Lost in the EMI Trend: Language-Related Issues Emerging From EMI Practice

Abstract

The prominent increase in English medium instruction (EMI) in higher education has triggered the need for investigating EMI in practice in various contexts. Studies focusing on linguistic attitudes of EMI practitioners and learners are beginning to emerge but there are few studies exploring language-related issues in EMI practice. In response to this, this study investigates how language-related issues in EMI are conceptualized, approached and navigated. Data are drawn from document analysis, classroom observations and semi-structured interviews. The study finds that EMI courses were established without much presence of linguistic diversity and without an overt policy. Seemingly, EMI is treated as an invaluable commodity in the pursuit of internationalization. This puts the consistence and quality of EMI into question. It also finds that the practitioners have made polarized language decisions despite of an overall “English-only” preference. The polarized decisions lead to two modes of silence, namely “the English-only silence” and “the silence of English.” In addition, nativized Englishes were found to play in a key role in constructing EMI discourses, despite of a deeply-rooted belief in the Standard English ideology. This conflict between practice and perception reinforces the complexity of practitioners’ professional identity. Furthermore, it is also found that EMI, as an important way to pursue internationalization that celebrates heterogeneity, has a potential to circulate homogeneity. The findings are of significance for universities to (re)consider and (re)conceptualize language-related issues in EMI practice, and on the basis of this, design appropriate EMI curricula.

Introduction

EMI (English medium instruction), as both a promoter and product of the internationalization of higher education, has become a global phenomenon (Dafouz & Gray, 2022; Galloway & Rose, 2021). The perceived benefits, such as attracting international students, enhancing global prestige, and catering for mobility of academic staff, have been well documented and discussed (Fenton-Smith et al., 2017). However, implementing EMI in a HEI (higher education institution) is a rather complex issue (Dafouz & Smit, 2020). Just as the extent to which HEIs could benefit from EMI differs significantly, how local HEIs implement EMI can also vary considerably (Macaro et al., 2018; O’ Dowd, 2018). As Dafouz and Smit (2020) argued, EMI is so intricate and multifarious that represents unique configurations of global forces and local factors.

EMI generally refers to “the use of the English language to teach academic subjects (other than English itself) in countries or jurisdictions where the first language of the majority of the population is not English” (Macaro, 2018, p. 37). As the definition indicates, while EMI gives primacy to content learning, it cannot take place without a careful treatment to language-related issues (Yuan et al., 2022). This study thus explores how language-related issues are conceptualized, approached and navigated in EMI practice. It foregrounds roles of languages in EMI from a multilingual perspective and draws on the ROAD-MAPPING framework as an analytic tool for investigating, analyzing, and exploring EMI as a “real world problem in which language is a central issue” (Brumfit, 1997, p. 93).

Conceptualizing EMI in the Multilingual Turn

Driven by super diversity in the rise of globalization, applied linguists have increasingly turned their attention to the diversified, dynamic and hybrid language use where multilinguals make full use of available linguistic resources in their repertoire in meaning-making (García et al., 2021). Such a mindset challenges the monolingual myth and calls for a shift from a deficit model to an asset model in education (Lin, 2020). Broadly, the notion of treating students as deficit learners in their acquisition of native-like competence has been challenged. Instead, the multilingual and multicultural resources that students bring to the classroom should be recognized as valuable learning assets in supporting knowledge construction and developing cognitive skills (Piccardo, 2019). From this perspective, heterglossic language beliefs lie at the core of this multilingual turn, which problematizes the monolingual bias and underpins multilingualism turn (Kubota, 2014).

The multilingual turn has crucial implications for EMI practice. The first concern centers on defining “E” of EMI. As multilinguals routinely and creatively use Englishes that reflect their own cultural and pragmatic norms, English is argued to be owned and developed by all English users (Jenkins, 2015). Therefore, “E” of EMI is not a native speaker “E” and should be conceptualized in accordance with a pluricentric view of English as an academic lingua franca (Baker & Hüttner, 2017). Arguably, if the connection between EMI and a native speaker “E” were established, EMI practitioners’ linguistic deficiency gauged against native-speaker Standard English would become an overriding impediment to EMI practice of high quality. The connection, however, fails to gain a foothold (Inbar-Lourie & Donitsa-Schmidt, 2020). For instance, Jiang at al. (2019) observed no salient communicative breakdowns in EMI practice despite of practitioners’ phonological or morphosyntactic non-standardness. Likewise, Gustafsson (2020, p. 1071) questioned the relevance of “a generic native speaker standard of language proficiency” in successful EMI, and positioned EMI in English as a lingua franca (ELF) context where “linguistic norms are viewed as conventions emerging in a given language community, rather than being determined by an abstract native speaker standard” (p. 1074). This argument is echoed in Ting’s (2022) study which underpins the mastering of discipline-relevant discourses constructed by communities of practice as a common EMI objective.

