Rethinking of EMI in higher education: a critical view on its scope, definition and quality

ABSTRACT

Although it has grown at an exponential rate globally, English medium instruction’s (EMI) conceptually problematic nature steered more confusion than clarity and consensus in the contexts of higher education (HE). In the field literature, the dominant paradigm pertains to descriptive statements rather than definitions and research seemed to reach a saturation point where a new vision is required that of problem solving. By employing a critical stance towards globalisation hence internationalisation and opting for a multilingual perspective, this conceptual paper presents arguments firstly on the concepts that are involved in the definition of EMI and then on EMI teacher training and EMI policy while keeping a focus on learning in EMI HE settings. In so doing, definitions for the concepts of EMI and EMI quality are provided as prospective reference points for HE stakeholders to adhere to during their EMI development practices. Concluding remarks on internationalization as being one of the motivations to implement EMI in HE settings and calls for research on critical EMI and EMI content teacher competencies are also provided.

KEYWORDS:

• English medium instruction
• EMI policy and quality
• EMI teacher training
• Critical EMI
• EMI in multilingual settings
• higher education

Introduction

Teaching academic subjects in and the teaching of other languages are neither new concepts nor new phenomena. The concept of combining academic instruction and English language teaching (ELT) is often labelled as ‘immersion’ or ‘content-based instruction’ in North America while ‘content and language integrated leaning’ (CLIL) is generally (but not exclusively) used in Europe (Macaro et al., 2018). Although the literature has mixed segmental-labelling, CLIL is commonly preferred for K12 while the relatively new term ‘English medium instruction’ (EMI) is dominantly attached to higher education (HE¹) internationally (Pecorari & Malmström, 2018).

Besides their segmental distinction, fundamentally, CLIL is implemented as a result of a policy that adopts a dual-focused educational approach with explicit language and content learning objectives (Galloway & Rose, 2021). EMI, on the other hand, is not implemented as a result of a policy (to date no HE institution has an available EMI policy) and language learning is generally assumed by HE policymakers as a perceived benefit of EMI programs (Lasagabaster, 2022).

EMI’s momentum in its expansion globally has been striking and mainly fuelled by the concept of the internationalization of HE (Dafouz & Smit, 2020) that is commonly defined as the process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of HE (Knight, 2003). Additionally, the modernization of universities (Zhang, 2018), access to the international job market (Barnawi, 2021), competition between state and private universities to access funds (Macaro & Akıncıoğlu, 2018) are examples of motivations for the implementation of EMI in HE. Interestingly, Maastricht University’s International Management program was one of the first academic programs offered in EMI to attract international students, which quickly became popular in the 1980s and led to EMI HE programs gaining prevalence in Europe and beyond (Lasagabaster, 2022).

However, fuelling strong criticism over EMI, the internationalization of HE is often seen as a top-down and politically motivated decision leading to social stratification and inequality (Phillipson, 2017) rather than an educational approach (Lasagabaster, 2022). Resultantly, for example, national identity, culture, minority languages, justice and access to education are frequently debated in the contexts of European HE (Wilkinson & Gabriëls, 2021) that sometimes ends up in law-courts i.e. of the Netherlands (Sandtrom, 2019) and Italy (Molino & Campagna, 2014). In addition, the spread of EMI globally is sometimes aligned with the agendas of neoliberal market forces (Lasagabaster, 2022) which commercialize the growing context of academic capitalism (Phillipson, 2017) by raising tuition-fees hence revenue of EMI universities (Mckinley & Rose, 2022). Finally, internationalization is also criticized for accelerating the Englishization of HE curricula (Wächter & Maiworm, 2014) which is more broadly defined as the process through which English gradually gains ground in particular domains (i.e. education, politics, culture, and economics) where another language was used before (Wilkinson & Gabriëls, 2021).

Critical EMI

A critical stance is needed to better understand the contexts of and debates around EMI. In so doing, firstly, a choice between the theoretical lenses provided by monolingualism and multilingualism is to be made for a solid conceptualization of EMI (Han, 2023). Briefly, monolingualism posits the view that E ‘English’ holds a dominant and powerful role with considerable symbolic and exchange value (Codó & Sunyol, 2019) while commonly manifesting itself as the concept of ‘English-only’ in many EMI HE contexts. On the flip side, multilingualism per se is not neutral but rather hierarchical and ideologically invested (Barakos & Selleck, 2019) facilitating the use of multiple languages by acknowledging that EMI teachers, students and administration are to be considered as bilinguals who need to negotiate meaning (Han, 2023) in the multilingual and multicultural landscape of EMI HE settings.

