“…In spite of the substantial amount of research that has accumulated over the years, it is not difficult to discover that LRI studies have mostly concentrated in specific educational stages. In particular, discussions of LRI are largely focused on education training for pre‐ or in‐ service teachers of primary or secondary schools (Coady et al., 2011; Fischer & Lahmann, 2020; Tandon et al., 2017). Geographically, investigations into LRI have also been restricted to the United States or Europe (Fischer & Lahmann, 2020; Foley et al., 2018; Lucas & Villegas, 2011).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In particular, discussions of LRI are largely focused on education training for pre‐ or in‐ service teachers of primary or secondary schools (Coady et al., 2011; Fischer & Lahmann, 2020; Tandon et al., 2017). Geographically, investigations into LRI have also been restricted to the United States or Europe (Fischer & Lahmann, 2020; Foley et al., 2018; Lucas & Villegas, 2011). This means that there are very limited studies conducted outside of these settings, even though MLLs clearly exist beyond school contexts and in other parts of the world (see Hillman, this issue).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The call for promoting linguistically responsive instruction (LRI) has been emphasized for many years (Lucas & Villegas, 2011; Wong‐Fillmore & Snow, 2000). LRI is seen as a strategy that values multilingualism, setting the ground for “language learning, intercultural learning, and for fostering tolerance” (Fischer & Lahmann, 2020, p. 116). It is not only a competence that needs to be developed among language teachers, but also considered necessary for those who teach content.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…doi: 10.1002/tesq.3076 INTRODUCTION T oday's classrooms have become more diverse than ever. As patterns of migration expand and grow, different linguistic communities are brought together, making multilingual learning environments more of a norm than an anomaly (Fischer & Lahmann, 2020;Garc ıa, Arias, Harris Murri, & Serna, 2010;Lucas & Villegas, 2011). Indeed, such diversity is not new to universities in many parts of North America, Europe, or Oceania, but it is becoming increasingly common in East Asian contexts that are seeing internal demographic shifts coupled with rising calls for internationalizing higher education.…”
The promotion of English medium instruction (EMI) in higher education has been a widely adopted institutional response to the forces of globalization in the 21st century. However, while EMI has received much enthusiasm in policy discourse, little research has been conducted to explore whether it effectively addresses the new demands of an increasingly multilingual student body. To fill this gap, in this study I draw on extensive literature on linguistically responsive instruction (LRI) to examine: 1) the practices that are linguistically responsive in higher education EMI classrooms, and 2) the affordances and constraints of such practices. The data for this studytaken from a larger research project that looked into different instructional outcomes of EMIshow that approaches to LRI were manifested in three main ways: technical, facilitative, and sociocultural. To illustrate what these labels mean, a close-up look into three classroom profiles and interviews conducted with the lecturers of each of these classes are provided. Importantly, the multiple approaches to LRI pointed toward a common concern that centered on students' English proficiency. While LRI may have helped resolve immediate comprehension issues and low participation in classroom interactions, the increased attention to language in content courses posed a potential threat to the teaching of the subject discipline. This study, therefore, argues that aside from equipping individual
“…In spite of the substantial amount of research that has accumulated over the years, it is not difficult to discover that LRI studies have mostly concentrated in specific educational stages. In particular, discussions of LRI are largely focused on education training for pre‐ or in‐ service teachers of primary or secondary schools (Coady et al., 2011; Fischer & Lahmann, 2020; Tandon et al., 2017). Geographically, investigations into LRI have also been restricted to the United States or Europe (Fischer & Lahmann, 2020; Foley et al., 2018; Lucas & Villegas, 2011).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In particular, discussions of LRI are largely focused on education training for pre‐ or in‐ service teachers of primary or secondary schools (Coady et al., 2011; Fischer & Lahmann, 2020; Tandon et al., 2017). Geographically, investigations into LRI have also been restricted to the United States or Europe (Fischer & Lahmann, 2020; Foley et al., 2018; Lucas & Villegas, 2011). This means that there are very limited studies conducted outside of these settings, even though MLLs clearly exist beyond school contexts and in other parts of the world (see Hillman, this issue).