Teresa Ting-1

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/advance-article/doi/10.
1093/elt/ccab093/6523109 by University College London Library Services user on 18 March 2022

Tertiary-level STEM and EMI: where
EFL and content meet to potentiate
each other
Y.-L. Teresa Ting
Tertiary-level English medium instruction (EMI) presents an opportunity for

both EMI and science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) pedagogies:
tertiary STEM needs student-centred strategies familiar to EFL, whereas tertiary
EFL can harness the innate complexity of STEM towards complex language
production. With the aim of achieving coequal EFL–STEM collaborations,
this article presents: (1) neuroscience findings demonstrating the shortcomings
of teacher-centred lecturing common in tertiary STEM instruction, and thus
the need for EFL expertise; (2) a schema which, by logically delineating the
‘language dilemma of content instruction’, positions language instruction
within STEM education; (3) two grids for guiding instructional design—a
two-dimensional grid that disentangles content from language, delineating
the cognitive demands imposed by each and helping experts optimize the
trajectory of instructional-tasks, and a three-dimensional translanguaging grid
delineating all linguistic codes within the EMI space, allowing each EFL–STEM
team member to participate in designing student-centred translanguaging tasks
without leaving their respective comfort zones; (4) examples of EMI–STEM
translanguaging tasks informed by the grids and which guarantee level-
appropriate content instruction while supporting the mastery of disciplinary
discourses, in both English and the L1.
Key words: Tertiary STEM, translanguaging tasks, using L1 textbooks,
productive and receptive disciplinary literacy, disciplinary discourse.
Introduction Because English is the lingua franca of the international science,

technology, engineering and maths (STEM) community, universities
embarking on English medium instruction (EMI) often urge EFL
and STEM instructors to work together. Unfortunately, this is often
reduced to merely language coaching (‘teach everyone English’) and/or
translating (‘translate quantum mechanics into English after the STEM
teacher finishes explaining in L1’). EFL can get more from EMI than
‘more English’. EMI–STEM offers an opportunity for establishing the
reciprocally beneficial EFL–STEM collaboration captured in Figure 1.
Although a glance at respective textbooks and classroom dynamics reveals
explicit differences between EFL and STEM, these actually represent
ELT Journal; https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccab093 Page 1 of 14

© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
figure 1
EFL and STEM textbooks
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/advance-article/doi/10.1093/elt/ccab093/6523109 by University College London Library Services user on 18 March 2022
contain very different
layouts, apparently aiming
for different objectives,
teachers’ actions, and
classroom dynamics (arrow
1). Tertiary EFL and STEM
face challenges (dotted
boxes) requiring expertise
and context (“need” boxes;
arrows 2 and 3) normally
available on ‘the other
side’ (bold underlined
words). A common EMI
objective (black box) regards
productive disciplinary
literacy in English, requiring
both EFL and STEM
expertise (arrow 4).
the basis for symbiotic gains (Ting 2020). For example, tertiary STEM
prioritizes ‘fact-first’ pedagogy to ensure that STEM graduates become
reliable doctors, engineers, etc. Even STEM creativity must be founded
on facts: even the most creative engineer seeks medical treatment from
doctors trained on and guided by facts, and the city commissioning her
for a never-before-seen structure expects the building to nonetheless stand
upon solid engineering norms. This explains why most university-level
STEM textbooks are text-heavy and fact-focused, and also why content
instruction favours a ‘“pedagogy of telling” which allows [teachers] to
cover vast amounts of information in short periods of time’ (Moje 2008:
98). However, STEM experts realize that teacher-fronted lecturing is
ineffective. Indeed, in an effort to involve 100-plus students in university
lecture-halls, STEM experts have even invented gadgets such as hand-held
‘response-clickers’ (Mazur 2009). While well-respected in their fields of
research, STEM colleagues ‘seldom obtain any substantial pedagogical
training’ (Smit and Dafouz 2012: 3), needing guidance for designing
student-centred instruction focused on learning rather than teaching. By
contrast, FL instruction is founded on student-centred pedagogies, with
EFL textbooks characterized by task sequences: where present, texts are
followed by student-centred tasks designed to cultivate receptive and
productive language skills. EFL expertise thus represents a treasure trove
of learning strategies for STEM colleagues: no gadgets needed.
While tertiary STEM is burdened by innate complexity, in need of student-
centred pedagogies, tertiary EFL seeks authentic complexity as premise
for increasing task complexity to cultivate the level-appropriate receptive
and productive literacies in English that STEM graduates need to succeed
in their chosen professions. However, since STEM content at tertiary
level is often unfamiliar to most EFL experts, those approaching tertiary
EMI–STEM unaccompanied risk becoming overwhelmed, reduced to
‘vocabulary teaching’ or ‘sentence frames’. Although vocabulary teaching
Page 2 of 14 Y.-L. Teresa Ting