Conceptualizing EMI from a multilingual theoretical stance, then, provides the critical views and tools to better comprehend the motivations for/behind, for example, the choices and practices pertaining to language use in EMI HE settings. Resonating with this critical view, post-structuralist theory of translanguaging challenges the structuralist ideologies of monolingualism (Tian et al., 2020) while acknowledging the contextual constraints and expectations that are imposed on other languages (Vogel & García, 2017). Furthermore, in EMI HE contexts, translanguaging can not only challenge the imposed English-only condition for success but also present the critical lenses through which multiple languages can be utilised by teachers as accessible repertoires of multilingual, multisemiotic, multisensory, and multimodal communicative resources (Li, 2018) that could foster culturally sustainable contexts of learning where creative ways of knowing, being, and expressing are promoted (García et al., 2021).

Secondly, without employing a critical stance towards global academic capitalism (Phillipson, 2008), it is not possible to fully comprehend, for example, why EMI universities commonly appear to avoid allocating the necessary resources/funds for EMI Teacher training at the expense of ensuring quality learning (Mckinley & Rose, 2022). In other words, when ‘critical EMI’ lenses are used to scrutinize the commercialisation of HE, the underlying motivations behind the objectives (i.e. commercial/non-commercial, political/non-political etc.) and practices (i.e. management, recruitment etc.) of both HE decision makers and non/commercially oriented stakeholders could be better comprehended.

Finally, this paper postulates that the concept of ‘critical EMI’ employs a problem-solving-oriented stance towards EMI HE contexts that questions what is taken for granted, challenging dominant ideologies and normative assumptions and indicating problematic decisions/practices by policymakers and other stakeholders (Barakos & Selleck, 2019).

Definition and scope of EMI

Labelling and defining EMI

When exploring the literature, conceptually problematic nature of EMI firstly manifests itself in the labelling of academic courses/programs regardless of their educational segment. Course/program labels in K12 vary from ‘English as a medium of instruction’, ‘English-medium education’, ‘English taught programs’, ‘parallel-language education’, ‘partial English-medium’, ‘English content-based instruction’, to ‘content and language integrated learning’ (CLIL), ‘content-based instruction’ (CBI), ‘content-based language teaching’ (CBLT), ‘immersion’, and ‘sheltered instruction’ (Galloway & Rose, 2021; Murphy et al., 2020). In HE contexts, on the other hand, EMI is commonly used as an academic program label. While CLIL is often used, ‘integrating content and language in higher education’ (ICLHE), ‘English medium education in multilingual university settings’ (EMEMUS), ‘English medium and Spanish as a first language’ are used at varying frequencies (Dafouz & Smit, 2020).

Secondly, EMI’s definitions are inconsistent and lacking consensus amongst the pundits. One of the reasons for this could be that merging the concepts of ‘English’, ‘medium’ and ‘instruction’ into a new phenomenon is a challenging endeavour in an international academic context (Pecorari & Malmström, 2018). Exploring the literature, Table 1 presents six definitions of EMI found at HE level and this paper’s definition (Definition 7).

Table 1. Definitions of EMI at HE level.

No	Date	Definition by	EMI Definition	Publication
1	2014	Ernesto Macaro Catherine Walter Julie Dearden Ting Zhao	EMI can be defined 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.	(Dearden, 2014)
2	2016	Ernesto Macaro Mustafa Akıncıoğlu Julie Dearden	EMI can be defined as the teaching of academic subjects through the medium of English in non-Anglophone countries.	(Macaro et al., 2016)
3	2016	Ernesto Macaro Julie Dearden Ernesto Macaro Julie Dearden Samantha Curle Jack Pun Jiangshan An	EMI can be 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.	(Dearden & Macaro, 2016) (Macaro et al., 2018)
4	2018	Emma Dafouz	EMI is understood as the teaching and learning of an academic subject (i.e. economic history, chemistry, aeronautical engineering, etc.) using English as the language of instruction, and usually without an explicit focus on language learning or specific language aims.	(Dafouz & Smit, 2020)
5	2018	Ernesto Macaro Mustafa Akıncıoğlu	We adopt this version (No:3) of definition while acknowledging that ‘use of English’ can be operationalised in many ways: sole use, partial use, codeswitching and so on.	Macaro & Akıncıoğlu, 2018
6	2019	Ernesto Macaro Mustafa Akıncıoğlu Shuangmiao Han	EMI in universities is the practice of offering academic subjects such as engineering, business studies or medicine through the medium of English in countries where the first language (L1) of the majority of students is not English.	Macaro et al., 2020
7	2023	Mustafa Akıncıoğlu	EMI can be defined as the use of English (for example sole use, partial use, code switching and so on) both by students and content teachers to learn/teach academic subjects (other than English itself) within EMI settings regardless of their locale.^12	Akıncıoğlu, 2023^13

