ABSTRACT

ORIENTATION TO ENGLISH IN ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION UNIVERSITIES

Given that English has earned the status of being a global lingua franca due mostly to the fast-moving processes of globalization and internationalization, the need for a working knowledge of English is felt more strongly in numerous fields than ever before. One field in which people aim to keep up with this movement towards English competency is higher education (HE). Predominantly, the switch to English as the medium of instruction (EMI) has recently become a phenomenon sweeping across HE institutions in non-English speaking countries in particular. Seeing the growing number of universities adopting EMI, a rich number of language researchers have initiated research on issues relating to EMI. Some topics researchers have addressed up until now include but are not limited to students’ learning experiences, lecturers’ teaching behaviours and experiences and impacts of EMI on national languages and cultures. Yet, little research has been undertaken on the linguistic aspect of EMI, which allows universities to recruit international students most likely to use English as a lingua franca. With a view to bridging this gap, this study reports on part of my PhD research on the perceptions of university lecturers and students towards English in EMI settings. Additionally, the research looks at how lecturers and students view the universities’ English language policies and practices, and to what extent their orientations to English are informed by these policies and practices. The participants of the study were sampled from three EMI universities in Turkey: Bilkent, Bo aziçi and Middle East Technical Universities. Three ğmethods of data collection (survey questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and focus group discussions) were utilized. The preliminary findings suggest that participants have a highly positive view of their English proficiency; their goals are however more native English oriented in respect of written English in comparison to spoken English. Further, their views on the universities’ language policies and practices are multifarious, but mostly under the influence of Standard and native English ideologies.

Orientation to English in English-medium Instruction (EMI) Universities

Ali KarakasPh.D Student

Southampton University

7th International English as a Lingua Franca Conference, Athens, Greece4-6 September 2014

Outline

• Overview of my Ph.D Research– Rationale– Aims & questions

• Methodology– Research design & setting– Sample– Research instruments– Data analyses

• Preliminary data analysis– Student interview data

Rationale

• Rapid increase in the number of EMI courses, programmes

– Non-Anglophone contexts, particularly Europe (Ammon & McConnell, 2002; Wächter & Maiworm, 2008)

– At all stages of education, especially under- and post-graduate levels (Dearden, 2014; OECD, 2010).

– Recruitment of ‘international’ students and academic staff

• Turkey (Internationalization of HE)

– A member of Bologna process – European Higher Education Area– EMI spearheaded by top-tier state and private universities– Targeting ‘internationalism’: through international students & staff

Approach to EMI

• EMI:– The use of English as the main medium of instruction in the

institutions – particularly when students and academic staff do not speak it as a mother tongue

• Status of speakers

– Users of English, not learners/teachers of English

(Björkman, 2008; Mauranen, 2003; Ljosland, 2011)

The notion of ‘E’ (English) and ‘MI’ (medium-of-instruction)

Language aspect:

Language policy and practice matters (Turner & Robson, 2008)

Cognitive-pedagogical aspect

Socio-political aspect

Educational language planning aspect

LEP can ‘’…determine criteria for language correctness, oblige people to adopt certain ways of speaking and writing, create definitions about language and especially determine the priority of certain languages in society and how these languages should be used, taught and learned’’ (Shohamy, 2006, p. 77)

Areas of research on EMI

Medium-of-instruction

Learning outcomes (e.g. Byun et al., 2010)

Linguistic aspects

Comprehension & questioning (Suviniitty, 2012)

Difficulties experienced by lecturers & students (Tange, 2010)

Attitudes towards EMI (Kılıckaya, 2006; Kırkgöz, 2005)

Red ocean v.s. Blue ocean

Academic English language policies

Whose English & norms (Jenkins, 2014; Saarinen & Nikula, 2013)

Whose proficiency: nativeness (Kuteeva, 2014)

Conflicts between policy rhetoric and ground-level reality (Hu, Li, & Lei, 2013)

Revisiting some notions: good English, ideal speaker, norms for spoken English (Björkjman, 2011)

Aims

• to explore what English means for Turkish users (i.e. Content lecturers and students) of English in HE

More precisely:

their language perceptions, attitudes, ideologies views on universities’ language policies and practices

whether language policies influence their language practices

• In this presentation, my focus is on

– students’ views on their own English (benchmark?)