works for concrete objects, with complex concepts (e.g. photosynthesis),
this easily devolves into teacher-fronted explaining/lecturing. And while
sentence frames such as ‘This shows…’ are usable, STEM instructors are
interested in the ‘[…]’ part of those sentence frames. Even in L1, STEM
instruction must go beyond vocabulary teaching and sentence frames to
engage students in whole discourse (Wellington and Osborne 2001).
As shown in Figure 1, ‘discourse’ represents a common EMI objective for
EFL and STEM, i.e. ensuring that EMI graduates can use English well to
speak and write about disciplinary understandings accurately, through
level-appropriate and discipline-relevant discourses condoned by STEM
communities of practice. Clearly, neither EFL nor STEM can do this
alone. However, to date, ‘[EMI] is clearly one-sided, coming mainly from
linguists, language teachers and educators’ (Smit and Dafouz 2012: 8).
This article suggests that: (1) to establish coequal collaborations with our
logically/mathematically minded STEM colleagues, EFL needs logical
STEM-like ways to discuss learning, content instruction, and language
learning with STEM colleagues, along with concrete examples of how
theoretical propositions are, in practice, integrated; and (2) ‘instructional
materials’ are a site for establishing fruitful EFL–STEM collaborations.
The following section discusses learning through STEM-derived
neuroscience findings to illustrate why, when content is complex, teacher-
centred lecturing is potentially ineffective and could thus benefit from
the student-centred methods typical of EFL instruction. The next section,
‘Content: and its Language Dilemma’, presents a schema that logically
delineates the ‘language dilemma of content instruction’, showing STEM
colleagues why content instruction inevitably involves language learning.
The section ‘Language: Approached through a Three-Dimensional
Translanguaging Grid’ illustrates two grids which, by logically situating
language within content instruction, can guide the collaborative design
of EMI materials: a two-dimensional-grid is first used to disentangle the
cognitive demands imposed by complex language from that imposed
by complex concepts, helping EFL/STEM experts gauge the cognitive
demands of instructional tasks; this is then expanded into a three-
dimensional translanguaging grid which delineates all the linguistic
codes within the EMI space, showing EFL/STEM experts different ways
each can, from within their own comfort zones, design student-centred
instruction. Since STEM colleagues expect proof-of-concept, the section
‘Integration: Towards Level-Appropriate Instruction and Learning’
illustrates a sequence of translanguaging tasks designed using the grids
and which, linked to L1 textbooks, moves well beyond vocabulary teaching
and sentence frames. These translanguaging tasks fully integrate level-
appropriate content with disciplinary discourses in both English and L1,
all needed by STEM graduates. In addition, the instructional strategies
behind each task are briefly explained, illustrating how the theories
presented guided the development of materials. Although this article
refers to tertiary-level EMI–STEM, the information provided here may
also be relevant and adapted to EMI–STEM instruction at secondary level.
Together with the extensive body of EFL and applied linguistics research
already familiar to the ELT Journal readership, which for reasons of space
will not be elaborated here, this article aims to provide STEM-friendly
EMI–STEM@tertiary Page 3 of 14
perspectives to help readers optimize EMI for more than simply ‘teach
more English’.
Learning: This section presents texts and examples derived from neuroscience
approached research to share three generally known facts about how the brain
through cognitive processes information, helping readers and their STEM colleagues
neuroscience personally experience and understand why, as content complexity
increases, lecturing becomes less effective.
Figure 2A illustrates two facts: although a meme of questionable verity