Definition 1 by Ernesto Macaro, Catherine Walter, Julie Dearden and Ting Zhao (published in Dearden, 2014) could be one of the most cited in the literature. This definition is interesting as it was suggested by EMI researchers who were part of the Centre for Research and Development in English Medium Instruction² at Oxford University Department of Education. They carried out one of the first global scale research projects with a particular focus on EMI at HE level between 2013 and 2014 to provide an initial picture of EMI as a globally trending new phenomenon.

As can be seen in Table 1, a reference to locale (i.e. in countries or jurisdictions where L1 of the majority of the population is not English; non-Anglophone countries) is included in definitions except Definition 4 and 7 that appear not to assign a particular importance to geographical context. Notably, Definition 5 and 7 particularly expand on the term ‘use’ (i.e. for example sole use, partial use, code switching and so on) enabling the definitions to gain more conceptual edge by allowing both English and translanguaging in the processes of academic instruction in varying ways.

All definitions in Table 1 include a reference to ‘the study of academic subjects’ while only Definition 4 (i.e. economic history, chemistry, aeronautical engineering, etc.) and 6 (i.e. engineering, business studies or medicine) exemplify what is meant by academic subjects. Interestingly, only Definition 3 clarifies what academic subject/s (other than English itself) are to be excluded in EMI research. This clarification was a result of discussion among the researchers about which academic subject departments to involve in a research project that was carried out in a group of universities with a focus on EMI content teacher and English language specialist collaboration in lesson planning (Macaro et al., 2016).

Briefly, from the definitions of EMI presented in Table 1, locales where EMI is observed and ways in which English is used emerge as two noticeable themes. Interestingly these two key aspects used in these definitions can be seen within the scopes of the two recent debates on the concept of EMI which are briefly presented in the following paragraphs.

Scope of EMI

In depicting the global scope and expansion of EMI, it is worthwhile including perspectives from commercially and non-commercially-oriented stakeholders in international education. Firstly, the British Council appears as a commercially-oriented organization which has retained interest in EMI since the early 2010s. While introducing EMI as a globally trending new phenomenon (Dearden, 2014) that stimulates interest more than providing clarity, the British Council frequently co-presented (i.e. BritishCouncil/TEPAV, 2015) reports (some with policy and practice/solution recommendations) for both global³ and country-specific⁴ audiences and decision makers.

The US Department of State, on the other hand, as a non-commercially oriented international stakeholder, recently signalled and urged a better understanding of a globally trending shift from ELT (with more communicative purposes) to EMI (with more academic purposes) both in K12 and HE segments (personal communication with US Embassy RELO – Ankara, 2021). OECD⁵ also signals a similar trend especially in K12, as a response to which the OECD PISA Test 2024 (OECD, 2022) introduced an optional test topic under ‘Second Language (L2) Assessment’ which, briefly, covers the assessment of student’s academic performance in L2.

From a multilingual and multicultural perspective, Baker and Hüttner (2017) compellingly argue that academic programs at both Anglophone and non-Anglophone universities share more similarities than differences as they both became multilingual educational settings where a considerable percentage of teachers and students are likely to have English as L2. Thus, this paper argues that excluding the Anglophone locales when defining the concept of EMI, shortcomings inevitably occur in fully capturing the diversity and magnitude of the spread of EMI globally since many lecture rooms in Anglophone countries/regions bear close resemblance to their non-Anglophone counterparts (Wingate, 2022). These similarities can be, for example, the linguistic challenges that are confronted by the students whose L1 is not English (Kuteeva et al., 2020), understanding the accented English of non-native lecturers (Doiz et al., 2019), understanding the lecture content delivered in English (Dafouz & Smit, 2020) and so on.

