Correlating language proficiency and teaching approach in contexts of English-medium instruction

Conference poster, 2024

In Swedish higher education, English-medium instruction (EMI) is now more common than education in the national language (Malmström & Pecorari, 2022). Although it is widely used, concerns have been raised about the conditions for and the consequences of teaching and learning academic content through English, such as EMI teachers’ level of English proficiency and EMI pedagogy (Dang et al, 2021). Little is known about EMI pedagogy, except that classroom observation in EMI indicates that various elements can influence the teaching approach (Sahan et al., 2021) and that EMI teaching tends to be more teacher-centered rather than student-centered (Doiz & Lasagabaster, 2021). Dang & Vu (2020) hint at a link between linguistic communicative competence and pedagogical competence, but no empirical evidence exists until now.

This study investigates the relationship between the English language proficiency of EMI teachers and their teaching approaches. Teachers (n = 82) from three universities in Sweden completed tests of productive and receptive knowledge of general and academic vocabulary knowledge. We consider vocabulary knowledge indicative of a teacher’s overall linguistic competence (cf. Milton, 2013). The participants also answered the Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI), a questionnaire that indicates the variation in teacher’s approaches (Trigwell et al., 2005).

Combining the results from the test and the questionnaire, the preliminary findings reveal a significant correlation between the English proficiency of EMI teachers and teacher-focused teaching. More specifically, the EMI teachers with lower levels of English proficiency were more likely to adopt a teacher-focused approach. Yet, the results do not show the same correlation between high levels of English proficiency and student-focused teaching. This research highlights the challenges of teaching in an EMI context and facilitates understanding the complexity of language and communication in this specific context.

References

Dang, T. K. A., Bonar, G., & Yao, J. (2021). Professional learning for educators teaching in English-medium-instruction in higher education: A systematic review. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(4), 840-858.

Dang, T. K. A., & Vu, T. T. P. (2020). English-medium instruction in the Australian higher education: Untold stories of academics from non-native English-speaking backgrounds. Current Issues in Language Planning, 21(3), 279–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2019.1641350

Doiz, A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2021). Analysing EMI Teachers’ and Students’ Talk about Language and Language Use (pp. 34–55). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003134534-3

Malmström, H. & Pecorari, D. (2022). Språkval och internationalisering: Svenskans och engelskans roll inom forskning och högre utbildning. Språkrådet (Institutet för språk och folkminnen). Retrieved (2023-11-17): http://sprakochfolkminnen.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1619750&dswid=7977

Milton, J. (2013). Measuring the contribution of vocabulary knowledge to proficiency in the four skills. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Measuring-the-contribution-of-vocabulary-knowledge-Milton/eb0958263431222ee91120904b366cd4a827c043

Sahan, K., Rose, H., & Macaro, E. (2021). Models of EMI pedagogies: At the interface of language use and interaction. System, 101, 102616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102616

Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Ginns, P. (2005). Phenomenographic pedagogy and a revised Approaches to teaching inventory. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(4), 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360500284730