English as a Medium of Instruction in Turkish Universities: Some Considerations of Policy and Research Agenda.
Zhanna Shatrova (Mugla, Turkey)
The need of specialists and professionals who can compete on the global labor market and advance in their careers is obvious. English as a main language of business, communication, and professional life is another thing which educators and policy makers agree on. Globalization and Englishisation acquired almost the same meaning (Marsh, 2006). How to warrant that young graduates will be equipped with skills, knowledge, and means to communicate those? English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) is a growing global phenomenon (Dearden, 2014) and is seen as an effective tool to provide quality education for specialists in various areas in the counties where the native language is not English. At the same time, academicians express lots of concerns about the ways this approach is implemented and provisioned in higher education establishments. As a complex field of study, EMI practices need the input from all intersecting disciplines to get more insight of consequences and ramifications of this method (Dimova et al., 2015). One of the efforts to gain understanding and comprehensive data on the state and conditions of EMI is a British Council 2014 report on the study in 55 countries. It identified the areas which require improvement and reconsideration. Common obstacles and stumbling blocks for effective EMI teaching stem from insufficient educational infrastructure and lack of organizational and pedagogical guidelines (Dearden, 2014).
Turkey is among the countries which broadly employ EMI in higher education: about 20% of all undergraduate programs use EMI at different departments, mostly engineering, political science, tourism, and medicine (Karakas, 2016). This paper is aimed at posing some questions about EMI in Turkey and pondering the agenda for the further consideration of this issue. The review of recent literature, personal research interest, observation and communication in and outside the classroom let me identify the areas which need exploration and discourse among policy-makers, researchers, and practitioners.
Turkish context
EMI provision assumes to achieve two goals: to attract international students and enhance the profile of national universities and to create employment opportunities for the citizens across the country’s borders. Turkey is not an exception in declaring and pursuing those goals when it comes to decisions about EMI. Approximately 110 out of 178 institutions have some kind of EMI provision (Dearden, 2014). This number serves as evidence of growing popularity of this approach. However, some researchers argue that more investigation on its effectiveness is needed (Bjo¨rkman, 2011). A number of studies in Turkey addressed the areas of concern examining the perceptions of instructors and professors about EMI effectiveness (Coşkun, 2013; Dearden, 2014; Hayriye, 2008; Karakas, 2016; Shatrova, 2014).
Attitudes of “key actors”
The attitude of educators vary along the spectrum from full support to calls to abandon EMI and adopt Turkish-medium of instruction. The challenges with provision of EMI start with the decision making which is very tightly linked to YÖK (Ministry of Higher Education) and executed without due consideration of the voices of all stakeholders (Karakas, 2016).
It takes too much effort and time for any suggested improvements or initiatives from practitioners to be implemented (Shatrova, 2014). Educators identify main obstacles for effective EMI: insufficient resources, shortage of EMI teachers, forms of assessment, lack of clear guidance for outcomes and requirements, to name a few (Dearden, 2014). The lecturers have doubts about the students’ ability to master the content of subject areas which negatively affect their knowledge and skills. They also point out to low motivation and feeling of alienation of the students in EMI classes (Dearden, 2014; Karakas, 2016). A question of continuous discussion is the level of English competency of university graduates with EMI. Many Turkish scholars agree that B1 level instead of existing B2 as a requirement might be sufficient for engineers, for instance (Coşkun, 2013; Hayriye, 2008). While the perceptions of professors and instructors are gaining more and more attention, the topic of students’ views on this phenomenon is much less investigated. I did not come across studies on Turkish students’ perceptions on EMI; however, from my personal communication and observation of students I can say the students view resonates with the professors’ concerns. The students do not have a clear understanding of the importance of having a sufficient B2 level of English knowledge. They see learning English as a short-term goal (just pass the exam to get to their department). As a result, many of them experience difficulties in understanding their professors in the class and learning the subject matter. The professors in such situations often do not provide enough assistance because they do not see teaching English as their goal (Airey, 2012). The students in private conversations complain and express their frustration about such a situation; yet, they do not usually do anything more than just sharing their concerns with friends and acquaintances. Moreover, based on the data I obtained from my students, they do not have a clear vision how their English proficiency can serve them in future.