Resonating strongly with the above arguments, Pecorari and Malmström (2018) present a compelling critique on Macaro et al.’s (2016) (hence Definition 1, 3, 5 and 6 in Table 1) involvement of countries/jurisdictions in their definition of EMI, with a focus on enforcing boundaries between HE contexts that share similar characteristics. Rose et al. (2021) disagreed with this critique by arguing that it could conflate EMI issues with wider internationalization and educational issues in general. In response, they presented a well-structured defence for why EMI should be confined to non-Anglophone HE settings by providing five arguments as their definition (p.1):

1. fortifies links to historical terminology in educational research

2. acknowledges EMI as a designated policy decision, whether by top-down policy makers or grassroots educational stakeholders

3. recognises contextual differences in students’ English language proficiency, and guides curriculum developers and practitioners to address language needs

4. acknowledges differences in L1 use across settings

5. reflects unique challenges of teacher competence and professional development

This conceptual paper, on the other hand, sharing Pecorari and Malmström’s (2018) stance, argues strongly that EMI definitions that enforce lines between Anglophone and non-Anglophone contexts fundamentally eschew important similarities between these two contexts. In other words, definitions of EMI should primarily signal whether or not English language development is aimed at as a result of implementing EMI, which view ultimately disregards the contexts/locales of HE settings. To do so, in the contexts of EMI HE, ELT can be positioned either centrally to foster general and academic English development (Taguchi, 2014) or peripherally where language development still exists impromptu (Coleman, 2006).

The field literature has a plethora of entries favouring positioning ELT centrally in EMI HE settings. For example, concepts such as ICLHE (Integrated content and language in HE) (Fortanet-Gómez, 2020), and EMEMUS (Dafouz & Smit, 2022) perceive ELT and the implementation of EMI as a symbiotic relationship where language development and academic content learning are promoted. More recently, Wingate (2022) shared her arguments on how ELT could be positioned within EMI HE settings. Briefly, expanding the scope of ELT to English for Specific Purposes (ESP) and English for Academic Purposes (EAP), Wingate (2022) presents a compelling argument that comparisons between Anglophone and non-Anglophone HE contexts are likely to show more similarities than differences in terms of EMI, and the concept of ESP/EAP (that is attached to Anglophone HE) and EMI (that is attached to non-Anglophone HE) have much to share in terms of knowledge and good practice.

Although this conceptual paper limits its scope to how ELT is positioned in EMI HE settings, it acknowledges that a united perspective of the definition and scope of EMI is lacking in the literature. Thus, I argue that a definition that addresses similarities/commonalities more than differences/variances (i.e. Definition 7 in Table 1) is needed to describe EMI as a global phenomenon including Anglophone HE contexts. In so doing, firstly, EMI HE contexts should be considered as multicultural and multilingual educational sites. Secondly, by conceiving HE institutions as active social agents in the advancement of societies, ELT/L2 development should be positioned within such contexts as they bear more resemblances than differences globally as sites for academic knowledge construction.

Resultantly, by disregarding the locale in definition/s and placing a greater emphasis on similarities/commonalities among EMI HE settings globally (Wingate, 2022), a shift from E ‘English’ to I ‘instruction’ becomes imperative allowing a greater emphasis both on the teaching and learning of academic content. Firstly, this shift assigns E the role of a ‘tool’ for teaching and learning rather than being a ‘target’ to be sought as conceptualized by Baker and Hüttner (2017). As presented earlier, in their definition, Macaro and Akıncıoğlu (2018) place an emphasis on possible ‘uses’ of English that can be operationalised in many ways (i.e. sole use, partial use, codeswitching and so on) which are part of the instructional processes. This postulation conceives academic instruction as a form of teaching involving both imparting knowledge and facilitating learning (Fernando & Marikar, 2017), the efficacy of which is more dependent on the teaching pedagogy and methodology than the language proficiency level of the teacher (Morell, 2020).

Secondly, this proposed shift from E to I places a greater focus on academic content learning. In their recent systemic review, Molino et al. (2022) report that shifting the focus from E to I in EMI university settings does not seem to have a significant effect on academic content learning, moreover there seems to be a language proficiency range above which the use of English does not have any impact on content learning either. This finding is in line with the results of Dimova and Kling’s (2018) review of the literature and Lijia’s (2022) systematic analysis of the learning processes involved in Chinese EMI HE settings. Neither showed any significant relation between English level and academic success. Moreover, Molino et al.’s (2022) findings resonate with Murphy et al.’s (2020) and Lasagabaster’s (2022) systemic review findings that teaching via EMI does not seem to harm content learning for students. In support of these reports, del Campo et al. (2023) and Dafouz et al. (2014) did not report any significant difference between Spanish-medium and EMI Business Administration program learning outcomes. Briefly, although a focus shift from E to I does not seem to have a negative impact on content learning, more research-based evidence to support the overall attainment levels of EMI academic programs is needed (Doiz & Lasagabaster, 2023; Murphy et al., 2020).

