Language Policy and Transnational Education (TNE) Institutions: What Role for What English?

Perrin, Stuart

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-51976-0_9

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…English is central to the internationalisation agenda in both countries. In China, EMI provision is part of a Ministry of Education Plan (National Plan for Medium and Long Term Educational Reform and Development), which aims to attract up to 35.5 million international students by 2020 (Perrin 2017). Yet, while internationalisation may be a priority for universities around the globe, we should be wary of promoting both a Westernised and also a monolingual approach to EMI.…”

Section: Attitudes Towards Emimentioning

confidence: 99%

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

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, one of the most significant trends in higher education in non-anglophone countries has been the growth in English Medium Instruction (EMI). However, provision is rapidly outpacing empirical research. This study examined how macro-level education policy with regard to EMI is both implemented and conceptualised at the institutional and classroom level in Chinese and Japanese universities. Utilising questionnaires with home students (n = 579) and staff (n = 28), interviews with home students (n = 29) and staff (n = 28) and four focus groups with staff and four with home students, in addition to questionnaires (n = 123), interviews (n = 10) and three focus groups with international students, the study provides insights into how EMI policy is operationalised, including types of programmes and language use, and how it is conceptualised by different stakeholders. The results highlight contextual constraints to policy implementation, calling for the need for more research into this growing trend and curriculum evaluation to inform context-sensitive ways to implement EMI policy. It also calls for a critical examination of monolingual EMI policies and academic norms amidst growing multilingualism in the EMI classroom as well as clear goals and objectives due to varying conceptualisations of the purposes of EMI amongst staff and students.

show abstract

Section: Attitudes Towards Emimentioning

confidence: 99%

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

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These institutions generally transcend geopolitical, sociocultural and sociopolitical borders through the mobility of their EMI academic programs, personnel, brand, and students (Caruana & Montgomery, 2015;Kosmützky & Putty, 2016;Phan, 2018). Admittedly, there are different configurations of TNHE, as detailed in Healey (2017) and Perrin (2017) that include franchising and validation, international branch campuses, corporate programs, online learning and distance education. However, what binds much of the TNHE enterprise together is an EMI language policy that is mediated at an institutional level.…”

Section: Transnational Higher Education (Tnhe)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In order to participate competitively in the knowledge economy and achieve national development goals (Li, 2016), the Chinese government has implemented a series of policies and strategies to promote the internationalization of its higher education sector, including building world-class universities, recruiting international scholars and students, and establishing international partnerships with high-status institutions from the West with a STEM emphasis (Paul & Long, 2016). 2 As a result of this transformative drive, Chinese central and regional governments have (1) adopted an EMI language policy as a key strategy to internationalize its higher education (Zhang, 2018), and (2) encouraged the establishment of several highlevel Sino-Foreign cooperative projects (Huang, 2016;Perrin, 2017) as exemplary TNHE universities. As a key component of the internationalization of the higher education sector in China, the TNHE initiative is commonly known as 中外合作办学 (zhong wai he zuo ban xue), that is, a set of joint higher education provisions cooperatively run by Chinese educational institutions and foreign educational institutions (MOE, 2004).…”

Section: Tnhe In Chinamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As noted, TNHE features include the import of international curricula, the implementation of an EMI language policy as well as the presence of international students and faculty. While many scholars (e.g., Han, 2017;Hayhoe & Pan, 2015;Huang, 2016;Perrin, 2017) have paid attention to this emergent phenomenon in China, most of these studies address the historical development and current challenges associated with TNHE at the societal and/or institutional level. Little is still known, however, about the impact of TNHE on the individual social actors in such complex multilingual contexts (Huang, 2016).…”

Section: Tnhe In Chinamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Problematizing EMI language policy in a transnational world

