There has been growing institutional concern over the past 20-25 years about the importance of the internationalization of universities worldwide, which is connected to the use of English as the language of instruction in non-English speaking countries (Coleman, 2006;Ljosland, 2005). Given this move towards English-taught programs in universities with an ESP tradition, the roles of language and content merit further research, specifically their integration, and the lessons which can be learnt from the ESP perspective to adapt to this new situation.Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), which has grown in Europe since the 1990s (Dalton-Puffer, 2007), has been defined as "an educational approach where [content] subjects […] are taught through the medium of a foreign language" to students at all educational levels (Dalton-Puffer, Nikula, & Smit, 2010, p. 1). Some approaches stress the dual integrative focus on content and language, taught by subject specialists or team teaching (Greere & Räsänen, 2008).From the US tradition of Content-Based Instruction (CBI), (Brinton, Snow, & Wesche, 1989), different levels of integration can be distinguished according to (i) whether content is the primary goal of the course under the sole responsibility of the specialist instructor; (ii) whether or not language learning support is included (sheltered model);' (iii) if there is specific language instruction to support content courses through the collaboration of subject-matter and language specialists (adjunct model), and (iv) if the language instructor uses discipline content to teach language (theme-based), similar to Dudley-Evans and St. John's (1998) "carrier content". In turn, these authors identify different types of collaboration that range from cooperation to team-teaching. These are not unproblematic, because content lecturers fear that adapting content to English lower-proficiency learners may result in a "watering down of the content"; or language lecturers may regard supporting other disciplines as "eroding their professional career" (Crandall & Kaufman, 2002, p. 3).In Europe, Greere and Räsänen (2008) propose a classification of CLIL courses ranging from the absence of the integration of language and content to full collaboration between language and discipline specialists: (i) the non-integration model (which they term 'non-CLIL'), involving independent content and language courses (less than 25% of exposure to English in content courses); (ii) the Language for Specific Purposes (LSP)/Discipline Based Language Teaching mode, similar to the theme-based model above (i.e., subject-matter exposure through LSP subjects); (iii) the pre-CLIL model (language/content), which involves LSP courses preparing for content courses (similar to the CBI adjunct model) or contentThe role of content and language in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at university: Challenges and implications for ESP AbstractIn a context characterized by the increasing presence of CLIL programs in universities with a tradition ...

As EMI involves the integration of content and discipline-specific communication, this study focuses on intersections between ESP and EMI, especially on how ESP can contribute to improving discipline-specific communication in EMI from the perspective of content lecturers' needs. Specifically, this study provides an overview of EMI training programmes offered by universities in Catalonia (Spain), and explores the written genres assigned by content lecturers in EMI subjects. EMI training programmes are classified according to their orientation: communication, pedagogy, and multilingualism/multiculturalism (Fortanet-Gómez, 2010;Kurtán, 2003). Our analysis pays special attention to the extent to which there is an ESP focus in such training and is complemented by a questionnaire to a group of EMI lecturers on their reported use/teaching of disciplinary genres, following Nesi and Gardner (2012). Findings shed light on practices and expectations related to discipline-specific genre pedagogy, an area that is at the crossroads between EMI and ESP. By examining lecturer perspectives on EMI alongside institutional policies and training programmes, this study can help lecturers cope with the challenges of EMI, and contribute to further developing EMI-ESP lecturer collaboration.Key words genre analysis, EMI lecturer training programmes, ESP, interdisciplinary collaboration, academic writing. * Corresponding address: Guzman Mancho-Barés, Department of English and Linguistics, University of Lleida, Pl/ Víctor Siurana, 1, 25003 Lleida, (Catalonia) Spain. EMI LECTURER TRAINING PROGRAMMES AND ACADEMIC LITERACIEShttps://doi.org/10.18485/esptoday.2017.5.2.7Vol. 5(2)(2017): Sažetak Kako nastava stručnih predmeta na engleskom jeziku (EMI) podrazumeva integrisanje stručnog gradiva i komunikacije karakteristične za određenu naučnu disciplinu, ova studija se bavi dodirnim tačkama između engleskog jezika struke i nauke (ESP) i EMI, posebno načinima na koje ESP može doprineti poboljšanju disciplinarne komunikacije u kontekstu EMI sa aspekta potreba nastavnika stručnih predmeta. Konkretnije, studija pruža pregled programa obuke za EMI na univerzitetima u Kataloniji (Španija) i istražuje pisane žanrove koje predaju nastavnici stručnih predmeta u nastavi na engleskom jeziku. Programi obuke klasifikovani su na osnovu opredeljenja u pogledu: komunikacije, pedagoškog pristupa i multilingvizma/multikulturalnosti (FortanetGómez, 2010;Kurtán, 2003). U analizi posebnu pažnju obraćamo na stepen zastupljenosti ESP u takvim obukama i predstavljamo upitnik podeljen grupi nastavnika koji nastavu stručnih predmeta drže na engleskom jeziku i njihove odgovore o tome koje disciplinarne žanrove koriste/predaju u takvoj nastavi, po uzoru na Nesi i Gardner (2012). Rezultati otkrivaju praksu i očekivanja vezane za nastavu disciplinarno specifičnih žanrova, oblast koja se nalazi na raskršću EMI i ESP. Pošto se bavi stavovima nastavnika o EMI i institucionalnim politikama i programima obuke, ova studija može biti od pomoći nastavnicima da lakše izađu na ...