Also, the multilingual reality has rendered the EMI classroom a site of linguistic and cultural diversity. This problematizes the ideology of “English only” in EMI practice and calls for a reconceptualization of languages of EMI. To make full use of linguistic and cultural diversity, alternative multilingual models of EMI have been proposed in which English functions in tandem with other languages instead of replacing them (Barnard & McLellan, 2014). Zhou et al. (2022) claimed that when multilingual students have not yet acquired complex disciplinary discourses, they should be allowed to deploy their full linguistic repertoire, which includes their L1. More importantly, including L1 is less about language creativity, but more about systematically leveraging L1 to help students comprehend disciplinary complexity. Similarly, Preece (2022, p. 109) delineated benefits in deploying students’ full linguistic repertoire in EMI practice, including “comprehending subject matter,”“acquiring knowledge and mastery of academic English and academic communication,”“delving deeper into subject matter,”“applying theory to practice,”“developing critical thinking,” and “fostering an intercultural disposition,”

What also matters, apart from “E” of EMI and languages of EMI, are key stakeholders’ attitudes towards teaching and learning English through EMI. Studies have demonstrated that EMI practitioners in European countries do not recognize teaching English as part of their role (Airey, 2012; Dearden & Macaro, 2016). For instance, Spanish EMI practitioners in Aguilar’s (2017) study refused to teach and assess English language due to their perceived insufficient level of English proficiency. The perception might be grounded in an unproven assumption that the development of English language proficiency will occur as a result of incidental learning through exposure to English in an EMI classroom even without purposeful teaching (Pecorari & Malmström, 2018).

By contrast, improving English proficiency is argued to be one of the goals that motivates learners to engage into EMI (Rose & Galloway, 2019). Concomitantly, students’ language-related challenges and linguistic unpreparedness are reported in a growing number of studies on successful implementation of EMI (Curle et al., 2020). The impasse between the learning motivation and the learning challenge seems particularly salient in the East Asian context (Galloway & Ruegg, 2020). This complicates the issue of language support for both EMI practitioners and learners. To address the complexity, many universities provide complementary EAP courses, self-access language services and academic writing support to help students comprehend the disciplinary discourse through the enactment of students’ linguistic repertoires (Zhou et al., 2022). To provide structural language support to learners and connect language with content, the collaboration between ELT (English language teaching) practitioners and EMI practitioners is highlighted. Ting (2022) pointed out that EMI practitioners in STEM, who are accustomed to teacher-fronted lecturing, can be guided by ELT practitioners towards more student-centered instruction while ELT practitioners “can harness the innate complexity of tertiary STEM content to increase task complexity” and provide learners with “authentically complex contexts for using English to formulate, show and share age-appropriate, complex thinking”. (p. 206)

Against this backdrop, this article argues for the relevance of multilingualism to EMI practice and draws on empirical data to show how language-related issues in EMI practice are conceptualized, approached and navigated. Specifically, it aims to answer the following three interrelated questions:

1. How are language-related issues managed when planning and designing EMI?

2. What are the roles of English and other languages in EMI practice?

3. What “English” is used in EMI practice? Is it a “native speaker English” or other nativized varieties of English or English as a lingua franca or some combinations of them?

The Growth of EMI in China

Before delving into EMI practice at local HEIs, it is necessary to offer a brief overview of the Chinese national setting in which this study is embedded. In 2001, the Ministry of Education (MoE) published a guideline that stipulated 5 to 10% courses in English at top-tier universities. On top of that, the guideline recognizes the number of EMI courses and programs as an important criterion when evaluating institutions, with those offering more than 10% EMI courses being rated as “excellent” (Hu & McKay, 2012). In a survey of 135 HEIs across China, Wu et al. (2010) found that 132 of HEIs have established 44 EMI programs per institution on average.