It raises another issue. Graduates of the programs with EMI are excluded from the researches’ agenda. Dimova et al. (2015) pointed out to lack of studies on the degree university EMI programs meet the needs of local and international labor markets. Voices of program graduates could provide so much needed insight to the outcomes of EMI approach, its benefits, and role in career advancement.
Alternative to EMI:
The opponents of EMI suggest that Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) could be an alternative which allows for solving existing problems and meeting halfway the opposing views about the language of instruction at the Universities. It deals with the challenge of maintaining a balance of the needs of a native language and English as a vehicular language in the lecture delivery to narrow the communication, connection, and cultural gaps (Ebad, 2014; Marsh, 2012). Among the advantages of CLIL over EMI the research claims its focus on student achievement, adaptability to context and people, and enhanced motivation of learners due to self-awareness and optimism about learning outcomes (Marsh, 2012). Thus, the students get the opportunity to master their field subject matter with less stress while still improving their English proficiency. With these advantages in mind, the question arises about the implementation of this method. It has similar challenges as EMI: lack of clear vision and guidance, full understanding and estimate of available resources and professional credentials and development of the teaching staff. How to ensure that whatever method is chosen by higher education, it will best meet the needs and expectation of all stake holders?
Research and discourse agenda
In education, professional capital is dependent on decisional capital (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012). It is crucial that the decisions on policies should be made based on all-inclusive consideration of the aspects of each program and comprehensive data from the studies on views and perceptions of all stakeholders. Round tables, national conferences, surveys, and all types of social media can serve as platforms for the discourse and debate about what type of course delivery University students need to successfully compete in global labor market and realize their professional ambitions. The discourse should be preceded by extensive research on methodological, linguistic, sociological, psychological, and cultural aspects of proposed programs. The questions we want to get answers are but not limited to: What is the priority: content knowledge or method of delivery? How do graduates benefit from getting education with EMI? What role does English play for Turkish young professionals for their career advancement after graduation? How well is the system in general and each University in particular equipped to ensure quality EMI? How much autonomy should each University get in decision making about method of course delivery at each faculty? Only involving all stake holders in a meaningful ongoing discussion can the efforts to make EMI really effective come to fruition.
References:
Airey, J. (2012). “I don’t teach language.” The linguistic attitudes of physics lecturers in Sweden. In U. Smit & E. Dafouz (Eds.), Integrating content and language in higher education: Gaining insights into English-medium instruction at European universities (AILA, 25) (pp. 64-79). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Bjo¨rkman, B. (2011). Pragmatic strategies in English as an academic lingua franca: Ways of achieving communicative effectiveness? Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 950–964.
Coşkun, A. (2013). An investigation of the effectiveness of the modular general English language teaching preparatory program at a Turkish university. South African Journal of Education, 33(3), 1-18.
Dearden, J. (2014). English as a medium of instruction-A growing global phenomenon. British Council report.
Ebad, R. (2014). The role and impact of English as a language and a medium of instruction in Saudi higher education institutions: Students-instructors perspective. Study in English Language Teaching, 2(2), 140-148.
Hargreaves, A. & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming Teaching in Every School, New York: Teachers College Press.
Karakaş, A. (2016). Turkish lecturers’ views on the place of mother tongue in the teaching of content courses through English medium. Asian Englishes, DOI:10.1080/13488678.2016.1229831
Marsh, D. (2006). English as medium of instruction in the new global linguistic order: Global characteristics, local consequences. Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference for Middle East Teachers of Science, Mathematics and Computing teaching of content courses through English medium. Asian Englishes, DOI:10.1080/13488678.2016.1229831
Marsh, D. (2012). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). A development trajectory. Cordoba, Spain: UCOPRESS
Shatrova, Z. (2014). Teaching English to engineering students in the contemporary world: A case study on a Ukrainian and Turkish Universities. Journal of Education and Practice, 5(11), 149-156.