(see https://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/people/matt.davis/cmabridge/), it
demonstrates how our brain immediately attempts to decode input (fact
1), using what we already know (fact 2) to make sense of even nonsense.
Indeed, being rapid inside-out processors, the text in Figure 2B catches us by
surprise. These so-called ‘garden-path sentences’ (Osterhout, Holcomb,
and Swinney 1994) predictably elicit neuroelectrophysiological signals
approximately 600 milliseconds after information recipients realize they
have misinterpreted the input. Although we may question the utility of such
rapid, inside-out processing which could lead to misinterpretations, for
our ancestors strolling on the savannah, it was better to misinterpret a big
orange bush and run from it than become a snack for a big orange beast.
The third generally accepted fact regards working memory (WM), a process
at the interface of incoming information and long-term memory (LTM).
LTM is where information is stored, where teachers hope their instructing
goes. While LTM appears to contain infinite storage space, WM is limited
in both capacity and duration, and is highly volatile. The scenario in Box 1
illustrates how these limits determine how much information WM can
process at any one moment.
figure 2
Texts demonstrating how our
brain processes information
rapidly, inside-out, which can
be useful (left) or not (right).
Box 1
Back when telephones were attached to walls and telephone numbers
were listed in voluminous phonebooks, an emergency water leak in
the kitchen would require: finding the number of a plumber, always
limited to six digits since that is about the limit of WM (limited
capacity); remembering the six-digit number while running to dial it
but, upon hearing the phone ringing at the other end of the line, we
forget this number (limited duration). If, while running to the phone,
our 16-year-old says ‘Ma! No water? Pizza tonight?’ the number would
evaporate from our WM, obliging us to return to the phonebook
(highly volatile).

figure 3
During a lecture (A), students’
brains immediately attempt to
unpack input (B); rapid inside-
out processing (C) would help
students correctly decipher the
new language and comprehend
the new content (respectively
represented by the (L) and
(C) on the balance); however,
by the time students have
successfully elaborated Concept
1, they have missed Concepts
2–5 because the lecturing
teacher is already explaining
Concept 6 (D). (Image credits:
teacher (pixabay); Charlie
Brown (wikipedia); chamber
music (unknown artist); torture
chamber (permission from
cartoonist Mark Lynch).).
Imagine, then, listening to STEM teachers lecturing about the six concepts
in Figure 3A. For students not yet familiar with the content, upon hearing
Concept 1, WM immediately engages knowledge stored in LTM to unpack
the new content and new language within Concept 1 (Figure 3B,C). However,
since its cognitive resources are limited, while elaborating Concept 1,
WM cannot attend to Concepts 2–5: thus the sense of loss when students’
brains ‘re-emerge’ to find their teacher explaining Concept 6 (Figure 3D).
We eagerly await research monitoring neuroelectrophysiological
responses of brains listening to STEM lectures. Meanwhile, these
exemplifications of cognitive neuroscience findings hope to demonstrate
why, even in L1, STEM instruction imposes heavy cognitive demands on
students’ WM: teacher talking time should therefore be reduced in favour
of more student-centred pedagogies, familiar to EFL experts.
Content: and its All disciplinary communities use language in discipline-condoned