There is a lack of research on the impact of study abroad (SA) on the development of L2 English when students study in non-anglophone countries. The aim of the present study is to fill this gap by examining 39 Catalan/Spanish students who, as part of an Erasmus exchange, spent a term at universities in non-English-speaking European countries. In this context, English was used as the vehicular language for their studies and in their daily extracurricular activities when interacting with other students. Our research focuses the impact of this specific type of SA on students' L2 English proficiency, and in particular their writing skills. Before and after the study abroad, students completed the Quick Oxford Placement Test (a general measure of L2 proficiency) and also drafted a short written paragraph in English. Their writing was analysed for syntactic complexity, lexical complexity and subordination. The results show that participants improved significantly after their SA on two out of the four measures: general L2 proficiency and lexical complexity. Though threshold levels of general proficiency have been posited for students' ability to benefit linguistically from SA, in this case, L2 proficiency at the outset of the SA experience was found not to influence the development of writing skills, except on the measure of subordination. Implications are drawn for further research and pedagogic practice in developing English as a lingua franca skills in a European context.

Research on English-medium instruction (EMI) has pointed to lecturers’ refusal to teach or correct English. This study seeks empirical evidence to investigate the extent to which content lecturers’ assessment practices align with their expressed beliefs regarding language teaching. Drawing on three types of data – a questionnaire, interviews and students’ exams – we aimed at finding and exploring EMI lecturers’ written corrective feedback (WCF) as part of language assessment practices. Findings suggest that while EMI content lecturers repeatedly express their refusal to teach English, their actual teaching practices show evidence of some provision of language-related feedback. These findings are discussed against university language education policy. A gate opener lecturer profile is identified whose corrective feedback creates opportunities for correctly using disciplinary English.

The process of internationalisation of higher education can be seen as fluctuating between two main discourses: economic competition and academic internationalisation (Bolsman & Miller 2008). Within the former type of discourse, internationalisation is constructed as a means to generate income, in competition with other institutions, through the provision of research and teaching services of a high quality to as many 'clients' as possible. From the point of view of academic internationalism, internationalisation is represented as a joint enterprise by institutions from different countries for the advancement of human knowledge and intercultural understanding. In this paper we aim to explore the views of the teaching staff of two bilingual universities in Spain in connection with the process of internationalisation of their institution, placing a special emphasis on its impact on language policy. The sample for this study was made up of 173 university teaching staff who completed a questionnaire in which they were asked to express their views on issues such as internationalisation at higher education institutions, academic mobility and their attitudes towards multilingualism. The participants belonged to two officially bilingual universities in Spain, namely the University of Lleida (UdL) and the University of the Basque Country (UBC). Variables such as the sociolinguistic context, gender, mother tongue and age were considered when scrutinising the participants' answers with a view to drawing a picture of internationalisation which included opinions on academic mobility and multilingualism from the teaching staff's perspective.