IMPLEMENTING ENGLISH-MEDIUM

INSTRUCTION (EMI) IN CHINA:

TEACHERS’ PRACTICES AND
PERCEPTIONS, AND STUDENTS’ LEARNING
MOTIVATION AND NEEDS
Li Jiang, Lawrence Jun Zhang and Stephen May
University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
INTRODUCTION
1. What pragmatic strategies do teachers adopt to work effectively?

2. Do subject teachers concern students’ language acquisition in EMI

classrooms?

3. What are students’ ESP learning motivation and needs?

4. How can ESP courses contribute to successful EMI learning outcomes?

LITERATURE REVIEW
SOME KEY CONCERNS IN EMI RESEARCH
 Insufficient language competence of teachers and students (Ball and Lindsay
2013; Li 2013; Tong and Shi 2012).

 Subject teachers disseminate subject knowledge and neglect language delegating

(Jacobs 2007; Dafouz 2011).

 Teacher-fronted lectures have little interactivity (Dafouz et al. 2007).

 Focus on Form (FonF) in EMI settings isn’t widely used (Ellis, Basturkmen, and
Loewen 2002).
A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR
ANALYSING PRAGMATIC STRATEGIES AND
FOCUS ON FORM
 Let-it pass and make-it-normal (Firth’s 1996).

 Repetition, repair, rephrase, phonological tools (Mauranen 2006; Cogo 2009).

 Convergence and repetition (Jenkins, Cogo, and Dewey 2011; Ong, Zhang, and
Martin 2013).

 Focus on Form (FonF) (Loewen (2011)).

THE STUDY
 Medical university in China with CLIL, EMI and ESP provision.
 200 second-year students and 3 EMI teachers.
 Mixed-method design was employed.
 Data collection methods:
1. Audio-recorded classroom observations;
2. Semi-structured post-observation interviews;
3. A questionnaire survey
 Some lessons were transcribed and analysed.
RESULTS
 1 excerpt: PowerPoint (PPT) slides, raising volume, prolonging pronunciation
and using “Chinese English”.
 2 excerpt: code-switching.
 3 excerpt: ask-and-answer interaction, repetition and rephrasing.
 4 excerpt: code-switching, explanation PowerPoint (PPT) slides.

 Teachers don’t apply Focus on Form much, as they consider it to be time-

consuming, to be not in their field of expertise, and they lack English language
proficiency.
RESULTS FROM THE
QUESTIONNAIRE
STRATEGIES
 Pragmatic strategies and input enhancement.

 Accommodation (Cogo and Dewey 2006).

 The manipulation of prosodic features, repetition, and rephrasing (Björkman

2011).

 Teacher-initiated Focus on Form (Costa 2012).

CONCLUSION AND
IMPLICATIONS
PROBLEMS
 The EMI programme is far from a full-fledged practice.
 Teachers’ emphasis on content.
 Inadequate English proficiency of the participants.
 Focus on Form is not overtly attended to.
 Meaning construction and transmission isn’t depended on developing students’
listening and oral skills.
 Few opportunities exist to foster students’ ESP.
CONCLUSION AND
IMPLICATIONS
SUGGESTIONS
 ESP be tailored to EMI needs.
 ESP course design should be informed by genuine EMI settings and be updated in a real-time
manner.
 ESP teachers should consider the influence of educational environment on students’
perceptions of learning needs and benefits.
 China’s EMI teachers need to be equipped with an adequate level of English proficiency and
English teaching skills.
 To remove the dominance of writing skills and establish development of other productive
skills.
 To re-adjust students’ ESP learning motivation and to provide pedagogic remedies for what is
neglected in current EMI practices.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR
ATTENTION!
FEEL FREE TO ASK
QUESTIONS
 REFERENCES
 Björkman, B. 2011. “Pragmatic Strategies in English as an Academic Lingua Franca: Ways of Achieving Communicative Effectiveness?” Journal of
Pragmatics 43 (4): 950–964.
 Cogo, A., and M. Dewey. 2006. “Efficiency in ELF Communication: From Pragmatic Motives to Lexico-grammatical Innovation.” Nordic Journal of
English Studies 5 (2): 59–93.
 Dafouz, E., B. Nunez, C. Sancho, and D. Foran. 2007. “Integrating CLIL at the Tertiary Level: Teachers’ and Students’ Reactions.” In Diverse
Contexts-converging Goals: CLIL in Europe, edited by D. Marsh and D. Wolff, 91–101. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
 Ellis, R., H. Basturkmen, and S. Loewen. 2002. “Doing Focus-on-form.” System 30 (4): 419–432.
 Firth, A. 1996. “The Discursive Accomplishment of Normality: On ‘Lingua Franca’ English and Conversation Analysis.” Journal of Pragmatics 26
(2): 237–259.
 Jacobs, C. 2007. “Integrating Content and Language: Whose Job is It Anyway?” In Researching Content and Language Integration in Higher
Education, edited by R. Wilkinson and V. Zegers, 35–47. Maastricht: Masstricht University.
 Jenkins, J., A. Cogo, and M. Dewey. 2011. “Review of Developments in Research into English as a Lingua Franca.” Language Teaching 44 (3): 281–
315.
 Loewen, S. 2011. “Focus on Form.” In Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning, edited by E. Hinkel, Vol. 2, 576–592.
New York: Routledge.
 Mauranen, A. 2006. “Signaling and Preventing Misunderstanding in English as Lingua Franca Communication.” International Journal of the
Sociology of Language 177: 123–150.
 Tong, F., and Q. Shi. 2012. “Chinese–English Bilingual Education in China: A Case Study of College Science Majors.” International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 15 (2): 165–182.