language dilemma ways to create discourses that allow community experts to efficiently
and effectively share community knowledge with minimal room for
misunderstandings (Halliday and Martin 1993). However, for students
who are not (yet) members of the community, even in L1, disciplinary
discourses are ‘alienating’ (Halliday and Martin 1993: 4). Already in
L1 ‘academic language is no one’s mother tongue’ (Bourdieau and
Passeron 1994: 8). The cognitive demands for comprehending both
complex content and complex language therefore sit upon a content–
language balance supported by the ‘fragile hinge of working memory’
(Figure 3C). As content becomes progressively more complex, so too the
discourse, and when both are still unfamiliar but are presented together,
these risk overloading WM. That is the challenge of receptive disciplinary
literacy at the input end of content instruction.
At the output end of content instruction is the challenge of productive
disciplinary literacy, the ability to use language in discipline-condoned
ways, formulating discourse that accurately languages about content.
Unfortunately, content experts often believe that language education is
not part of content instruction (Moje 2008). To clarify that disciplinary
discourse is first a content issue before being a language issue, consider
questioning whether the genitive ‘s’ is used correctly in ‘electron’s proton
or neutron’s electron’: this is akin to asking which is correct, ‘the heart’s
kidney or the liver’s lungs’; the problem is not the genitive ‘s’ but content
comprehension.
To ease logically/mathematically minded STEM colleagues into their
language responsibilities, we need first to provide a logical/mathematical
vision of language. A good start is Cummins’s (1984) distinction between
‘basic interpersonal communication skills’ (BICS) and ‘cognitive academic
language proficiency’ (CALP). Although Cummins’s BICS/CALP
framework emerged from research on immigrants’ foreign language skills,
it organizes linguistic registers along a logical continuum, offering us a
concise shorthand to help STEM colleagues easily appreciate that, even
in L1, disciplinary discourse, i.e. L1-CALP, is very distinct from students’
everyday L1-BICS. Indeed, to help students understand complex concepts,
conscientious content-teachers often unpack information using a BICS/
CALP mishmash sprinkled with metaphors and analogies (Maton 2013).
However, when evaluating learnt knowledge, STEM teachers expect
students to demonstrate content comprehension via the production
of L1-CALP. This illogical misalignment between language modelled
and language expected reflects the ‘the language dilemma of content
education’, logically schematized in Figure 4: this schema makes visible
the language dimension of content instruction, showing STEM colleagues
the need for instruction which supports language learning, an expertise of
EFL instructors.
figure 4
The language dilemma of
content instruction.

Language: To help STEM colleagues out of their ‘language dilemma’, EFL could
approached through harness insights from the scholarship of translanguaging to logically
a three-dimensional position language learning within content instruction. However,
translanguaging grid traditional FL perspectives on translanguaging need first to be tweaked
to accommodate the nature of tertiary STEM before we can derive two
logical-mathematical grids to help EFL/STEM teams design materials
supporting both content and language learning.
Tweaking Because tertiary STEM engages students in complex concepts, EMI