To some extent, the growth of EMI has initiated the internationalization process of Chinese HEIs and its potential consequence about fostering the quality of higher education is taken for granted (Rose et al., 2020). However, the consensus on the effectiveness of EMI implementation has not yet been reached. Based on an analysis of national and institutional policy documents, and interviews with Chinese teachers and students, Hu and Lei (2014) pointed out a misalignment between the magnificent goals of EMI envisioned in policy documents and the compromised language practices in the classroom. The concerns on the effectiveness of EMI in developing disciplinary literacy and language competence have certain parallels with research in the Chinese context. Taking a monolingual perspective, the ineffectiveness was blamed on the unsatisfactory English competence. Due to the incompetence, disciplinary knowledge was found to be watered down, and code-switching was seen to make teaching content more understandable (Hu & Lei, 2014). This finding echoes the studies of Jiang et al. (2019) and Zhang (2018), which argued that EMI practitioners’ use of pragmatic strategies may leave little room for improving learners’ English proficiency. Arguing against the “English only” ideology, Fang (2018) suggested the implementation of EMI in Chinese higher education should recognize and deploy the linguistic diversity from the multilingual paradigm. More recently, Zhou et al. (2022) claimed that a certain amount of Chinese should be valued by EMI practitioners. Grassroots strategies, including providing extra materials in Chinese and employing some Chinese materials to conduct activation, might be initiated to scaffold both language and content learning in the absence of structured language support.

Although the above research so far has provided insights into the relationship between EMI policy and practice as well as practitioners’ and learners’ perceptions and experiences, the evidence-based research into EMI practice in the classroom is relatively scarce. Classroom-based studies are therefore needed to deepen understanding of language-related issues in EMI.

Theoretical Framework

To capture the complexity of EMI, this research draws on the ROAD-MAPPING framework proposed and developed by Dafouz and Smit (2016, 2020). The framework is referred as a holistic and dynamic approach of analyzing language-related issues operating in the EMI classroom. The six factors identified as central include:

Roles of English in relation to other languages (RO)

Academic Disciplines (AD)

(Language) Management (M)

Agents (A)

Practices and Processes (PP)

Internationalization and Glocalization (ING)

The first factor, Roles of English (RO) addresses functions that English serve in EMI. It addresses the interaction of English with other languages in dynamic, complementary but sometimes also contradictory ways. Academic Disciplines (AD) encapsulates characteristics of disciplinary practices. (Language) Management (M) considers “direct efforts to manipulate the language situation” (Spolsky, 2014, p. 8). Agents (A) encompasses all the social actors in EMI. Practices and Processes (PP) is concerned with “particular ways of thinking and doing” (Leung & Street, 2012, p. 9). It thus considers how EMI realities are constructed by agents in a dynamic way. Internationalization and Glocalization (ING) refers to the global, national, and institutional forces that govern EMI in HEIs.

These six factors interact with one another dynamically. Given the focus on language-related issues in EMI practice, the primary concerns in this study are that of “E” of EMI and languages of EMI, which are seen here as not only manifestations of these factors, but more importantly as means of co-constructing EMI realities. Although with a predominant focus on Roles of English (RO), (language) Management (M), Practices and processes (PP), this analytic lens is open to other factors filtered into the study. Additionally, this research combines the micro-level of classroom practice with language management at the institutional meso-level, thus allowing for “analytic zooming in and out over sociolinguistic scales” (Dafouz & Smit, 2020, p. 77).

The Study

The research was conducted at a university in a city located in Southern China. During data collection, institutional curricula designed and employed at the focal university were firstly reviewed. This provides insights to RQ1 and allows a contextualized understanding of EMI practice. The researcher then visited classrooms and conducted non-participatory observations. To capture “E” of EMI and languages of EMI in each classroom, an observation protocol was designed by the researcher. As can be seen in Appendix 1, there are three sections in the protocol. The first section is adapted from the “sampling” methodology proposed by Duff and Polio (1990), which quantifies languages of EMI, including L1 (utterance in Mandarin in Chinese), L1E (utterance mainly in Mandarin Chinese with one word or phrase in English), Mix (Utterance in approximately equal mixture of English and Chinese EL1), EL1(Utterance mainly in English with one word or phrase in Mandarin Chinese and E (Utterance in English). This section elicits evidence in relation to RQ2. The second section focuses on “E” of EMI, which quantifies N1(native varieties of English), N2 (nativized varieties of English or Englishes with its own characteristics appropriate to its speakers’ local uses and to local institutionalized functions.) and ELF (English as a lingua franca or English as the only communicative option among speakers with different L1) in EMI classrooms. The second section elicits evidence with respect to RQ3. The third section lists a number of key points that researchers can refer to while taking notes. Employing this observation protocol, the researcher observed nine EMI classrooms with eight sessions or a minimum of 5 hours in each classroom. All the observed sessions were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim for detailed analysis. Importantly, the practitioners and learners in the observed classrooms share Mandarin Chinese as L1. There are only four international students doing postdoctoral research at the focal university at the time of data collection.

