Language Gardening Practices of English-Medium Instruction Teachers in

Higher Education

Ali Karakaş

Ph.D Candidate in Applied Linguistics

10th Newcastle upon Tyne Postgraduate Conference in Linguistics20 March 2015

Overview

Background

English-medium instruction (EMI) gathered great momentum in educational institutions. •Dramatic increase in the number of EMI programs/universities - both at undergraduate and postgraduate level (Ammon & McConnell, 2002; Dearden, 2014; Wächter & Maiworm, 2008).

•Increasing number of international students and teaching staff in non-Anglophone countries

In Turkey: Internationalization strategies •Membership to the Bologna process

•Big switch to EMI: around 20% of the programs (Arik & Arik, 2014)

•Huge increase in the number of international students and staff

Rationale

So far, focus on issues unrelated to language:– Cognitive pedagogical aspect– Socio-political aspect – Educational language planning aspects (Selvi, 2014)– Largely discussed & researched

Currently, focus on language-related issues: – Linguistic aspects language policy & practice matters (Turner & Robson, 2008).

– Little research in non-Anglophone settings (e.g. Björkman, 2011,

2013; Kuteeva, 2014; Saarinen & Nikula, 2013), particularly in Turkey (Jenkins, 2014).

Medium of Instruction (MI)

debate

The notion of ‘E’ (English)

Why English language policies?

Rationale

‘’…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)

‘’[EMI] programs [are] being introduced with scant underpinning of research findings into the relationships between language and content” or of language ideology

(Wilkinson & Zegers, 2006, p. 12)

Why EMI programs?

How do Turkish EMI universities and their teaching staff orient to students’ language use?

•How do content teachers orient to their students’ written and spoken English in respect of language practices?

•Are there any differences in content and language teachers’ expectations of their students’ spoken and written English? If so, what are the underlying reasons?

Research questions

Language gardening: why a ‘gardening’ image?

“… an image that nicely caters for the arsenal of prescriptive texts (dictionaries, style guides, usage books, grammars) that give a standard language like English much of its muscle” (Burridge, 2008, p. 3).

Language gardener

•anyone who has concerns about language and its use•one who “who simply enjoy[s] looking things up in dictionaries and usage books” (p. 2) •one who attempts to modify the language practices of others

Conceptual orientations

Critical Language Policy (LP)

Definitions

“an officially mandated set of rules for language use and form within a nation-state” (Spolsky, 2012, p. 3).

“language policy (LP) is the primary mechanism for organizing, managing and manipulating language behaviours as it consists of decisions made about languages and their uses in society” (Shohamy, 2006, p. 45)

is concerned with choices, as noted by Walter and Benson (2012), but they also comprise the beliefs and values shaping the choices made (Spolsky, 2005).

Conceptual orientations

Language policy framework (Spolsky, 2004)

- a set of beliefs as regards language and language use

“the formulation and proclamation of an explicit plan or policy, usually but not necessarily written in a formal document, about language use” (Spolsky, 2004, p. 14).

what individuals actually do while using the language (e.g. their pattern of linguistic choices, formality, following the agreed rules or not and etc.).

… LP [language policy] should not be limited to the examination of declared and official statements. Rather, the real policy is executed through a variety of mechanisms that determine the de facto practices. There is a need, therefore, to examine the use of mechanisms and study their consequences and effects on de facto LP, as it is through these mechanisms that the de facto language policy is created and manifested” (Shohamy, 2006, p. 54)

Language policy mechanisms

a.Rules and regulations

b.Language educational policies

c.Language tests

d.Language in public space

e.Ideologies, myths, propaganda and coercion

Extended language policy (Shohamy, 2006)

The Study

AnkaraIstanbul

The Study• Online & hard copy

questionnaire on perceptions of English/EMI and experiences (40 questions, roughly 15 mins)

• 423 responses (351 Ss/72 Ls)

• 14 lecturers & 20 students

• Content analysis and discourse analysis

• Two focus groups: one with Ss from Bilkent, the other with Ss from Bogazici

• Each university's website data and accessible policy documents

Lecturers’ orientations to students’ writing

Findings

No

N S. agree Agree Disagree S. disagree Mean SD

f % f % f % f % x̄ s

S3 72 8 11.1 30 41.7 27 37.5 7.82 9.7 2.54

S3. Students' academic writing should conform to either American or

British English in their exam papers and assignments.

Conformity to standard English desirable

A: Interviewer L1: Male, Bilkent University, International Relations

Conformity to standard English desirable

A: Interviewer S5: Male, Metu, Mechanical Engineering

Variation from StE acceptable: Focus on content & meaning

A: Interviewer L5: Female, Bilkent, History

Lecturers’ orientations to students’ speaking

Findings

S4. Communicative success is more important than speaking correctly

in oral contexts (e.g. presentations, discussions).

No

N S. agree Agree Disagree S. disagree Mean SD

f % f % f % f % x̄ s

S4 72 7 9.7 43 59.7 20 27.8 2 2.8 2.76 .66

Flexible approach: Communication & intelligibility important than conformity to native English but using StE desirable

A: Interviewer S1: Female, Bilkent, History

Non-conforming position: Maintaining non-native accents acceptable

A: Interviewer L8: Female, Bilkent, History

Conformity to standard English desirable

A: Interviewer S1: Female, Bilkent Metu, International Relations

Language teachers: conformity to StE important

A: Interviewer S2: Male, Metu, Mechanical Engineering

Language teachers: conformity to StE important

A: Interviewer S15: Male, Bogazici, International Relations

Conclusions

Content teachers are more inclined to intervene students’ writing

•Ideal for academic teaching•Non-native English usage not appropriate for academic writing•Conformity to a standard desirable & important

More tolerant with respect to speaking

•Focus on content & meaning•Equity issues & acceptance of non-native usage•Creative language use acceptable

Language teachers are harsher compared to content teachers

•Standard English is best in educational contexts & for academic writing

References

• Ammon, U., & McConnell, G. (2002). English as an academic language in Europe: A survey of its use in teaching. Bern: Peter Lang.

• Arik, B. T., & Arik, E. (2014). The role and status of English in Turkish higher education. English Today, 30(4), 5–10. doi:10.1017/S0266078414000339

• Björkman, B. (2011). English as a lingua franca in higher education: Implications for EAP. Ibérica, 22, 79–100.• Burridge, K. (2004). Blooming English: Observations on the roots, cultivation and hybrids of the English

language. Cambridge University Press.• Dearden, J. (2014). English as a medium of instruction – a growing global phenomenon: phase 1 Interim report

(pp. 1–8). Oxford: British Council.• Jenkins, J. (2014). English as a Lingua Franca in the international university. The politics of academic English

language policy. Abingdon, GB: Routledge.• 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.

• 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.

• Selvi, A. (2014). The medium-of-instruction debate in Turkey: oscillating between national ideas and bilingual ideals. Current Issues in Language Planning, 1–20. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14664208.2014.898357

• Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. London: Routledge.• Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy: Key topics in sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.• Turner, Y., & Robson, S. (2008). Internationalizing the university. London: Continuum Intl. Pub. Group.• Wachter, B. & Maiworm, F. (2008). English-taught programmes in European higher education: The picture in

2007. Lemmens: ACA Papers on Cooperation in Education