‘translanguaging’ must consider students less fluent in English. The scholarship of
for EMI–STEM translanguaging is founded on the awareness that the inability to use a
foreign language to express complex thoughts does not reflect the absence
of complex thinking. Therefore, when minority language students are
not yet fluent users of the dominant school-language, they should be
permitted to deploy their full semiotic and linguistic repertoire, which
of course includes their L1. Translanguaging thus becomes an inclusive
democratizing process, enabling all learners to participate in the creation
of meaning and expression of ideas:
Translanguaging has come to mean a practice where two
or more languages are used in a dynamic and functionally
integrated manner to organize and mediate mental processes in
understanding, speaking, literacy, and, not least, learning. (Li and
Garcia 2017: 8)
However, to make translanguaging relevant for tertiary STEM it must
be tweaked in two ways. The first recognizes that fact-first STEM
education is delimited within discourses which leave little room
for ‘language creativity’, a core feature in original conceptions of
translanguaging (e.g. ‘Chinglish’ and ‘Singlish’ of English speakers
in China and Singapore, respectively (Li 2018)). By contrast, fact-first
objectives of medical school anatomy expect aspiring cardiologists
to think cardiology-condoned thoughts and communicate through
cardiology-condoned discourse so that everyone on cardiosurgical teams
knows exactly what needs doing. The second tweak recognizes that,
since L1 disciplinary discourse, i.e. L1-CALP, is already less familiar
than L1-BICS, English disciplinary discourse (EN-CALP) within the
EMI space represents a doubly foreign foreign language, distinct from
EN-BICS which, through general EFL coursework or extramural
exposure, is more familiar to students.
Therefore, in EMI–STEM, translanguaging is less about ‘including L1
to create meaning creatively’ and more about recognizing that STEM-
CALP, in both L1 and English, represents ‘foreign languages’ for all
students who are, however, probably already familiar with BICS in both
L1 and English. By delineating all existent linguistic codes within the
EMI–STEM space, these can be systematically leveraged to help students
comprehend complex content and master all discourses. The next section
delineates these codes through a two-step process, deriving grids for
guiding the design of translanguaging tasks such as those presented
further on.
Delineating the Because disciplinary discourse is a foreign language, even in L1, it
language codes becomes clear that, as with any foreign language, even L1-CALP must be
available to used consciously and taught systematically. This also opens the possibility
EMI–STEM of designing EMI instruction around L1 textbooks, guaranteeing level-
appropriate and content-relevant instruction.
Step 1: disentangling content/language complexity. To avoid
overloading WM, we can untangle the cognitive demand needed for
understanding complex content from that needed for deciphering
complex language, even in L1. We can intercept Cummins’s BICS/
CALP axis delineating language complexity with an axis delineating
content complexity, which merges the works of Vygotsky (1986) (V)
and Geary (2007) (G) as follows: primary biological knowledge (G), such
as children speaking the language of their caregivers, is necessary for
species survival and thus acquired effortlessly, becoming a collection
of spontaneous knowledge (V) about tangible everyday notions. Vygotsky
valued school as a context for cultivating scientific knowledge which calls
for complex thinking about abstract notions, such as atoms, molecules,
and foreign languages, which is not necessary for species survival; this
is what Geary calls secondary biological knowledge and which requires
explicit instruction.
Intercepting Cummins’ language axis with Vygotsky–Geary’s content
axis produces a two-dimensional grid recalling Cummins’ quadrant
model of task types (Cummins 1984) (Figure 5). While Cummins’
original axis delineated learners’ familiarity with tasks and contextual
cues, this Vygotsky–Geary axis delineates content complexity. This two-
dimensional content/language grid disentangles content instruction
(C) from language instruction (L) and maps out the cognitive demands
imposed by each. For example, in Quadrant A, both C and L are
‘cognitively light’, as occurs during communication between content
experts familiar with both C and L. At the opposite extreme, in Quadrant
figure 5
The two-dimensional C/L
grid delineates how to
equilibrate the content (C)
and language (L) cognitive
demands during L1 STEM
instruction, so as not to
overload learners’ working
memory, represented by the
circle at the central pivot-
point of the balance.