In terms of the concepts of ‘use’ and ‘medium’ that are involved in the definitions of EMI presented in Table 1, a noteworthy argument is presented by Han (2023). If both terms are used interchangeably with a meaning that English is a language tool in the monolingual EMI classroom, then the majority of EMI literature showcases the research and discussions around it (Han, 2023). However, employing a multilingual stance, the concept of ‘medium’ could not be alternated with the concept of ‘use’ which begs a greater scrutiny to answer the questions around ‘how/in what ways are they used?’ With reference to Murray’s (1988) definition of the concept of medium in educational settings, ‘English medium’ could be framed as established methods (e.g. asynchronous, synchronous etc.) of communication through English within EMI HE settings.

Although this paper reserves a detailed discussion on the concept of ‘medium’ as specific communication types (e.g. written, spoken, digital and so on) (Murray, 1998) in multilingual EMI HE settings, the concepts of ‘channel’ and ‘mode’ should be highlighted briefly at this point as socially shaped and culturally formed semiotic resources (i.e. writing, speech etc.) for meaning making (Kress, 2010). Put differently, in multilingual contexts of EMI HE, English is one of the available semiotic tools/resources which can be utilised in varying modes in the process of academic instruction hence teaching and learning. This paper calls for research on EMI with a multilingual perspective particularly treating English as a medium including various methods with modes and channels.

Concept of EMI quality and EMI teacher training

EMI quality

EMI is under-researched in a number of areas including the quality standards of EMI academic programs, hence EMI HE institutions. To date, there has been no literature defining the concept of ‘EMI quality’. Addressing this gap, this paper defines EMI quality as ‘the level of excellence at which the institutional EMI policy is reflected in instructional practices (i.e. pedagogies, instructional materials, linguistic landscape and so on), learning outcomes and alumni performance’. Resonating strongly with Slavin’s (1995) definition of quality instruction as the degree to which information or skills are presented whereby students are able to comprehend new knowledge, this paper argues that an institution’s strategic decision on the use of English (i.e. partiality, fully, through code switching and so on) as medium of instruction should firstly be translated into an institutional EMI policy that can then provide a basis for EMI quality control and enhancement protocols with a focus on institutionalisation, quality, sustainability and learning outcome.

Although growing at an exponential rate globally, literature on EMI interestingly lacks both dedicated policy and quality to be referenced by EMI HE stakeholders (i.e. policy makers, managers, teachers, program designers, students etc.). Moreover, there is no EMI HE institution globally that has a dedicated EMI policy⁶ document in place (Lasagabaster, 2022) which guides the construction of EMI quality protocols. Put differently, within institutional contexts of HE where the concepts of policy and quality are fundamentally in a symbiotic relationship, the absence of dedicated EMI policy inevitably results in the deficiency of both a quality definition of EMI and policy-fed EMI quality control and enhancement protocols that could be referenced by all EMI HE stakeholders.

Regarding the concept of institutional EMI policy, Spolsky (2012) compellingly argues that language practices, beliefs and management frame language policies that are indeed formed by political and cultural ideology ultimately treating language/s as more than simply a means of communication. As presented earlier, EMI HE contexts are subject to the influences of global political and neoliberal-economic forces, through i.e. internationalization, academic capitalism, Englishization, neo-liberal market agendas etc. On this specific point, critical EMI can undertake a crucial role in the construction and development of EMI policies and quality control and enhancement protocols by maintaining a focus on EMI HE contexts as being sites for ideology, dominance, power and marketization (Phillipson, 2008).

