Keith M. Graham, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan
Zohreh R. Eslami, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA

With increased pressure from internationalization, classrooms around the world are turning toward English medium instruction (EMI) with hopes that the learning of both academic content and a foreign language may occur simultaneously. Though the efficient learning prospects of EMI certainly are appealing, the reality is that the effectiveness of EMI in regard to content and language learning remains in question (Graham et al., 2018), not to mention the effects EMI has on the first language and local culture (Graham & Eslami, 2019).

We believe various issues surrounding EMI may be related to its monolingual conceptualization driven by native-speaker ideologies. From these ideologies have emerged several myths about EMI that are preventing this form of education from realizing a multilingual conceptualization that may lead toward more positive outcomes. In this article, we challenge these myths and encourage moving beyond a monolingual EMI toward a multilingual EMI classroom.

Myth 1: English Medium Instruction Means English Only

When policymakers put forth a plan for implementing EMI, the plan usually explicitly or implicitly demands English-only instruction. These monolingual policies arise from the myth that EMI means “English only.” But is EMI really defined in this way?

Macaro (2018), in his book titled English Medium Instruction, defines EMI as “the use of the English language to teach academic subjects…” (p. 1). A surface-level reading may suggest this definition aligns with a monolingual EMI, but Macaro (2018) probes this definition by asking several questions—how much English use, what kind of English use, and English used by whom—all which question the monolingual myth.

As readers, you may be asking: If the answers to the preceding questions are not English only, then what are the answers? Though the current literature provides few answers, Nodding’s (2013) ethical caring may serve as a guide. In brief, ethical caring puts the student first and posits that any decisions regarding classroom language policy should be based on the best interest of the students, not predetermined language principles (see Graham & Eslami, 2020, for a more in-depth discussion). As for Macaro’s (2018) questions, ethical caring would suggest all answers would be context specific and aligned with student success.

Myth 2: Students Do Not Want Other Languages in the Classroom

The first myth, EMI means English only, is often perpetuated by a second myth: Students do not want languages other than English in the classroom. In our own research in Qatar, one instructor shared, “I don't want to say [that] I don't want to [speak Arabic], but it is an American [branch campus] university…why do [students] care if I speak Arabic or not?” (Hillman et al., 2019, p. 50). From this quote, we notice two issues. First, the instructor seems to be driven by a principle-based approach that stipulates English only in an American branch campus as opposed to an ethical caring approach where student needs supersede such principles.

Second, the instructor also makes the assumption that students do not care if Arabic is spoken. In a forthcoming study (Graham et al., 2020), we found many students did in fact care. One student suggested that, “Arabic [in EMI] can help specific people understand concepts and [make] definitions easier to understand, especially for people who struggle with English.” Another student’s words truly embodied the ideals of ethical caring: “[It] doesn’t matter what language is used [in EMI] if the point can be reached.” This shows that students do want and see the need for a multilingual EMI.

Myth 3: Languages Should Not Be Used With Nonspeakers Present

As EMI programs around the world attract more international students, a pervading EMI myth is that their presence is justification for restricting other languages in EMI. The reasoning behind this myth is articulated by one professor in Qatar: “I wouldn’t use Arabic if my audience had one non-Arabic speaker…I don't want to make them feel uncomfortable” (Hillman et al., 2019, p. 51). However, we question why in an increasingly globalized world one might feel uncomfortable around other languages. Exemplifying this, one student showcased a truly global mindset by sharing, “I don’t seem to have a problem with [the use of Arabic]…I have friends…that speak Tamil, Mandarin, and other languages. Some may argue that it is not inclusive, but I’m used to the diverse settings” (Graham et al., 2020).

Turning back toward ethical caring, we wonder: Is restricting language use in the classroom really helping all of our students? For those international students we are looking to support, are they best prepared for a globalized world in a monolingual environment, or would helping them become used to diverse settings where multiple languages are spoken better serve their future needs? We believe these questions further cast doubt on the myth that EMI is best as monolingual.

Conclusion

Though EMI has been positioned as English only in many parts of the world, this designation is based on myths driven by native-speaker ideologies. There are no rules that say certain spaces are reserved for certain languages, and such points are countered by the realities of our multilingual world. Though many members of TESOL International Association may not be persuaded by such monolingual positions, many of our colleagues and schools are. Therefore, it is upon us to raise awareness about these issues and identify them for what they are—myths. By promoting an ethical caring, rather than a principle-based, approach to language policy in education, we may someday be able to realize the power of a multilingual EMI classroom.

References

Graham, K. M., Choi, Y., Davoodi, A., Razmeh, S., & Dixon, L. Q. (2018). Language and content outcomes of CLIL and EMI: A systematic review. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 11(1), 19–37. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2018.11.1.2

Graham, K. M., & Eslami, Z. R. (2019). Attitudes toward EMI in East Asia and the Gulf: A systematic review. Language Problems and Language Planning, 43(1), 8–31. https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.00030.gra

Graham, K. M., & Eslami, Z. R. (2020). Translanguaging as an act of ethical caring in the English medium instruction classroom. In C.-C. Lin & M. C. Zaccarini (Eds.), Internationalization in action: Leveraging diversity and inclusion in globalized classrooms (pp. 9–26). Peter Lang.

Graham, K. M., Eslami, Z. R., & Hillman, S. (2020). From English as the medium to English as a medium: Perspectives of EMI students in Qatar [Manuscript submitted for publication]. College of Teacher Education, National Taiwan Normal University.

Hillman, S. K., Graham, K. M., & Eslami, Z. R. (2019). Teachers’ translanguaging practices at an international branch campus in Qatar. English Teaching and Learning, 43(1), 41–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-018-0015-3

Macaro, E. (2018). English medium instruction. Oxford University Press.

Noddings, N. (2013). Caring: A relational approach to ethics and moral education. University of California Press.

Zohreh R. Eslami is a professor in the Department of Educational Psychology at Texas A&M University. Her research has examined intercultural and cross-cultural communication, English as an international language, sociocultural perspectives of teaching, and acquisition of English as a second/foreign language.