Detailed accounts of the participating EMI practitioners, including courses that they teach, their educational background and overseas experience, are displayed in Table 1. The nine EMI practitioners are from a range of disciplines, ranging from education, engineering, science to business, and all have worked or studied overseas, indicating a homogeneous feature of EMI practitioners. In addition, all of them happen to have a doctoral degree. This is indicative of their professional expertise.

Table 1.

Demographic Information of EMI Practitioners.

	Course name	Educational background	Overseas experience
T1	C1: International business	Doctor of economics	2 years
T2	C2: Entrepreneurship	Doctor of engineering	5 years
T3	C3: Introduction to Chinese literature	Doctor of philosophy in communication studies	2 years
T4	C4: Linear Algebra	Doctor of engineering	7 years
T5	C5: Frontiers in nanotechnology	Doctor of engineering	3 years
T6	C6: Introduction to business	Doctor of philosophy in marketing	3 years
T7	C7: Introduction to Chinese culture	Doctor of philosophy in modern and contemporary Chinese literature	2 years
T8	C8: Business writing	Doctor of education	6 years
T9	C9: Mechanics	Doctor of science	4 years

The classroom observations are complemented by interviews with the practitioners. The interviews were conducted through Mandarin Chinese in that it is the shared language between the researcher and the practitioners. The length of each interview is around 30 to 40 minutes. All were recorded and then transcribed for this data analysis.

The quantitative data elicited from the first two sections of the observation protocol were organized and analyzed by using Excel. By doing so, the time duration of each item in the observation protocol was quantified and calculated. The qualitative data elicited from institutional curricula, classroom observation notes and semi-structured interviews were analyzed by using thematic analysis. To develop a general sense of the data, the researcher first read through the data by bearing the research context and research aims in mind. Then, an initial open coding system was developed. Altogether, 35 initial codes were identified in this study. This is followed by assigning segments to relevant codes and grouping codes under main themes. The ROAD-MAPPING framework was employed to guide this process. To ensure reliability, a co-researcher was invited to scrutinize analytic procedures and results.

Findings

RQ1: (Language) Management: Planning and Designing

At the focal university, an overt policy document, which regulates English proficiency levels for learners, guides training and accreditation of EMI practitioners and stipulates what language(s) and what “English” can and should be used in EMI practice, is conspicuously absent. Courses that employ EMI are simply connotated in institutional curricula, in which the word “English” is presented in a bracket following each name of EMI courses, as visualized in Figure 1. The word “English” may be interpreted as using English teaching materials, using English slides, lecturing partially or completely in English. Therefore, it is too simple to predict how EMI is conceptualized and practiced.

Figure 1.

Examples of EMI courses in the institutional curricula.

Without a regulation of English language proficiency, all learners seemingly can register for EMI courses, despite of the fact that their English proficiency may vary considerably. Taking Class 2021 as an example, learners’ scores at the National Matriculation English Test range from 28 to 148, with 118 as the Median. The wide range mirrors concern about understanding and articulating complex disciplinary discourse in English (Galloway & Ruegg, 2020). Even the Median score, 118, was believed far below Band 6.5 of IELTS, which is generally regarded as the minimum English proficiency for attending EMI programs in higher education in Anglophone countries (Graddol, 2006).

Despite of the wide range, language support for learners who are attending or willing to attend EMI courses is scarce. All learners, no matter attending EMI courses or not, are required to learn General English. The Guidelines for Teaching College English published by the Ministry of Education (MoE) in 2020 recommends offering three types of courses namely General English, English for Specific Purposes and Intercultural Communication for students with preliminary, medium, and advanced level of English proficiency respectively. However, only General English is offered at the focal university. It remains clear that English language teaching (ELT) is not designed to support EMI.

Meanwhile, the issue of teacher training and forms of teacher accreditation has not been seriously addressed. There is a lack of a systematic approach with regard to whether and how EMI practitioners’ pedagogical competence across disciplines should be assessed and certified. The decision for choosing EMI practitioners, as suggested by the practitioners, is related to overseas learning and working experience. For instance,

T2: I got my PhD in Australia. It is an English-speaking country. My English is supposed to be good and standard enough to practice EMI. Then, I was informed to take the responsibility.

This account illustrates an oversimplified connection between overseas experience and EMI competence. EMI practitioners with overseas experience are assumed to be linguistically and pedagogically prepared to take EMI responsibilities. This indicates a measurement of EMI competence against a generic English language proficiency (Gundermann, 2014) and implies an unquestioning trust to those who are trained overseas.