Returning to the discussion of the interplay between policy and quality in EMI HE, the League of European Research Universities (LERU) carried out a seminal research project within 17 LERU member universities with a focus on institutional language policy (ILP) and the impact of implementation of EMI on teaching and learning quality standards (Kortmann, 2019). LERU ILP-2019, firstly, points out that the decision for implementing EMI is a strategic one that is made at policy-maker level therefore it needs to be institutionalized through a solid and dedicated policy document. Secondly, LERU ILP-2019 reports on the negative impacts of the absence of a dedicated EMI policy especially on teaching and learning quality standards. Finally, although LERU ILP-2019 presents recommendations for EMI quality control and enhancement, it does not provide a definition for EMI quality. More recently, Akıncıoğlu (2022) presented discussions on the concepts of institutional EMI policy, EMI quality control and enhancement with a particular focus on learning outcome in EMI HE settings.

In the global HE context where EMI policy and policy informed EMI quality control and enhancement are lacking, interestingly, EMI programs commonly promote to be of higher quality (Macaro et al., 2016) to attract international students. The emphasis placed on quality is both part of commercial promotion aiming to recruit international students who pay higher tuition fees hence increase the revenue and part of institutional strategy on internationalization. One striking example can be found, in the French Agency⁷ website which promotes the number of EMI programs offered by French universities to attract international students:

You can attend your course in English. With over 1,600 study courses available … ‘Taught in English’ […] By studying in English in France, you will enjoy the excellence of the education taught in French institutions, the quality of French internationally recognised degrees … 

The French Agency makes a direct connection between EMI academic programs and their quality for which they do not have a definition. It could be argued that any EMI HE stakeholders and/or government/private organizations that promote EMI academic programs share the French Agency’s situation. Moreover, for example, there are quality accreditation organizations (e.g. EAQUALS⁸ and BALEAP⁹) and university ranking companies (e.g. QS¹⁰ and THE¹¹) that observe, collect and analyse data including the topic of ‘educational quality’ in the global contexts of EMI HE without having/offering (to date) any definition for the concept of EMI quality.

Put differently, it could be argued that in the absence of any definition (until recently by this paper, 2023) the concept of EMI quality could be one of the most commonly assumed quality references in international HE settings. On the other hand, although recently researchers started to focus on providing models for EMI policy such as Dubow et al.’s (2021) the ‘EMI Quality Management and Assurance’ scheme at the University of Freiburg, Ou et al.’s (2022) ‘Ecological Framework’ that aims to guide EMI HE policy development and Akıncıoğlu’s (2022) ‘EMI Quality Management Program’ that aims to institutionalise EMI policy over an extended period of time, EMI literature still severely lacks progressive and constructive discussions on the crucial concepts of EMI policy and quality.

This conceptual paper has thus far presented arguments for the definition of EMI, internationalization of HE, critical EMI, while opting for a multilingual theoretical stance. Translanguaging also provides the lenses through which all accessible languages within EMI HE settings could be seen as accessible multilingual, multisemiotic, multisensory, and multimodal communicative resources for teaching and learning while the focus is shifted from E ‘English’ to I ‘Instruction’. The following paragraphs provide a brief account of this paper’s call for the re-thinking of EMI teacher training in HE settings while providing a reference point for ‘EMI quality’ as defined earlier in this paper.

EMI teacher training

As presented earlier, the implementation of EMI is a top-down decision made by policy makers who commonly assume a problem-free instructional language shift from L1 to English thereby both academic content learning and language development are predicted (Akıncıoğlu, 2022). However, this shift is by no means straightforward and imposes a formidable pedagogical and methodological shift (Morell, 2020) in multicultural and multilingual contexts in EMI HE. In addition, as presented earlier, employing a multilingual theoretical stance, this paper’s critical outlook on EMI HE places a particular emphasis on multilingualism and translanguaging with a focus on learning.

Briefly, the ‘multilingual turn’ in all fields of education (Conteh & Meier, 2014) re-shapes the instructional pedagogies in EMI HE settings by challenging the dominance of monolingual practices (i.e. English-only) that undermine students’ multilingual identities. When a shift in EMI instructional pedagogies occurs favouring translanguaging by using students’ L1 over an extended period of time (Chalmers, 2019) research shows that better content learning is more likely to be facilitated while students’ meaning making, creativity and criticality of their educational experience and motivation improve (García, 2019). However, students’ linguistic repertoire as an asset for enhancing content learning is often reported to be disregarded by EMI teachers (Doiz et al., 2019) one of the reasons behind which could be that these teachers are mostly academic and researchers who commonly do not have any pedagogical training prior to their recruitment (Murphy et al., 2020).

