Content-Based English Education in China: Students’ Experiences and Perspectives

Abstract

This study explores undergraduate students’ experiences and perceptions of the content-based EFL instruction at a northwestern Chinese university. It is one of the first empirical studies of content-based EFL in China. Through a three-part open-ended questionnaire administered with 34 undergraduate students majoring in finance, the study reveals overwhelming support for this approach to EFL. Participants believed that learning English and content knowledge simultaneously was helpful and that the spread of English in China can benefit the nation and its people. The findings also indicate that some participants were critical of the approach, stating that it is “shallow content teaching” and suggesting that subject matter content be taught in Chinese. The participants praised their original English texts and expressed their preference for student-centered learning.

The ‘internationalisation’, or ‘Englishisation’, of higher education in East Asia

“…1 Internationalisation of higher education policies in Japan evaluations of universities as a performance indicator; those providing at least 10% of all courses in English rated as 'excellent' . The policy was revised in 2007, increasing the percentage to 10% of undergraduate credits to be delivered in English (Beckett and Li 2012;Zhang 2017). Of the 135 HEIs across mainland China, 132 had provided EMI courses/programs by 2006, averaging 44 per institution (Wu et al 2010, cited in Hu et al 2014.…”

“…In Japan, Aizawa and Rose (2019) also found it to be a major deterrent for students. English proficiency has been reported to be a significant factor in determining the success of an EMI programme (Ball and Lindsay 2013;Beckett and Li 2012;Doiz et al 2014;Llurda 2013;Wilkinson 2013) and students' English proficiency has been related to a number of issues in the EMI classroom (Airey 2011;Airey and Linder 2006;Beckett and Li 2012;Chapple 2015;Hellekjaer 2010;Tsuneyoshi 2005). These include problems understanding lessons and lectures, communicating disciplinary content, asking/answering fewer questions, taking longer to complete the course and an increased chance of dropping out.…”

“…Similarly, Chapple (2015) found that faculty adjusted content for Japanese student when teaching in English and Japanese students also found EMI more difficult than expected and felt disadvantaged if a western approach was adopted in class. The majority of Chinese students in Beckett and Li's (2012) study also complained about 'the shallowness of content taught in English' (p. 55). Language-related challenges were also reported in where it was reported that despite the existence of language support structures, both students and faculty reported having insufficient English proficiency.…”

“…The predominant medium of instruction is English, yet most believe that a multilingual approach is acceptable and necessary (Galloway et al 2017). The use of the students' mother tongue was seen to be necessary to deliver content and comments reflected concerns regarding the detrimental effects students' low English proficiency can have on content mastery (Airey 2011;Beckett and Li 2012;Chapple 2015;Hellekjaer 2010;Tsuneyoshi 2005). This not only raises questions surrounding the effectiveness of monolingual EMI policies, but students' concerns surrounding their instructors' use of their mother tongue, seen to be a sign of their limited English competence and for not being 'strict', also raises questions regarding both the purpose of EMI and their beliefs that an English-only approach is beneficial for their language learning goals.…”

Teaching in English Is Not Necessarily the Teaching of English

“…Some of the most important factors affecting the successful implementation of EMI in Japan are those of a linguistic nature, starting with the level of English language proficiency students possess. Insufficient ability has been identified as a major impediment to successful EMI courses in numerous previous studies (e.g., Beckett & Li, 2012;Doiz et al, 2012;Webb, 2002). As a consequence, research has shown that students lacking ability to keep up tend to participate less in the classroom (Webb, 2002), have considerable difficulty comprehending lessons (Tsuneyoshi, 2005;Hellekjaer & Räsänen, 2010), take longer to complete their courses (Tsuneyoshi, 2005), and are more likely to drop out (Selzer & Gibson, 2009 classes failed to complete them and either gave up or officially withdrew.…”