D, both C and L are unfamiliar, as when STEM students are learning
new C embedded in unfamiliar L, a situation which may overload and
‘break’ WM (represented by the ‘circular hinge’ at centre of the balance).
Quadrants C and B prevent WM overload by lightening either C or L: in
Quadrant B, unfamiliar new concepts (heavy C) are counterbalanced by
familiar BICS (light L) while Quadrant C represents the situation where
content has been learnt and is thus familiar (light C), ready for tasks to
help students master disciplinary discourse, an otherwise heavy L. This
two-dimensional Vygotsky–Geary/Cummins C/L grid not only logically
positions language instruction within content instruction, but, by
elucidating the source(s) of cognitive demand within each instructional
task, it can delineate optimal task sequences.
Step 2: adding English: creating a three-dimensional translanguaging
grid for EMI. In EMI, we can add an EN axis to the two-dimensional
C/L grid, expanding it into three-dimensional space created by
the interception of three axes: C-familiar/C-unfamiliar, L1-BICS/
L1-CALP and EN-BICS/EN-CALP (Figure 6). Content can now be
accessed through four language codes, L1-BICS, L1-CALP, EN-BICS,
and EN-CALP. As shown below, this three-dimensional EMI
translanguaging grid allows all members of the EMI team to identify
one or more ways in which their STEM or EFL expertise can be
harnessed to help students comprehend content and also master both
EN-CALP and L1-CALP.
figure 6
EMI adds an EN axis to the
two-dimensional C/L grid,
expanding it into a three-
dimensional space containing
four language codes, L1-BICS,
L1-CALP, EN-BICS, and
EN-CALP, all of which can be
used to design translanguaging
tasks for learning level-
appropriate disciplinary content
and discourse.
Integration: This section illustrates how the aforementioned grids can guide
towards level- materials design: translanguaging tasks linked to L1 textbooks are
appropriate presented, alongside brief analyses of the instructional strategies
instruction and behind each task. Uploaded onto online platforms, teachers can use
learning these tasks to guide students in lecture halls, working within small
groups. Note how level-appropriate, content-relevant whole language
is used throughout, moving well beyond vocabulary teaching and
sentence frames.
Figure 7A presents the text from an Italian medical school immunology
textbook linked to the tasks in Figure 7B–D, all of which employ
scaffolding strategies for language comprehension and learning that are
familiar to EFL instruction, such as paraphrasing, increasing time-on-
task, progressive focusing on smaller sections of longer texts, etc. In Task
1 (Figure 7B), EN-BICS engages students with information encountered
for the first time in the L1-CALP heading of Paragraph 1. All three EN
texts commence with two sentences containing correct information that
are, however, worded in different ways: paraphrasing. Because there are
only slight differences in how L1 information is being paraphrased into
English, to complete Task 1, students must read the L1-CALP heading
and the three EN-BICS texts multiple times, facilitating content learning
by increasing time-on-task. Note that the content information of the three
EN-BICS texts differ only in their last sentence. Strictly speaking, Text B is
‘correct’, explaining only the L1 heading, as per the instruction. However,
the extra information in Texts A and C present, using EN-BICS, all
remaining information in Paragraph 1 that is written in L1-CALP. Because
students are expected to pore through their L1-CALP textbooks during self-
study, Task 1 would not delve further into Paragraph 1 in class. However,
when students subsequently read Paragraph 1 in full, L1-CALP content
will already seem familiar because this has been ‘translanguaged’ through
EN-BICS texts, A and C. Task 1 thus operates in a space where C is heavy
but EN is light (quadrant B, Figure 5): EN-BICS, which both EFL and
content experts can comfortably manage, serves as conduit to information
presented in L1-CALP.
In Task 2, although the text simulating an English textbook (right;
EN-CALP) perfectly translates Paragraph 2 (IT-CALP), the original
sequence of information was actually slightly confusing. EMI tasks thus
allow STEM experts to reorganize information into an EN text such as one
simulating a student’s notes (left). Presenting content through ‘students’
notes’ allows us to rewrite information through EN-BICS, granting
‘permission’ to create phrases such as ‘microorganism X’ and use BICS
expressions such as ‘next time we meet microorganism X’, all rendering
content easier to understand. Here, EN-BICS (left) guides students
through both EN-CALP (right) and L1-CALP (L1 textbook), both of which
would otherwise pose varying degrees of difficulty if heard or read for the
first time. Interestingly, given the fact-first nature of STEM concepts and
STEM discourse, the EN-CALP version of the L1-CALP text was generated
using an online translation app and required minimal editing by the
STEM expert to become discipline-condoned EN-CALP, which students
can work with, but which EFL experts need not grapple with during task
creation.

figure 7
(A) Excerpts from an L1
textbook (Sozzani 2018:
60) referred to in the
translanguaging tasks
presented below. (B) Task 1.
Tasks 1 and 2 have supported receptive literacy, moving students into

