Problematizing EMI language policy in a transnational world

Abstract

Language policies generally seek to establish, regulate, and conform linguistic practices – whether explicit or implicit – that occur within an ‘authorized’ domain. 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? These concerns, we posit, are amplified by the transnational movements of people and institutions (Duff, 2015) and the ever-increasing speed and agility with which TESOL as a field has to respond to the shifting tides of globalization (Barnawi, 2020). Given this conspicuous gap in an ever-evolving English language policy landscape, we set out to critically review previous works that have examined the implementation of EMI policies within a transnational higher education (TNHE) context. TNHE is characterized by the transformation of higher education across the globe (Knight, 2013; Kosmützky & Putty, 2016) as Western-based universities export models – driven by a neoliberal agenda to maximize financial profit – through the establishment of overseas branch campuses. In reviewing works that examine TNHE, we aim to stimulate dialogue on this contemporary phenomenon.

Transnational Universities and English Medium Instruction in China: How Admissions, Language Support and Language Use Differ in Chinese Universities

“…When the hegemonic status of English is received among local students, they often position themselves as vulnerable language learners and are inhibited from participating in intercultural communication. In this respect, De Costa et al (2020) have called for more research that explores affordances in the TNHE curricula concerning the use of English as a lingua franca and developing a critical intercultural awareness in students that embraces the multilingual backgrounds of students and faculty.…”

“…While previous research has situated policy arbiters at an institutional level (e.g. De Costa et al, 2020), in our study an EMI arbiter is defined more broadly as any person whose perspectives or actions have influence in their immediate sphere of EMI implementation. Accordingly, our final sample included four senior managers (e.g.…”

Inclusive Transnational Education Partnerships: A Case Study of a Master of Arts in TESOL Program

“…Similarly, in Australia, a 20% drop in international student enrolments, leading to a 3.3 billion dollar drop in revenue, was predicted (Karp, 2020). There have also been widespread reports of international students, particularly those from China or East Asian countries, facing discrimination and racism during the pandemic (De Costa et al, 2020; Mittelmeier and Cockayne, 2020), and this has contributed to the unwillingness of many parents to send their children abroad. Although fewer students are going abroad, the aspiration to gain an international education remains strong, with ‘studying abroad still a dream’ (Naidu, 2020).…”

“…This is somewhat disturbing because the prohibitive cost of such tests prevents many from taking the test, barring them from access to TNHE, a thriving industry that has already come under fire for its elitist nature (De Wit and Jones, 2018). Increasingly, the unlimited growth of EMI has come under criticism because it has unwittingly contributed to the valorization of certain varieties of English, the decline of knowledge (and arguably language) development of local languages, and the commodification of English language teaching (Altbach and de Wit, 2018; De Costa et al, 2020), all of which may have the intended and/or unintended consequence of excluding particular linguistic, cultural and socio-economic groups.…”

“…Although the rise of EMI has spawned an explosion in research, De Costa et al (2020) have noted the absence of research that specifically looks at the influence of EMI on teachers’ and students’ teaching and learning. In their comprehensive review of 83 studies on EMI in higher education, Macaro et al (2018) concluded that there is insufficient evidence that EMI benefits either language or content learning.…”