, as eventually they will implement the policy into practice.…”

Problematizing EMI language policy in a transnational world

“…In line with the growing reality that English is often the lingua franca in academic and economic domains, Zhang (2018) illustrated that the implementation of an EMI language policy makes it possible to deliver the three aforementioned features of international higher education in non-English dominant countries (e.g., Rahman & Mehar Singh, 2019). The rapid spread of EMI programs in non-English dominant countries has, however, invited criticism from scholars (e.g., Piller & Cho, 2013; Phan, 2013; Phan & Barnawi, 2015; Zhang, 2018), who have critiqued the consequences of imposing an EMI language policy at the institutional level.…”

“…While there are multiple levels (societal, institutional, and interpersonal) at which such policies are enacted (Hornberger & Johnson, 2007), academic institutions are often significant policy arbiters as they serve as crucial switchboards (Blommaert, 2010; De Costa, 2010) that connect policies at the societal and interpersonal levels. In particular, English medium of instruction (EMI) policies that mandate English as the primary means of academic content delivery have played a pivotal role in enabling universities in countries such as Bangladesh (Rahman & Mehar Singh, 2019), China (e.g., Hu, 2009; Song, 2019; Zhang, 2018), Saudi Arabia (Barnawi, 2018; Phan & Barnawi, 2015), and Vietnam (Phan, 2018) to establish themselves on the world stage and engage with the global community. Even though several scholars (e.g., Coleman, 2006; Jenkins, 2019a; Knight, 2013, 2016; Macaro et al, 2018) have investigated EMI policies across different contexts, the following central question concerning these policies still persists: in what ways has the implementation of EMI policies transformed the higher education sector, and subsequently affected primary social actors, such as students, teachers, and administrators embedded within these shifting contexts?…”