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The call for promoting linguistically responsive instruction (LRI) has been emphasized for many years (Lucas & Villegas, 2011; Wong‐Fillmore & Snow, 2000). LRI is seen as a strategy that values multilingualism, setting the ground for “language learning, intercultural learning, and for fostering tolerance” (Fischer & Lahmann, 2020, p. 116). It is not only a competence that needs to be developed among language teachers, but also considered necessary for those who teach content.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…doi: 10.1002/tesq.3076 INTRODUCTION T oday's classrooms have become more diverse than ever. As patterns of migration expand and grow, different linguistic communities are brought together, making multilingual learning environments more of a norm than an anomaly (Fischer & Lahmann, 2020;Garc ıa, Arias, Harris Murri, & Serna, 2010;Lucas & Villegas, 2011). Indeed, such diversity is not new to universities in many parts of North America, Europe, or Oceania, but it is becoming increasingly common in East Asian contexts that are seeing internal demographic shifts coupled with rising calls for internationalizing higher education.…”
The promotion of English medium instruction (EMI) in higher education has been a widely adopted institutional response to the forces of globalization in the 21st century. However, while EMI has received much enthusiasm in policy discourse, little research has been conducted to explore whether it effectively addresses the new demands of an increasingly multilingual student body. To fill this gap, in this study I draw on extensive literature on linguistically responsive instruction (LRI) to examine: 1) the practices that are linguistically responsive in higher education EMI classrooms, and 2) the affordances and constraints of such practices. The data for this studytaken from a larger research project that looked into different instructional outcomes of EMIshow that approaches to LRI were manifested in three main ways: technical, facilitative, and sociocultural. To illustrate what these labels mean, a close-up look into three classroom profiles and interviews conducted with the lecturers of each of these classes are provided. Importantly, the multiple approaches to LRI pointed toward a common concern that centered on students' English proficiency. While LRI may have helped resolve immediate comprehension issues and low participation in classroom interactions, the increased attention to language in content courses posed a potential threat to the teaching of the subject discipline. This study, therefore, argues that aside from equipping individual
“…LRI has mostly been applied in pre-service teacher training programs as an approach for teaching English language learners in North American K-12 contexts (Berg & Huang, 2017;Fischer & Lahmann, 2020;Lucas, 2011;Lucas & Villegas, 2013;Martin & Strom, 2016;Tandon, Viesca, Hueston, & Milbourn, 2017;Wernicke, 2019). There are, however, relevant studies which have investigated pedagogical attitudes, beliefs, and practices related to providing language support in university discipline-specific content courses (Aguilar, 2015;Airey, 2012;Gallagher & Haan, 2018;Haan, Gallagher, & Varandani, 2017;Mancho-Bar es & Aguilar-P erez, 2020).…”
This study proposes employing linguistically responsive instruction (LRI) in transnational higher education such as international branch campuses (IBCs). It sheds light on the beliefs and practices of content instructors teaching in English-medium IBCs, in terms of supporting students' academic language development. Previous studies have shown how content instructors, particularly in STEM fields, do not see teaching language as part of their role in the classroom and do not attach importance to it. However, students in IBC contexts often need more language support. 101 IBC instructors from various disciplines completed a survey regarding their beliefs about providing language support for students. A purposeful sampling of 6 engineering, science, and liberal arts instructors were also video-recorded teaching their classes and then interviewed about LRI practices using stimulated-recall techniques. Findings show that while STEM instructors tended to align less with LRI than liberal arts instructors on the surveys, they employed multiple LRI practices while observed teaching. The study shows the importance of going beyond just attitudinal surveys when it comes to understanding STEM instructors' dispositions toward teaching language, and it is proposed that IBCs create dialogic, multidisciplinary faculty learning communities on academic language development and meaning making resources.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.