Within higher education, it is often believed that the adoption of English-medium instruction (EMI) will provide domestic students with the language skills that will enable them to be more competitive in their future professional pursuits. However, research into language learning and EMI at the university level is very scarce. This study examined essays by 195 undergraduate students (99 1st-year and 96 3rd-year learners) at a major university in Spain in order to investigate the effect of three years of instruction through the medium of English on their level of proficiency, essay quality and lexical diversity (as measured by the Oxford Placement test, the CEFR writing scale and three measures of lexical diversity). The results showed a significant improvement in the learners’ second language (L2) proficiency and a significant but subtle increase in essay quality ratings but no significant increase in lexical diversity scores. In the same vein as the findings of some of the other studies we discuss, the present findings seem to suggest the need to rethink and re-evaluate the implementation of EMI in contexts like the one examined in this study.
Agustín LlachM.Jimenez CatalanR. (2007). Lexical reiteration in EFL learners’ essays: Does it relate to the type of instruction?International Journal of English Studies, 7, 85–103.
2.
AireyJ. (2015). From stimulated recall to disciplinary literacy: Summarizing ten years of research into teaching and learning English. In DimovaS.HultgrenA.JensenC. (Eds.), English-medium instruction in European higher education (pp. 157–176). Boston, MA: De Gruyter.
3.
AllanD. (2004). Oxford Placement Test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4.
BelhiahH.ElhamiM. (2015). English as a medium of instruction in the Gulf: When students and teachers speak. Language Policy, 14, 3–23.
5.
ColemanJ. (2013). Foreword. In DoizA.LasagabasterD.SierraJ. (Eds.), English-medium instruction at universities (pp. xiii–xv). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
8.
CovingtonM.A.McFallJ.D. (2010). Cutting the Gordian knot: The moving-average type–token ratio (MATTR). Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 17, 94–100.
9.
CoyleD. (2008). CLIL: A pedagogical approach from the European perspective. In VanDeusen-ShollN.HornbergerN.H. (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of language and education: Knowledge about language (pp. 97–111). New York: Springer.
10.
CrossleyS.A.McNamaraD.S. (2012). Predicting second language writing proficiency: The roles of cohesion and linguistic sophistication. Journal of Research in Reading, 35, 1–21.
11.
DafouzE.CamachoM.UrquiaE. (2014) ‘Surely they can’t do as well’: A comparison of business students’ academic performance in English-medium and Spanish-as-first-language-medium programmes, Language and Education, 28, 223–236.
12.
DallerH.MiltonJ.Treffers-DallerJ. (Eds.) (2007). Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
DallerM.TurlikJ.WeirI. (2013). Vocabulary acquisition and the learning curve. In JarvisS.DallerM. (Eds.), Vocabulary knowledge: Human ratings and automated measures (pp. 185–218). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
14.
Dalton-PufferC. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles?Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204.
EarlsC. (2016). Evolving agendas in European English-medium higher education: Interculturality, multilingualism and language policy. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
17.
FergadiotisG.WrightH.H.GreenS.B. (2015). Psychometric evaluation of lexical diversity indices: Assessing length effects. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 328–340.
18.
GonzálezM.C. (2017). The contribution of lexical diversity to college-level writing. TESOL Journal, 8, 899–919.
19.
HuhtaA.AlanenR.TarnanenM.MartinM.HirveläT. (2014). Assessing learners’ writing skills in a SLA study: Validating the rating process across tasks, scales and languages. Language Testing, 31, 307–328.
20.
HultgrenA.JensenC.DimovaS. (2015). English-medium instruction in European higher education: From the north to the south. In DimovaS.HultgrenA.JensenC. (Eds.), English-medium instruction in European higher education (pp. 1–15). Boston, MA: De Gruyter.
21.
IngvasdóttirH.ArnbjörnsdóttirB. (2015). English in a new linguistic context: Implications for higher education. In DimovaS.HultgrenA.JensenC. (Eds.), English-medium instruction in European higher education (pp. 137–156). Boston, MA: De Gruyter.
22.
JarvisS. (2002). Short texts, best-fitting curves and new measures of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19, 57–84.
23.
JarvisS. (2013a). Capturing the diversity in lexical diversity. Language Learning, 63, 87–106.
24.
JarvisS. (2013b). Defining and measuring lexical diversity. In JarvisS.DallerM. (Eds.), Vocabulary knowledge: Human ratings and automated measures (pp. 13–44). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
25.
JarvisS. (2017). Grounding lexical diversity in human judgments. Language Testing, 34, 537–553.