Meanwhile, EMI practitioners, due to the incentive scheme, seem happy to take EMI responsibilities. The incentive scheme encompasses a workload credit. According to the practitioners, the workload of teaching one EMI course is counted as 2 times that of teaching one CMI (Chinese as medium of instruction) course. More importantly, the ability to carry out EMI responsibilities is recognized as an outstanding merit that substantiates excellence in faculty evaluation. As one practitioner puts it,

T7: EMI suggests my personal competence. The university needs EMI for internationalization. However, not everyone is able to practice EMI. It thus weights a lot in faculty evaluation. For my personal benefits, I am not against it.

The practitioner describes the potential interests that she can extract from practicing EMI. The prospect of surpassing other colleagues by offering EMI courses in faculty evaluation is consistently mentioned by all practitioners, leading to a collective idea of practicing EMI for themselves. In addition to a discrepancy between the internationalization demand and the personnel shortage, the value of EMI is well recognized by both the institution and the practitioners.

RQ2: Roles of Languages (RO) in Practices and Processes (PP): Languages of EMI

As shown in Figure 2, the practitioners made polarized decisions in terms of languages of EMI practice. In EMI practiced by T1, T4, T6 and T8, the average percentage of English use makes up around 90%. That is to say, English is the dominant medium of instruction, which ties with the “English-only” preference. The preference is also recorded in the observation note.

Observation Note 1: The students were in a heated discussion about marketing a coffee brand in Mandarin Chinese. Then, the teacher joined in, knocked the desk slightly, and suggested them to discussing in English. The discussion ended abruptly. The students then looked through E-dictionary on their mobile phones for references. No one in the group said one more word before the discussion session was over.

Figure 2.

Languages of EMI.

According to this note, T1, not only uses English as the dominant medium of instruction, but also insists her students to use English to complete in-classroom tasks. Therefore, she interfered with the discussion that was conducted in Mandarin Chinese and suggested students switching to English. Also well encapsulated in the note, Mandarin Chinese, the shared L1, was largely used among students when participating in classroom activities. However, this use of L1 seems to be perceived as unwanted by the practitioner.

Similarly, the percentage of English used by T4 makes up 95% while that of Chinese takes 5%. T4 only used Chinese when he assigned homework or introduces teaching plans. This classroom was observed to be the most silent one, partially because Linear Algebra course might require few classroom interactions. The silence is particularly salient every time when T4 asked students to apply a new formula and give some explanations in English:

Observation Note 2: Once a question was asked. Some students were studying the calculation on the blackboard, some turned to looking reference in the textbook, and some plunged into deep thought. Nobody seems to be ready to contribute in English.

Often receiving little response and observing students’ confusion, his teaching has a regular pattern of paraphrasing. This may indicate T4’s capability of using English to teach, but slow down the teaching process, comparing with the parallel course conducted by using Chinese as medium of instruction (CMI). As T4 stated:

T4: The class is slower than that is taught in Chinese. The content is simpler and the exam is easier. This is the compromise. However, if I do not use English or I do not insist on my students using English, EMI lost its meaning.

For T4, “English-only” is the inherent nature of EMI, and thereby should be practiced even at the expense of disciplinary knowledge and students’ participation. By contrast, T2, T3, T5, T7 and T9 were observed to largely employ Chinese as the medium of instruction. As can be seen from Figure 2, T3, T5, T7 and T9 use over 75% Chinese, which is an indication of Chinese as the dominant instruction language. T2 uses an average of 60% L1E, which suggests that her teaching is primarily in Chinese but with a few words or phrases in English. The words and phrases that T2 deliver in English are mostly key terminologies. However, as the following excerpt indicates, an apparent dependence on Chinese raises self-doubt about the nature of the course:

T2: Students, at least, should be clear with key English terms, especially those carry western ideas. It would be great if they already known them beforehand, for example, by attending some language courses. Having a deep concern that they cannot understand, I use Chinese quite often. Therefore, I, sometimes, doubt this is not EMI. Instead, it is bilingual. EMI should be practiced as English only, if possible. Possibly, we can work with the language faculty on this.

Concerning with students’ understanding of key terms that have western roots, T2 resorts to Chinese, which runs conflict with her belief in “English-only.” According to T2, the perceived concern could be addressed by offering language support for students, on the basis of a collaboration with the language faculty.

