Legitimising teacher identity: Investment and agency from an ecological perspective

Questioning the Sustainability of English-Medium Instruction Policy in Science Classrooms: Teachers’ and Students’ Experiences at a Hong Kong Secondary School

“…This accords with recent research into teachers' perspectives on EMI in Japan and China, where teachers primarily saw EMI as "an instructional approach to content learning, rather than as a tool for learning English" [7] (p. 33). This also aligns with Block and Moncada-Comas's conception of EMI teachers positioning themselves as being not English language teachers (ELTs) [47] (see also [44,48]).…”

“…Moreover, in line with a number of recent studies exploring the challenges of teaching and learning in EMI settings, we further analysed our coded segments for the positions taken up by our participants (see [44,45]). More specifically, through the lens of Positioning Theory [46], we were able to delineate further our participants' beliefs, challenges, and coping strategies with respect to their acceptance/rejection of macro-(institutional), meso-(classroom), and micro-level (individual) constraints and affordances.…”

“…Nevertheless, it is also interesting to note that although the teachers in our sample shared this positioning, their beliefs also reflected the absence of a language learning outcome in their curriculum. We would argue that they are, in essence, aligning with the EMI gaze within the shaping structures of their institution (see [2,47]); namely, the discursive formation at the institutional level of the school (i.e., the framing of a curriculum unconcerned with language assessment) is actually legitimising their positions as not language teachers [44]. Hence, by enacting EMI through their policy documents in such a way, this school is, albeit implicitly, (re)enforcing their teachers' beliefs that language learning is not a concern in their classrooms.…”

“…Overall, these teachers sought to improve students' analytical and communication skills by scaffolding, monitoring, and promoting a range of question types and strategies. Hence, such a diverse, fluid approach to EMI teaching should be recognised for its pedagogical value in helping students overcome language challenges that go beyond vocabulary, as well as highlighting how these teachers position themselves as caring individuals [44]-such a thought out and dynamic approach is clearly for the benefit of the students. Furthermore, these temporary coping and learning strategies should not be considered as obstacles to students' intellectual development, such as hindering higher-order cognitive thinking, as is often suggested [6].…”

“…Essentially, although frequent reference was made to problems concerning vocabulary, our teachers dealt with it by guiding students toward other regulatory agents besides themselves: Namely, material artefacts (i.e., technology and textbooks) and self-regulatory processes voluntarily taken up by the students (rote memorisation, form-to-function mapping, etc.). This kind of positioning by the teachers could be due to the nature of their institution's policy documents, which do not include language as one of the core learning components; alternatively, it may simply be because they do not see themselves as teachers of discrete skills, but as facilitators of critical thinking and holistic learning in general (see also [44]).…”