– students’ orientation to English, particularly in relation to spoken and written English (e.g. expectations, goals)

– the underlying ideologies/factors behind their views and

orientation

Aims

• How do Turkish lecturers and students perceive English as medium-of instruction in HE?

– Perceptions of their language skills/use– orientation to written/spoken English– influences of IC communication– differences across disciplines/university

• What language ideologies are prevalent among them, and what factors are involved in the formation of these ideologies?

– E.g. Previous learning experiences, language policies and practices, teachers’ attitudes, etc.

Research questions

Theoretical framework

Standard Language Ideology

Notions

- Correctness

- Authority

- Prestige

- Legitimacy

(Bex & Watts, 1999; Gal, 2006)

Research Setting: oBilkent university (Ankara)oBogazici university (Istanbul)oMiddle East Teachnical Uni. (Ankara)

Methodology

Research instruments

S=351 S=20 S=2

L=351 L=14

Research design

o Mixed & Multi-method

-Quantitative (x1) & qualitative methods(x2)

Sample

423 participants in total

o 351 students & 72 lecturers

Data analyses: Descriptive crititical Qualitative content analysis

+ + Inferential Discourse analysis

(Schreier, 2012)

Methodology

Preliminary data analysis

Students’ perceptions of their major English skills

Positive views on skills:

•Writing, listening, vocabulary, reading,

•Overall English proficiency

Common complaint about spoken English

whose English/norms referred to as YARDSTICK?

Female – History – Bilkent

S11. in respect of accent and pronunciation I see myself [my English] sufficient

and good. While learning words, I pay utmost attention to correct

pronunciations of them. I am not into a conscious imitation regarding

accent.

References to ‘standard native’ English norms

Male – Engineering – METU

S5. I have confidence in myself when it comes to writing there is no trouble

about it. as for grammar, for example, I know the rules and such like but

applying the rules in speaking [is a trouble]

Female – International Relations – METU

S1. my accent is good but there is a problem regarding fluency. that is well I

always pause and think whilst speaking, I mean I lack fluency as I

constantly pause and check whether what I said is grammatically

correct

1

2

3

Female – History – Bilkent University

S18. I do not find my English perfect but consider it a good level of

English I cannot speak with a NS accent, my pronunciation may be

considered good and of course I make mistakes while speaking but

I can easily understand the articles in English, write my thoughts (.)

of course I wish I could speak without mistakes and more fluently

Female – International relations – Bilkent University

S7. not so much [satisfied with my English] but actually because there is

always something I can improve to tell the truth I would wish that I

would be able to speak like an English, using shan’t and such like

Extract 4

Extract 5

Orientation to written English

S11. I exert considerable effort while writing essays or assignments, I’m using the dictionary a lot, even for looking up the words I already know. My biggest trouble is to find the most appropriate word in relation to my assignment to express a notion. I spend a lot of time for this. I can say I am good [at writing]. I do not make basic mistakes in general. Particularly, in terms of grammar, it is unproblematic

A: you pay attention to writing accurately then

S11: yes, absolutely

A: What is the reason of your tendency of making mistakes, sorry your avoidance of making mistakes is it because of lecturers’ reactions or are there other reasons

S11: @ I’m a perfectionist person in general. I am displeased with it. I pay attention to doing my best in everything I do @@ Lecturers can be very harsh on regarding corrections. I do not want to get back my assignment filled with marks and corrections [with red pens]. Of course marking plays a significant role in my attention@@@. As I study through English-medium instruction, I consider writing in a way full of mistakes disrespect to myself. It is like disrespect to my efforts.

Extract 7Female – History – Bilkent

Good writing?

Male – International relations – Bogazici University

S15: I do not aim a NS accent. I would wish [my interlocutors] to

understand what I am saying and I wish I could put

across what I would like to express easily. My English is

sufficient enough for these.

A: I understand

S15: otherwise imitation of the NS’ accents sounds somewhat

artificial

A: exactly it results in some more loss in the naturalness (of

speech)

S15: naturalness yes but …

Orientation to spoken English

Extract 8

S15: it looks very ridiculous from an objective point of view [trying to speak like a NS]

A: Indeed, it does not reflect credit on [speakers], either. So there is a settled prejudice. If they can pretend the NS’ accent, it sounds cool and is prestigious for them from a social point of view, or else

S15: no I think it NEVER sounds cool in our university. In general, almost all lecturers studied [PhD] abroad but they all speak like Turks. Namely, they do NOT attempt to mimic NS accents because their purpose is to lecture on a topic [to students]

A: I see

S15: I mean

A: right

S15: it is not their aim to show off by speaking English with a NS accent. The lecturers are good ones to the extent that students can benefit from their lectures.