Quadrant B of Figure 5 where content has become familiar: this is a
prerequisite for the next step in EMI, repacking knowledge into CALP and
cultivating productive EN-CALP literacy. In Task 3 (Figure 7D), students
organize information gained through Tasks 1 and 2 into an EN-CALP
summary. Students also see how anaphoric referencing helps create
textual coherence. By working together to cue these anaphoric references,
students review and consolidate content through student-generated, level-
appropriate, and content-relevant dialogue.
The final task might be the production of L1 and/or EN infographic
posters, with QR-code-linked videos in which students present this
information to patients in their university hospital waiting rooms. This
figure 7 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/advance-article/doi/10.1093/elt/ccab093/6523109 by University College London Library Services user on 18 March 2022
Continued (C) Task 2.
(D) Task 3.
uses fact-based knowledge creatively and, by transforming CALP-mediated

knowledge into BICS, we prepare students for future interactions with
patients. Finally, linking translanguaging tasks to L1 textbooks helps
students acquire the L1 disciplinary discourse required of professionals
operating in L1, thus addressing a common concern regarding EMI
(Macaro 2018). Because the tasks provide content instruction through
group-work in class, they remain relevant for non-L1 EMI students. In fact,

final outputs via L1-BICS and EN-BICS allow all members on the EFL/
STEM team to comfortably evaluate the level of content comprehension
and language management of all students.
Conclusions Working together, EFL and STEM can optimize tertiary EMI to potentiate
pedagogies in at least three ways: (1) tertiary STEM, typically steeped in
teacher-fronted lecturing, can be guided by EFL colleagues towards more
student-centred instruction; (2) EFL can harness the innate complexity of
tertiary STEM content to increase task complexity, providing EFL learners
with authentically complex contexts for using English to formulate, show,
and share age-appropriate, complex thinking; (3) this approach can help EMI
graduates master the English needed to communicate disciplinary concepts
accurately through discourses condoned by their chosen international (and
national) disciplinary communities. ‘Materials design’ presents a practical
site for such EFL–STEM collaborations. To help EFL experts establish
collaborations with logically/mathematically minded STEM colleagues,
this article approaches learning, content instruction, language learning, and
content/language integration through STEM-derived research and logical-
mathematical examples, schemas, and grids. Neuroscience findings have
been rendered into experiential texts to demonstrate why teacher-centred
lecturing is problematic at tertiary STEM. This understanding of how the
brain processes complex input uncovers what we might call ‘the language
dilemma of content instruction’. This dilemma has been organized into a
schema to help STEM colleagues appreciate that disciplinary discourse, a
language issue, is integral to successful content instruction. To overcome this
dilemma, established scholarship from learning (Vygotsky), evolutionary
psychology (Geary), and bilingual education (Cummins) is merged into a
two-dimensional grid that disentangles the cognitive demand caused by
complex content, from that caused by complex discourse, even in L1: this
two-dimensional grid helps us determine potential sources of difficulty
within each task and maps out optimal task sequences. With the addition
of English, EMI expands the two-dimensional grid into a three-dimensional
EMI translanguaging grid that clearly delineates all linguistic codes available
within the EMI–STEM classroom: EN-BICS, EN-CALP, L1-BICS, and
L1-CALP. By recognizing L1-CALP, we can design translanguaging tasks
linked to L1 textbooks, therefore ensuring level-appropriate, content-relevant
instruction. Finally, as proof-of-concept, a sequence of translanguaging
tasks designed using these grids and linked to a tertiary-level L1 textbook is
presented, alongside analyses of the instructional strategies behind each task.
The information, schema, grids, materials, and analyses presented aim to
encourage the establishment of EFL/STEM teams, who, from within their
respective professional comfort zones, can collaboratively design student-
centred instructional materials that facilitate the learning of not only level-
appropriate content, but also the mastery of discipline-appropriate discourses
in both English and L1, which is what EMI graduates need to succeed.
References Teaching Situation.’ In Academic Discourse, edited by

