This section begins by briefly defining English as a medium of instruction (EMI), outlining the development of EMI and explaining the rationale for implementing EMI in universities globally. Selected literature on the positive and the negative aspects of implementing EMI is then discussed.
2.1.1 Definition of English as a medium of instruction (EMI)
Platt, Platt and Richards (1992, p. 225) define medium of instruction as:
the language used in education. In many countries, the medium of instruction is the standard variety of the main or national language of the country. In multilingual countries or regions there may be a choice, or there may be schools in which some subjects are taught in one language and other subjects in another.
EMI in the present study refers to English as the main language used to teach other subjects such as applied science and engineering.
2.1.2 Development of, and rationale for, implementing English medium instruction (EMI) in institutes of higher education
The current language policy in many institutes of higher education and universities globally, especially in contexts where English is not used as the first language, is shifting towards implementing English as a medium of
instruction (Tsui & Tollefson, 2004, 2007). EMI is becoming established in the Asian context, especially in tertiary education (Kirkpatrick, 2014). For
18
government to offer 10-30% of their academic courses in English (Brady, 2008). According to Nunan (2003), English is used as a medium of instruction in Hong Kong tertiary education. It is also reported that EMI is increasingly favoured over Chinese as a medium of instruction in universities, as
publication in Chinese is perceived as not being recognised internationally (Mok, 2007).
A number of factors have contributed to this worldwide trend, one of which is the impact of globalisation (Brutt-Griffler, 2002; Coleman, 2006; Tsui & Tollefson, 2007). For example, the spread of knowledge – especially in the areas of science, technology, and business – and the social and economic benefits that come with globalisation, promote the increased use of English as the global language (Crystal, 2003; Graddol, 1997, 2005, 2006). Another effect of globalisation is that people are more aware of the importance of obtaining higher education through the medium of English.
The trend of ranking universities is another factor which encourages the implementation of EMI (Wilkinson, 2010). Currently, American and British universities are ranked as top universities, and many Asian universities, for instance in Hong Kong, China and Malaysia, desire to obtain the same status (Kirkpatrick, 2014). The concept of enrolling high numbers of international students in the universities to improve the rankings has further promoted the implementation of EMI (Kirkpatrick, 2014; Wilkinson, 2010). International students are also seen as assets to the university in terms of contributing to research and publications in the English language (Altbach, 2010), and as a source of income for both the university and the host country (Bolsmann & Miller, 2008). Because of the income generated from the higher education sector, many British and American universities have established branches in Asia, including Malaysia (Gill, 2005), where English is used as the medium of instruction (Goh, 2006; Kirkpatrick, 2014; Van der Walt, 2013).
Another purpose for the introduction of EMI is to equip domestic students for the global employment market (Maiworm & Wachter, 2002), by improving their English language proficiency through the implementation of EMI in the universities (Aguilar & Rodriguez, 2012; Nor Liza Ali, 2013). Nevertheless, the
19
actual implementation of EMI in tertiary education is not an easy task, and the next section explains some of the challenges of implementing EMI.
2.1.3 Challenges of implementing EMI in universities
The implementation of EMI in universities involves the challenge of successfully integrating both language and content (Doiz, Lasagabaster, & Sierra, 2013; Wilkinson & Zegers, 2008). To illustrate this point, some of the subject lecturers teach content in isolation from language. Studies demonstrated that subject lecturers were more concerned about delivering knowledge or the content aspects of the disciplines, while ignoring the language aspects
(Clemente, Cots, & Arántegui, 2006; Cots, & Clemente, 2011; Dafouz, 2011). In another study, it was found that some content lecturers were reluctant to give students clear instructions, advice and feedback about their academic English usage, due to their belief that the responsibility for teaching English belonged solely to the English specialist. Instead, the content lecturers felt that they were responsible for delivering the subject matter (Jacobs, 2007). Furthermore, even though some content lecturers may be obliged to teach through the medium of English, they are unsure of the amount of English they should emphasise in class. Some lecturers may also argue that the undergraduates entering the university ought to have a sufficiently high English language proficiency to cope with the courses (Doiz et al., 2013).