Good Lecturers?

Conclusions

Standard English ideology (StE) still continues to inform students’ linguistic behaviours, particulary their writing.

‘Nativeness’ seems to be the bencmark while judging and describing their English proficiency.

There is a discrepancy between students’ approach to written and spoken English. They are more native and standard English-oriented as regards written English.

Lecturers & language teachers play a key role in leading students to adopt certain ways of language use.

References• Ammon, U., & McConnell, G. (2002). English as an academic language in Europe: A survey of its

use in teaching. Bern: Peter Lang.• Baker, C. (1992). Attitudes and language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Limited.• Björkman, B. (2008). “So where we are?” Spoken lingua franca English at a technical university in

Sweden. English Today, 24(2), 35–41. doi:10.1017/S0266078408000187• Björkman, B. (2011). English as a lingua franca in higher education: Implications for EAP. Ibérica,

22, 79–100. Retrieved from http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=3738644• Björkman, B. (2011). English as a lingua franca in higher education: Implications for EAP. Ibérica,

22, 79–100. Retrieved from http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=3738644• Byun, K., Chu, H., Kim, M., Park, I., Kim, S., & Jung, J. (2010). English-medium teaching in Korean

higher education: policy debates and reality. Higher Education, 62, 431–449. doi:10.1007/s10734-010-9397-

• Dearden, J. (2014). English as a medium of instruction – a growing global phenomenon: phase 1 Interim report (pp. 1–8). Oxford: British Council.

• Higgs, R. (1987).Crisis and Leviathan. Oxford: Oxford University Press• Hu, G., Li, L., & Lei, J. (2013). English-medium instruction at a Chinese University: rhetoric and

reality. Language Policy, 13(1), 21–40. doi:10.1007/s10993-013-9298-3• Jenkins, J. (2014). English as a Lingua Franca in the international university. The politics of

academic English language policy. Abingdon, GB: Routledge.• Kılıçkaya, F. (2006). Instructors’ Attitudes towards English-Medium Education in Turkey.

Humanizing Language Teaching, 8(6), 1-9. Retrieved from  http://www.hltmag.co.uk/nov06/mart01.htm

• Kırkgöz, Y. (2005). Motivation and student perception of studying in an English medium university. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 1(1), 101-123. Retrieved from http://jlls.org/Issues/Volume1/No.1/yaseminkirkgoz.pdf

• Kuteeva, M. (2014). The parallel language use of Swedish and English: the question of “nativeness” in university policies and practices. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35(4), 332–344. doi:10.1080/01434632.2013.874432.

• Ljosland, R. (2011). English as an Academic Lingua Franca: Language policies and multilingual practices in a Norwegian university. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(4)991–1004. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.007

• Mauranen, A. (2003). The Corpus of English as Lingua Franca. Tesol Quarterly, 37(3), 513–527.• Saarinen, T. & Nikula, T. (2013). Implicit Policy, Invisible Language: Policies and Practices of

International Degree Programs in Finnish Higher Education. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster, & J. M. Sierra (Eds.). English-medium instruction at universities: Global Challenges. (pp. 131-150). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

• Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. London: Routledge.• Suviniitty, J. (2012). English-medium Instruction–a Friend or a Foe. 40th Annual conference.

Global Mobility and International Cooperation. September 23-26. 2012, Thessaloniki, Greece. Retrieved from http://www.sefi.be/conference-2012/Papers/Papers/062.pdf

• Tange, H. (2010). Caught in the Tower of Babel: university lecturers’ experiences with internationalisation. Language and Intercultural Communication, 10(2), 137-149. doi:10.1080/14708470903342138

• Wachter, B. & Maiworm, F. (2008). English-taught programmes in European higher education: The picture in 2007. Lemmens: ACA Papers on Cooperation in Education.

• Woolard, K. (2005). Language and identity choice in Catolonia: the interplay of contrasting ideologies of linguistic authority. Paper presented at the Workshop on Language Ideology and Change in Multilingual Communities, Uc San Diego February, 2005. Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/47n938cp

ak16g11@soton.ac.uk