In addition, when T3, T5, T7 and T9 asked questions, no matter in English or Chinese, nearly all their students answered in Chinese. Seemingly, both the practitioners and their students are comfortable with using Chinese as the interaction language in the classroom. However, they explained this language choice with a palpable sense of frustration. For instance:

T7: EMI means English as a medium of instruction. It is popular, but I doubt whether this approach applies to every course. In my case, Chinese Culture, seems more relevant and applicable to students’ L1, and more accessible through L1. It’s just because of the value of English and our eagerness to make us heard. It bothers me that the course is suggested as an EMI course by the institution, but practiced as CMI course in classroom.

T7’s statement uncovers a misalignment between the perceived institutional expectation and actual classroom practice, in terms of language choice. Considering the nature of the course, T7 believed that L1, rather than English, is the language that is more relevant and practical for delivering the disciplinary content, i.e., Chinese culture. However, the course is designed as an EMI course in that English is ascribed high status and high value to the HEIs. This inconsistency between what is proposed and what is practiced enhances a sense of restlessness.

Meanwhile, T2, T3, T5, T7, and T9 in most cases only employed English when reading English textbooks or PowerPoint slides. As a consequence, English was largely crowded out from their classrooms, due to heavily reliance on learners’ L1. Although language choices might be made on different grounds, i.e., students’ language deficiency in T2’s classroom while the relevance of L1 in T7’s classroom, the rarely employment of English or “the silence of English” has made the practitioners questioned the appropriateness of their language choice as well as that of defining their courses as EMI. This in turn might decrease their personal appreciation of practicing EMI and the level of job satisfaction.

RQ3: Roles of Languages (RO) in Practices and Processes (PP): “E” of EMI

The course books used in C1, C2, C5, C6, C8, and C9 are found to be introduced from English-speaking countries, written by native English speakers, and thus incorporate native-speaker Standard English. This echoes findings of many course book analyses where language input, both written and oral, is grounded in native-speaker Standard English (Si, 2020). Given that teaching activities are mainly organized around the course book, the proportion of native-speaker Standard English in the classrooms takes around 40% (See Figure 3).

Figure 3.

“E” of EMI.

Meanwhile, the proportions of the nativized English or China English are noticeably high as well. This is because the practitioners who had learned in the Chinese context for more than 10 years, naturally spoke Chinese-influenced English, especially at the phonological level. That is to say, “English” that is incorporated in course books is native-speaker Standard English while “English” that practitioners employ to deliver the course books is China English.

By contrast, the scenarios in C3, C4 and C7 are quite different. The course books used in C3 and C7 are compiled by native Chinese speakers and then translated to English by native Chinese speakers. More importantly, with its focus on Chinese literature and Chinese culture, the course books are grounded in China English, by and large. In addition to the fact that T3 and T7 speak Chinese-influenced English, “E” of EMI in C3 and C7 largely represents China English.

Likewise, the proportion of China English in C4 is much higher than that of native-speaker Standard English, despite of the fact that the course book is introduced from a native English-speaking country. This probably attributes to the teacher-fronted lecturing (Ting, 2022), which allows for imparting vast amounts of information in a short period of time (Moje, 2008).

Speaking of “E” of EMI, the legitimacy of China English is highlighted by all practitioners. As the practitioners mentioned:

T4: Our English is not that standard. Our students should know we are not English teachers. My English, although Chinese-influenced and not as good as native speakers, works for me as an EMI teacher. However, I am not sure whether it meets students’ expectations.

T9: Teaching students Standard English is not my job. I am responsible for teaching the content in English. I am afraid, however, that my English could influence my students’ assessment of my professional integrity.

Seemingly, the practitioners well recognize the role of China English in constructing EMI discourse in the classroom, as well as the legitimacy of China English in EMI practice. But the recognition interlocks with concerns over students’ perception towards English. Overall, the practitioners expressed anxiety about the appropriateness of their Englishes if gauged against native-speaker Standard English. This implies an uneasiness with the Standard English ideology, which treats “standard” and “nativeness” as a key feature to define qualified EMI instructors.

Meanwhile, English as a lingua franca is largely overlooked in all the observed classrooms. One possible reason is that the nine classrooms are all L1-shared, and thereby lack of an educational context that features linguistic diversity. In this case, EMI practice is not a proactive response to linguistic diversity arising from the internationalization of higher education. It is more perceived as a competence that universities and practitioners are eager to have and eager to prove.

T2: EMI practice proves our ability, especially as overseas returnees. Through this, universities can internationalize themselves. It is important to universities.

T5: English is, no doubt, the language of international academia. Therefore, to play the game, EMI is necessary.

T9: EMI practice reveals our international perspective and our devotion to cultivate international talents.