Recent literature entries show that both EMI HE decision makers and teachers are gradually gaining awareness of the implications of imparting complex academic content to students whose command of English is limited (Contero et al., 2018). Recent studies also reveal that decision makers and teachers are indicating a need for training programs that award certification of EMI teacher competencies ultimately ensuring quality teaching and learning in EMI HE settings (Macaro et al., 2020). Signalling a similar priority, Sánchez-García and Dafouz (2020) argue that EMI teacher training plays a crucial role in especially ensuring the quality of EMI that is disregarded by both policy and research. Consequently, in the context of EMI HE, the concept of ‘EMI teacher training’ is emerging as a priority area for development with a particular focus on critical EMI and EMI quality including a focus on learning.

Conventionally in EMI HE contexts, English language specialists are tasked with designing and delivering EMI teacher training that commonly (initially) has a focus on E ‘English’ (Deroey, 2023). For example, in a study which surveyed European universities (O’Dowd, 2018), 48 out of 70 institutions offered EMI training courses that mainly focused on EMI teachers’ language use. It is commonly observed that some EMI teacher training programs aim to help EMI content teachers to gain language awareness and learn some of the ELT methodologies, which could also help them to improve their students’ English while teaching their academic subjects (Beaumont, 2020). For example, this training objective could extend to EMI teachers gaining a sense of ownership of English as a lingua franca for which Yuan (2020) even designed a framework for EMI teacher training.

However, effective academic instruction via EMI is more complex than delivering classes in ‘good’ English thus urging research focusing on better comprehending the interplay of language and pedagogy. The literature presents discussions such as Dimova and Kling’s (2018) suggestion to more precisely operationalize the term ‘pedagogy’ by differentiating linguistic pedagogy (i.e. teacher’s pragmatics, intonation, and rhetorical signalling) and behavioural pedagogy (i.e. student involvement, teaching activities, eye contact, and use of visuals). With a focus on EMI teacher’s multimodal competence, Morell (2020) argues that effective EMI pedagogy can be framed as the ability to use and combine non/verbal modes of communication to construct and convey meaning. Another noteworthy discussion is presented by Fortanet-Gómez (2020) in terms of designing effective EMI teacher training with three essential dimensions that are communication and specific language use, pedagogy and didactics, and multilingualism and multiculturalism.

Expanding on the design and delivery of effective EMI teacher training, it is a complex endeavour that requires efficiently addressing EMI teacher’s needs (Beaumont, 2020) and institutional objectives (if any) set by, for example, EMI academic programs, EMI policy and EMI quality enhancement protocols. Firstly, despite the usefulness of EMI teachers’ needs analyses that in most cases indicate ‘language-use’ as a high priority area for improvement, trainee EMI teachers frequently realize the need for pedagogical (re)training as a result of the training they attended (Hartle, 2020). Put differently, as Deroey (2023) compellingly argues, perceived needs (or the absence thereof) do not always correspond to the broader institutional objectives. Secondly, to address the institutional objectives effectively, EMI teacher training should be aligned with institutional EMI policy and EMI quality (if any) that ultimately set the quality benchmark categories and standards. To do so, rather than assigning the English language specialists tasked with the design and delivery of EMI teacher training, other institutional stakeholders (i.e. academic program designers, professional development experts and centres, EMI program managers and so on) should be involved in the process of both design and delivery (for good practices see Dubow et al., 2021 and Fortanet-Gómez, 2020).

Another area for attention in the design and delivery of effective EMI teacher training pertains to general and specific profiles of EMI teacher trainees. In terms of the general profile of EMI teachers, training designers and EMI HE decision makers should keep in mind that, firstly, trainees are commonly already-busy academics and researchers who are assigned with teaching and/or managerial tasks. This general profile is further complicated by the fact that EMI teachers commonly do not see language development as part of their teaching (Macaro et al., 2016). Therefore, participating in a training that aims to gear them with language teaching tools could trigger strong resistance hence low motivation. In terms of their specific profile, EMI teachers have varying levels of language proficiency, disciplinary affiliation and teaching experiences and motivation for teaching via EMI (ibid.) making such trainee groups rather heterogeneous.

Keeping these profiles in mind, it should be noted that EMI teacher training commonly tends to happen on a voluntary basis and incentives such as workload reduction, promotional opportunities, accreditation/certification are not offered (Deroey, 2023). Consequently, regarding effective delivery, topics such as time-flexibility, commitment level and work load to complete the training, incentive/s on offer etc. should be considered (Macaro et al., 2020). Another topic for consideration is that EMI teacher training/s should (ideally) be aligned with institutional EMI policy and EMI quality enhancement protocols with a focus on learning.