Costa¹,

Green‐Eneix²,

Li³

2020

English Today

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Language policies generally seek to establish, regulate, and conform linguistic practices – whether explicit or implicit – that occur within an ‘authorized’ domain. While there are multiple levels (societal, institutional, and interpersonal) at which such policies are enacted (Hornberger & Johnson, 2007), academic institutions are often significant policy arbiters as they serve as crucial switchboards (Blommaert, 2010; De Costa, 2010) that connect policies at the societal and interpersonal levels. In particular, English medium of instruction (EMI) policies that mandate English as the primary means of academic content delivery have played a pivotal role in enabling universities in countries such as Bangladesh (Rahman & Mehar Singh, 2019), China (e.g., Hu, 2009; Song, 2019; Zhang, 2018), Saudi Arabia (Barnawi, 2018; Phan & Barnawi, 2015), and Vietnam (Phan, 2018) to establish themselves on the world stage and engage with the global community. Even though several scholars (e.g., Coleman, 2006; Jenkins, 2019a; Knight, 2013, 2016; Macaro et al., 2018) have investigated EMI policies across different contexts, the following central question concerning these policies still persists: in what ways has the implementation of EMI policies transformed the higher education sector, and subsequently affected primary social actors, such as students, teachers, and administrators embedded within these shifting contexts? These concerns, we posit, are amplified by the transnational movements of people and institutions (Duff, 2015) and the ever-increasing speed and agility with which TESOL as a field has to respond to the shifting tides of globalization (Barnawi, 2020). Given this conspicuous gap in an ever-evolving English language policy landscape, we set out to critically review previous works that have examined the implementation of EMI policies within a transnational higher education (TNHE) context. TNHE is characterized by the transformation of higher education across the globe (Knight, 2013; Kosmützky & Putty, 2016) as Western-based universities export models – driven by a neoliberal agenda to maximize financial profit – through the establishment of overseas branch campuses. In reviewing works that examine TNHE, we aim to stimulate dialogue on this contemporary phenomenon.

show abstract

“…The fact that some aspects of EMI practice have been called to account for native speakerist assumptions suggests that some quarters of EMI practice may still have problems with recognizing the plural nature of English. Concerning EMI in China, Perrin (, p. 155) notes that the matter of ‘variety and standard’ of English adopted by EMI institutions in China is a matter that requires further discussion given the ‘pressure on both academic staff whose first language is not English and the student body to function as close as possible to native‐like standards.’. Jenkins (, p. 94) similarly problematizes the conflation of the global and international aspects of EMI with native‐like proficiency in English when she makes the point that institutions which purport to be supportive of ‘diversity, flexibility, multiculturalism, and the like’ may be the same institutions whose practices reflect the opposite in relation to English's pluralities.…”

Section: Emi: Issues and Concernsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges in English‐medium instruction (EMI) at a Japanese university

Toh

2019

World Englishes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper concerns English-medium instruction (EMI) and beginswith an overview of issues relating to EMI initiatives in higher education as documented in the literature. Following this, the case of a Japanese university's attempt to introduce EMI into the curriculum of a newly setup liberal arts faculty is discussed. Conclusions about challenges that can follow policy initiatives to introduce EMI are drawn from this discussion. Outcomes and implications of different ways of understanding and/or conceptualizing the role of English in higher education and EMI are examined critically. The issues surfaced have implications for EMI policy making and implementation, bearing in mind the negotiations that need to take place given the workings of opposing forces: (1) those which reify homogenizing discourses about language, power and education; versus (2) those which accommodate the contextually particularized aspects of teaching and learning and the characteristically heterogeneous and intersectional nature of teacher and learner subjectivities. c 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/weng World Englishes 2020;39:334-347. TOH 335concerned. The thick description provided in the book attests to the fact that EMI initiatives in situations where English has traditionally not been the medium of classroom instruction cannot be treated reductively and, still less, directorially, but must be considered as reflexive matters that concern: (1) the confluences of language, knowledge, meaning making and the negotiated nature of disciplinarity; as well as (2) the cultural-politics of language and ideology germane to the very locality and intersectionality of the particular initiative. The issues examined will have implications for EMI policy making, conceptualization and implementation, bearing in mind the sorts of negotiations that have to take place given the workings of opposing ideological forces: (1) those which reify homogenizing discourses about language, power and education; versus (2) those which accommodate the contextually particularized aspects of teaching and learning and the characteristically heterogeneous and intersectional nature of teacher and learner subjectivities.

show abstract

Language Policy and Transnational Education (TNE) Institutions: What Role for What English?

Cited by 6 publications

References 10 publications

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

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

Problematizing EMI language policy in a transnational world

Challenges in English‐medium instruction (EMI) at a Japanese university

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About