The practitioners all connect EMI to a matter of competence in the context of internationalization. The competence represents a personal and an institutional competitiveness in the pursuit of internalization. Against this backdrop, English and EMI are perceived as invaluable assets that would advantage practitioners and institutions. Along this line, the practitioners well recognize the role of ELF in academia, but no one devotes to teaching ELF. This brings forward a conceptual gap between EMI as a pedagogical internationalization response and EMI as an ideological internationalization competence.

Discussion

Corresponding to previous studies, (Language) Management that envisions goals of EMI and defines roles of languages and conceptualizes “E” of EMI is conspicuously absent at the focal university (Fang, 2018). This lays out foreseeable difficulties to predict classroom realities, leading to inconsistent policy interpretation and implementation at the micro level, as found in classroom observations. That is to say, EMI, in this study, is practiced in an ad hoc manner due to a lack of an explicit and coordinated set of rules and regulations that consider the specificity of the institutional setting and the disciplinary cultures in place (Dafouz & Smit, 2020).

EMI in this study is practiced in a context where practitioners and learners share L1. This confirms Baird’s (2013) finding that many East Asian universities invest in EMI without much presence of international students, and without much linguistic diversity among the student population. This is in stark contrast with many European HEIs, in which linguistic diversity is regarded as an essential rationale for establishing EMI courses and programs (Dearden & Macaro, 2016). The intractable issue emerges here is that if linguistic diversity is contextually non-present, it is often pedagogically overlooked, as indicated in this study and many others (Si, 2020). More specifically, EMI is perceived more as an ideologically motivated choice in the pursuit of internationalization than an informed pedagogical practice in demand for imparting disciplinary knowledge. This echoes the fact that more and more HEIs in non-Anglophone countries practice EMI for purportedly enhancing their international status and indicating their ability to actively engage into the global knowledge economy (Dafouz & Gray, 2022).

In this context, EMI serves as a symbolic and cultural capital in Bourdieu’s (1997) conceptualization, meaning that its possession indicates a high status and a high value in the process of internationalization. This is found in the institutional efforts to implement EMI as well as practitioners’ motivation to carry out EMI responsibilities. In particular, the perceived discrepancy between “EMI can” and “EMI cannot” suggests the political economy of English in which “social institutions, their activities and capitalism influence each other” (Block et al., 2012, p. 2). This brings forward a strong glocalization force that is increasingly characterized by comparison, competition and excellence in shaping EMI practice in the Chinese context.

In terms of languages of EMI, there is a consistent belief in “English only.” The dominant use of English in classrooms is also perceived by practitioners as a matter of principle in defining whether a course is EMI. This echoes previous findings with regard to stakeholders’ belief in a monolingual “English-only” approach (Galloway et al., 2020; Hu & Lei, 2014). However, this consistent belief does not lead to consistent practice. The classroom observations suggest polarized language choices, with four practitioners employing English as the dominant language while five employing Chinese. The effectiveness of both choices is under question. The four classrooms that employ English as the dominant language feature the “English-only silence,” i.e., students largely remain silent while being required to contribute to complex tasks in English. By contrast, the five classrooms that employ Chinese as the dominant language feature the silence of English, i.e., English barely has a role in constructing the classroom discourse. Both the “English-only science” and the “silence of English” highlight the need for adopting a multilingual approach (Preece, 2022). The approach should not be perceived and practiced as a compensation strategy against practitioners’ or learners’ language deficiency (Lin, 2020). Instead, it should be carefully designed in a way that deliberately and simultaneously involves, activates, and emerges learners’ linguistic repertoire (Piccardo, 2019). It is more of a planned and structured activity that values students’ full linguistic resources in meaning making, takes steps in accordance with cognitive competence, and on the basis of these, develops new disciplinary understandings and new language practices. This calls for pedagogical support with regard to bi/multilingualism for EMI practitioners (Ting, 2022).

Previous research on EMI practice largely focuses on who is ready to teach and who is ready to receive (Jiang et al., 2019; Richards & Pun, 2022). The readiness is reported to largely depend on practitioners’ and learners’ English proficiency and their perceptions towards it (Baker & Hüttner, 2017). In addition to this, findings of this study suggest that the disciplinary nature should also be taken into consideration. This mirrors the dimension of Academic Disciplines (AD) in the ROAD-MAPPING framework. In classroom C3 where students share Mandarin Chinese that carries Chinese culture, Mandarin Chinese instead of English is perceived as a feasible and practical language of instruction by the practitioner. Also, in classroom C4 where students have foreseeable difficulties in understanding complex disciplinary discourse in L1, EMI naturally slows down the teaching schedule. Therefore, I shall argue that EMI does not necessarily fit all courses. HEIs should be more content-wise and context-wise in decision making, so as to make appropriate EMI policy.