Bourdieu, P. and J.-C. Passeron. 1994. ‘Introduction: P. Bourdieu, J-C. Passeron and M. de Saint Martin.
Language and the Relationship to Language in the Cambridge: Polity Press, 1–34.
Cummins, J. 1984. Bilingualism and Special Education: to English-Medium Policies, Conceptual Issues and
Issues in Assessment and Pedagogy. Clevedon: Research Practices across Europe.’ AILA Review 25:1–12.
Multilingual Matters. Sozzani, S. 2018. Immunologia Cellulare e Molecolare
Geary, D. C. 2007. ‘Educating the Evolved Mind.’ In [Italian translation of A. K. Kabbas, A. H. Lichtman,
Educating the Evolved Mind, edited by J. S. Carlson and S. Pillai, Cellular and Molecular Immunology].
and J. R. Levin. Charlotte, NC: Information Age, Milan: Edra.
1–99. Ting, Y. L. T. 2020. ‘The Symbiotic Energy
Halliday, M. A. K. and J. R. Martin. 1993. Writing of [Complex Content]+[Foreign Language]:
Science. London: Falmer Press. Translanguaging Towards Disciplinary Academic
Li, W. 2018. ‘Translanguaging as a Practical Theory of Literacy.’ In Examining Content and Language
Language.’ Applied Linguistics 39(1):9–30. Integrated learning (CLIL) Theories and Practices,
Li, W. and O. Garcia. 2017. ‘From Researching edited by L. Khalyapina. Hershey, PA: IGI Global,
Translanguaging to Translanguaging Research.’ 37–61.
In Research Methods in Language and Education, Wellington, J. and J. Osborne. 2001. Language and
Encyclopedia of Language and Education, edited by Literacy in Science Education. Buckingham: Open
K. King, Y-J. Lai, and S. May. Cham: Springer, University Press.
227–40. Vygotsky, L. S. 1986. Thought and Language, edited by
Macaro, E. 2018. English Medium Instruction: Content A. Kozulin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
and Language in Policy and Practice. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Maton, K. 2013. ‘Making Semantic Waves: A Key to The author
Cumulative Knowledge-Building.’ Linguistics and Y.-L. Teresa Ting is an Assistant Professor in the
Education 24:8–22. Department of Chemistry & Chemical Technologies
Mazur, E. 2009. ‘Farewell, Lecture?’ Science at the University of Calabria, Rende, Italy. She
323:50–51. obtained her PhD in neurobiology (Kent State, USA),
Moje, E.B. 2008. ‘Foregrounding the Disciplines in studying learning and memory processes in rat-brain
Secondary Literacy Teaching and Learning: A Call models, in vivo and in vitro. After moving to Italy,
for Change.’ Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy she started teaching English to Italian students, for
52(2):96–107. which she obtained an MA-Ed in TEFL (East Anglia,
Osterhout, L., P. J. Holcomb, and D. A. Swinney. 1994. UK). She currently researches how to transform
‘Brain Potentials Elicited by Garden-Path Sentences: cognitive neuroscience understandings regarding
Evidence of the Application of Verb Information how the brain learns (or not) into materials for STEM
during Parsing.’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: instruction. A set of her upper-secondary CLIL
Learning Memory and Cognition 20:786–803. science materials received the 2013 ELTons Award for
Smit, U. and E. Dafouz. 2012. ‘Integrating Content ‘Innovative Writing’.
and Language in Higher Education: An Introduction Email: teresa.ting@unical.it

Teresa Ting-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Teresa Ting-1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teresa Ting-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/advance-article/doi/10.

1093/elt/ccab093/6523109 by University College London Library Services user on 18 March 2022

Tertiary-level English medium instruction (EMI) presents an opportunity for

Introduction Because English is the lingua franca of the international science,

ELT Journal; https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccab093  Page 1 of 14

Page 2 of 14 Y.-L. Teresa Ting

Figure 2A illustrates two facts: although a meme of questionable verity

Page 4 of 14 Y.-L. Teresa Ting

Content: and its All disciplinary communities use language in discipline-condoned

Page 6 of 14 Y.-L. Teresa Ting

Tweaking Because tertiary STEM engages students in complex concepts, EMI

Page 8 of 14 Y.-L. Teresa Ting

Page 10 of 14 Y.-L. Teresa Ting

Tasks 1 and 2 have supported receptive literacy, moving students into

uses fact-based knowledge creatively and, by transforming CALP-mediated

Page 12 of 14 Y.-L. Teresa Ting

References Teaching Situation.’ In Academic Discourse, edited by

Page 14 of 14 Y.-L. Teresa Ting

You might also like

ELT Journal; https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccab093 Page 1 of 14