Another major issue in using EMI is that students may be prevented from achieving their potential learning due to poor English language proficiency. For example, in the Malaysian context, even though English is taught to students in primary and secondary schools, the majority of Malaysian undergraduates are still unable to attain satisfactory English literacy (Naginder, 2006). There are a number of reasons that have contributed to the lack of English proficiency among Malaysians. It is documented that the Malaysian education system is examination-oriented and students are expected to perform well in
examinations (Tuah, 2007). As a result, teachers focus too much on the linguistic aspects of grammar in English classes, which are tested in the national examination (Razianna, 2005). Consequently, although students may perform well in the examination, they may still be unable to apply their
20
knowledge of grammar correctly in oral and written forms (Ambigapathy, 2002, 2006). The implementation of EMI in Malaysian public universities, despite evidence of poor English language proficiency, presents major issues (Ali, Hamid, & Moni, 2011). One of the issues is that the students’ learning potential may be hampered due to the lack of understanding of the subject as students may not be proficient in English. Another problem is that students may not perform well in their assessment when it is conducted in English. In the Malaysian private universities, students are expected to prove that they have attained a required level of English language proficiency, which is also a
requirement in many English-medium programmes globally (Shohamy, 2013).
Another hurdle in implementing EMI is the cultural challenge (Bradford, 2013). According to Sapir (1929), it is impossible to separate culture from language – a point made later by Agar (1995) in his coinage of “languaculture.” The syllabus and methods of teaching, learning, and assessment differ from one country to another (Smith, 2004). For instance, in Japan, short term EMI courses in universities were based on an American model rather than on Japanese pedagogical practices (Bradford, 2013); the approach to teaching and learning in many Western countries tends to be learner-centred, task-based, and to involve critical and creative thinking. Students are expected to actively participate in their lessons rather than passively listen to lectures. However, the approach to teaching and learning in many Asian countries tends to be based on rote learning, the ability to memorise content and teacher-centred learning (Crose, 2011), which is also reflected in the Malaysian context (Koo, 2008; Lee, Hazita & Koo, 2010). Undergraduates are expected to respond critically after reading a text, but some studies have shown that the majority are unable to perform this task in English (Ahmad Mazli Muhammad, 2007). The
expectation that students would be more independent in their own learning is not reflected in some studies of Malaysian undergraduates, as they seem to be heavily dependent on the lecturers (Koo, 2008). Overdependence on lecturers is thought to be largely caused by the dominance of teacher-centred learning in Malaysian schools (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2003) and the cultural tradition of respecting elders. As noted by Fauziah, Parilah and Samsuddeen (2005), “the teacher is seen not as a facilitator but as a fountain of knowledge” (p. 90), and the concept of a learner-centred approach is perceived as “a
21
complete departure from the traditional teacher-centred and text-book driven teaching … [and] independent learners do not seem encouraged in [Malaysia]” (p. 92).
2.1.4 Implications for the present study
The section above defined EMI, and explained the rationale and challenges of implementing EMI in the context of higher education. It is essential in Malaysia to examine the impact and challenges of implementing EMI to ensure on-going quality education, as the Malaysian Government aims to establish Malaysia as a major education hub in Asia, through the establishment of private universities. The implications of EMI for students’ learning are vital; for example, if the learning is hindered due to their poor English proficiency, it is essential to address these issues and to provide solutions to overcome these challenges as students are clients of the private universities. Another essential reason to conduct the study of EMI in the Malaysian tertiary context is the on-going challenges faced by issues of implementing EMI policies in the universities. To the best of my knowledge, no studies have been conducted to examine the impact of EMI on student learning in the Malaysian private university context.
The next section explains some issues concerning the general teaching of writing in the higher education context and specifically the teaching of writing in English in the second language context in Malaysia.