26.
JexenflickerS.Dalton-PufferC. (2010). The CLIL differential: Comparing the writing of CLIL and non-CLIL students in higher colleges of technology. In Dalton-PufferC.NikulaT.SmitU. (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 169–190). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
27.
Jiménez CatalánM.Agustín LlachM. (2017). CLIL or time? Lexical profiles of CLIL and non-CLIL EFL learners. System, 66, 87–99.
28.
KimM.CrossleyS.A.KyleK. (2018). Lexical sophistication as a multidimensional phenomenon: Relations to second language lexical proficiency, development, and writing quality. Modern Language Journal, 102, 120–141.
29.
KoizumiR. (2012). Relationships between text length and lexical diversity measures: Can we use short texts of less than 100 tokens?Vocabulary Learning and Instruction, 1, 60–69.
30.
KoizumiR.In’namiY. (2012). Effects of text length on lexical diversity measures: Using short texts with less than 200 tokens. System, 40, 554–564.
31.
KrashenS. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 440–464.
32.
LauferB. (1998). The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: Same or different?Applied Linguistics, 19, 255–271.
33.
LauferB.NationP. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 production. Applied Linguistics, 16, 307–322.
34.
MacaroE. (2017). English medium instruction: Global views and countries in focus: Introduction to the symposium held at the Department of Education, University of Oxford on Wednesday 4 November 2015. Language Teaching. Electronic publication ahead of print version. Published online: 18 January 2017 (doi: 10.1017/S0261444816000380).
35.
MalvernD.RichardsB.ChipereN.DuránP. (2004). Lexical diversity and language development: Quantification and assessment. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
36.
McCarthyP.M. (2005). An assessment of the range and usefulness of lexical diversity measures and the potential of the measure of textual, lexical diversity (MTLD) [Microfiche]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA.
37.
McCarthyP.M.JarvisS. (2007). vocd: A theoretical and empirical evaluation. Language Testing, 24, 459–488.
38.
McCarthyP.M.JarvisS. (2010). MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 381–392.
39.
NittaR.BabaK. (2014). Task repetition and L2 writing development: A longitudinal study from a dynamic systems perspective. In ByrnesH.ManchónR.M. (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 107–136). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
40.
PulciniV.CampagnaS. (2015). Internationalisation and the EMI controversy in Italian higher education. In DimovaS.HultgrenA.JensenC. (Eds.), English-medium instruction in European higher education (pp. 65–88). Boston, MA: De Gruyter.
41.
ReadJ. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42.
RoquetH.Pérez-VidalC. (2017). Do productive skills improve in content and language integrated learning contexts?: The case of writing. Applied Linguistics, 24, 489–511.
43.
Ruiz de ZarobeY. (2010). Written production and CLIL: An empirical study. In Dalton-PufferC.NikulaT.SmitU. (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 191–212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
44.
San IsidroX.LasagabasterD. (2018). The impact of CLIL on pluriliteracy development and content learning in a rural multilingual setting: A longitudinal study. Electronic publication ahead of print version. Published online: 22 January 2018 (doi: 10.1177/1362168817754103).
45.
SimesM.K. (2008). Room for improvement?: A comparative study of Swedish learners’ free written production in English in the foreign language classroom and in immersion education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden.
46.
Soler-CarbonellJ. (2015). Language policy in Estonian higher education: Internationalisation and the tension over English. In DimovaS.HultgrenA.JensenC. (Eds.), English-medium instruction in European higher education (pp. 247–268). Boston, MA: De Gruyter.
47.
Treffers-DallerJ. (2013). Measuring lexical diversity among L2 learners of French: An exploration of the validity of D, MTLD, and HD-D as measures of language ability. In JarvisS.DallerM. (Eds.), Vocabulary knowledge: Human ratings and automated measures (pp. 79–103). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
48.
VinkeA.SnippeJ.JochemsW. (1998). English-medium content courses in non-English higher education: A study of lecturer experiences and teaching behaviours. Teaching in Higher Education, 3, 384–394.
49.
WilkinsonR. (2013). English-medium instruction at a Dutch University: Challenges and pitfalls. In DoizA.LasagabasterD.SierraJ. (Eds.), English-medium instruction at universities (pp. 3–26). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
50.
YuG. (2010). Lexical diversity in writing and speaking task performances. Applied Linguistics, 31, 236–259.
51.
ZhengY.ZhangY.YouyangY. (2016). Investigating the practice of The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) outside Europe: A case study on the assessment of writing in English in China. ELT Research Papers 16.01. London: British Council