In terms of “E” of EMI, nativized Englishes might play an indispensable role in constructing classroom discourse. China English, in this study, is largely used in delivering course books that are introduced from native English-speaking countries and grounded in native-speaker Standard English. This finding reveals that nativized Englishes and the native-speaker Standard English may be equally important in constructing EMI discourse. It is thus problematic to define “E” of EMI as a native speaker E by default (Gustafsson, 2020).

Meanwhile, practitioners accept the non-nativeness of their Englishes, and believe that their Englishes work well. The belief is found to be related to a strong sense of disciplinary identity (Hyland, 2012). Importantly, the disciplinary identity generates a strong sense of detachment from speaking English like native English speakers. However, this sense of detachment is mixed with concerns of being perceived as incompetent and non-authoritative by learners, which might in turn overshadows their disciplinary identity (Inbar-Lourie & Donitsa-Schmidt, 2020). This reveals the complexity of EMI practitioners’ disciplinary identity. To cope with the complexity, language awareness that informs linguistic and cultural diversity in today’s use of English could be incorporated in ELT programs for learners as well as professional learning programs for EMI practitioners.

Conclusion

This study critically examines language-related issues in EMI practice through the lens of classroom observations, which is supplemented by an analysis of policy documents, and interviews with EMI practitioners. Although located at only one focal university, it has come up with several important findings and implications.

First, EMI may be introduced without much presence of linguistic diversity in the classroom and without well-designed policies. In this case, HEIs tend to treat English as a valuable commodity and EMI as a competence indicator. Thus, HEIs may pursuit EMI for the sake of EMI, without full consideration for specificity of the local setting and the disciplinary culture. This might put the consistence and quality of EMI practice into question. If EMI is to be more broadly implemented, it should be contextualized with more regulations in form of well-designed language management policies.

Second, the belief in “English-only” may be prevalent among EMI practitioners. However, the “English-only preference” does not necessarily lead to “English-only practice.” The findings suggest that practitioners have made polarized language decisions, leading to two modes of EMI practice. The English-dominant mode might result in the “English-only silence” while the Chinese-dominant mode might lead to the “silence of English.” The two modes have been critically discussed in terms of meaning making and knowledge communicating. I thus call for an ideological and pedagogical shift from a monolingual approach to a multilingual approach. In other words, it would be desirable if language choices are not mainly made on perceived language deficiency, but are pedagogically underpinned so as to facilitate cognitive processing, meaning making and knowledge transferring.

Third, nativized Englishes may play a pivotal role in constructing EMI discourses, although the Standard English ideology is deeply-rooted. A complex ambiguity emerges here. On one hand, the practitioners express a strong sense of disciplinary identity, which serves as the ground to use Englishes in their own ways. On the other hand, they are concerned that their Englishes might be gauged against the native-speaker Standard English, which might degrade their professional identity. Therefore, the practitioners might experience ambivalence in identity construction.

Fourth, the role of English as a lingua franca is largely overlooked in practice, possibly due to the absence of linguistic diversity in the classroom. While internationalization embraces and celebrates linguistic heterogeneity, the way to pursuit it might circulate homogeneity. Therefore, a heterogeneous approach that informs linguistic and cultural diversity and promotes a critical understanding of internationalization and its local manifestations is important, especially in a teaching context without much presence of linguistic diversity.

Furthermore, in EMI classrooms where practitioners and learners share L1, it is advisable to increase practitioners’ and learners’ language awareness of linguistic and cultural diversity in today’s use of English in higher education. Attempts to introduce a multilingual approach could be considered as a substantial part in EMI practitioners’ professional learning, and a starting point in establishing collaboration between EMI practitioners and ELT practitioners, as suggested by Dafouz and Gray (2022).

It must be emphasized that the aims of this study are, by no means, to criticize any practitioners’ teaching practice. Rather, it aims to provide a critical understanding language-related issues in EMI practice, and explore factors that shape the practice. By doing so, it is of significance to (re)conceptualize an appropriate approach to cope with language-related issues in the Chinese context and beyond. Further study in rethinking the roles of ELT in EMI is necessary to understand how to address language-related issues. Expanding earlier research on EMI practitioners’ professional learning, it would also be useful to investigate professional learning in EMI pedagogy in light of a multilingual approach.