At this point, this paper presents a caveat that the concepts of ‘learning focused’ EMI quality, research, pedagogies etc. presented so far should not be confused with ‘learner centred’ pedagogies (LCP) that is commonly attached to K12 and more recently HE (Starkey, 2019). As Bremner et al. (2022) report in their systematic review, there still is relatively little objective evidence for the efficacy of LCP (Guthrie, 2017 for K12 and Molino et al., 2022 for EMI HE). Learning focused EMI ultimately, as signalled in this paper’s definitions for EMI and EMI quality, concerns the impact of any instructional practices on learning. Put differently, in the contexts of HE, any EMI practices should ultimately and primarily aim to reflect positively on learning. The reason behind this caveat is that the literature has entries commonly mirroring K12-CLIL teacher training programs in EMI HE (Murphy et al., 2020) perhaps aiming a quick transfer of good practice between educational segments, which requires relatively low budgets.

However, as presented so far, K12-CLIL and HE EMI are fundamentally different educational segments and ultimate attention should be given especially when inter-transferring practices that would have an in/direct impact on learning. One example for this caveat is that of the British Council’s recommendation to Turkish HE authorities to provide EMI teachers with CLIL teacher training to improve their teaching (BritishCouncil/TEPAV, 2015, p. 107). As shown earlier, the present literature fundamentally disagrees with the direct transfers of K12-CLIL practices (i.e. teacher training) to EMI HE. Thus, the British Council’s recommendation (and other similar recommendations to different decision makers internationally if any), firstly, begs a critical scrutiny of their historical and specific educational contexts. Secondly, research focusing on the impact of such recommendations especially on learning quality could enlighten policy makers in their future decision-making. Finally, as provided in this example, a critical (problem-solving-oriented) stance to better comprehend their motivation/s (i.e. whether or not the most effective solution/s to the problem/s in hand is/are prioritised over their commercial targets and so on) should be employed initially (before too late) when dealing with all kinds of commercially and non-commercially oriented HE stakeholders.

Conclusions

This conceptual paper aimed to contribute to the expansion of constructive discussions of the concept of EMI in HE contexts, the literature on which is dominated by mirrored statements and problem labels. In so doing, it is aimed to be thought-provoking by employing a critical (problem-solving-oriented) and multilingual theoretical stance towards the EMI HE concepts at hand (namely internationalisation, the interplay of ELT and academic instruction, the scope and definition of EMI, quality and teacher training), otherwise they could continue to cause more confusion than clarity and guidance.

EMI HE settings are not only multilingual sites for academic knowledge construction but also sites for contesting neoliberal economic and political powers. Thus, in the absence of a critical (problem-solving-oriented) stance, discussions over the key concepts of EMI HE remain but shallow. This conceptual paper, therefore, firstly calls for research on critical EMI while inviting all EMI HE stakeholders to reassess and evaluate both their vision on and ownership levels of EMI.

Secondly, this paper calls for research on EMI quality with a particular focus on learning, which ultimately could provide the EMI HE stakeholders with quality benchmark standards to adhere to in their academic instructional decisions, practices and program development activities such as design and delivery of EMI teacher training. More specifically, research on EMI quality with a focus on learning could have two initial dimensions namely impact studies of EMI teacher training and competencies of EMI teachers.

Statements and declarations

There are not financial or non-financial interests related to this submitted work declared by the author.

Disclosure statement

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

Notes

1 HE involves colleges, universities and vocational training.

2 Later renamed as EMI Oxford Research Group http://www.emi.network

3 BC main website: https://www.britishcouncil.org/education/he-science/knowledge-centre/english-language-higher-education

4 i.e. BC Indonesia EMI Report: https://www.britishcouncil.id/en/programmes/education/emi-higher-education-institutions

5 The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: https://www.oecd.org/

6 Note: Institutional regulations on EMI cannot be categorized as EMI policy documents.

7 https://www.campusfrance.org/en/rendez-vous-en-france-to-study-in-english

8 Evaluation and Accreditation of Quality Language Services https://www.eaquals.org

9 British Association of Lecturers in English for Academic Purposes https://www.baleap.org

10 https://www.qs.com/

11 Times Higher Education https://www.timeshighereducation.com/

12 Only exception being the contexts where all students’ and content teachers’ L1 is English.

13 Current paper.