Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Recurso digital |
| Language: | |
| Published: |
Zenodo
2021
|
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003134534 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866901465463783424 |
|---|---|
| author | Doiz, Aintzane Lasagabaster, David |
| author_facet | Doiz, Aintzane Lasagabaster, David |
| contents | <p><span lang="EN-US">Over the last decade, English language content teaching (EMI) has increased exponentially in higher education institutions in non-English-speaking countries. In these institutions, English, and not the L1 of students or faculty, is the medium of communication in the classroom, although it is not the focus of study or assessed (Hynninen, 2012). Therefore, EMI teachers often perceive themselves as content teachers but not language teachers. Despite this, English occasionally becomes a topic of debate or discussion in EMI classes, incorporating conversations about the English language itself.</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">The objective of this chapter is to contribute to research on the integration of content and language in higher education. We aim to shed light on content teachers' attitudes toward foreign language development, investigating whether and how they address linguistic issues. To this end, we use the notion of language-related episodes (LREs) (Basturkmen and Shackleford, 2015) to quantify and determine the prevalence of instances in which attention is paid to language in 12 EMI classes taught across three subjects in the Department of History at the University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU).</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">Analysis of the lecture recordings yielded an average of 9 LREs per hour. This is considerably lower than the average of 20 LREs per hour found in other contexts (Basturkmen & Shackleford, 2015: 93). Most of the LREs we observed were initiated by teachers, not students, and unlike traditional ESL classes, which typically contain reactive LREs (Ellis, Lowen, & Basturkmen, 1999), the LREs in our EMI context were primarily preemptive episodes. That is, teachers anticipated potential language problems (preemptive use), but no teacher corrected any English-related aspects (reactive use). Ninety-eight point two percent of the LREs were vocabulary-related. That is, content teachers become the primary authority for coding subject-related vocabulary into English in EMI. They are the experts on specialized terminology. There was not a single case of grammatical LRE, possibly due to the fear that content teachers have of doing something they do not feel prepared for: language teaching (Costa, 2012: 38).</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">The work presented here has several notable pedagogical implications. First, since our results indicate that preventive vocabulary LREs are the most common, developing glossaries would be very useful for students and teachers. Second, given that pronunciation-based or grammatical LREs are very rare or nonexistent, discussions should be held with the content teacher about how to introduce them into the EMI classroom. In this regard, collaboration between the language teacher and the content teacher becomes especially important. Second, decisions about the preparation and design of materials for EMI classes can be better informed by taking into account the types of LREs encountered in the classes. Third, it would be beneficial to invite EMI students to initiate LREs so that teachers do not monopolize the role of initiator. Finally, when students make obvious grammatical or pronunciation errors, EMI teachers should attempt to correct them to prevent fossilization. Teachers must take responsibility for their students' linguistic development without assuming the role of a traditional language teacher, but rather raise awareness among students about the need to use English correctly.</span></p> |
| format | Recurso digital |
| id | zenodo_https___doi_org_10_4324_9781003134534 |
| institution | Zenodo |
| language | |
| publishDate | 2021 |
| publisher | Zenodo |
| record_format | zenodo |
| spellingShingle | Analysing EMI Teachers' and Students' Talk about Language and Language Use Doiz, Aintzane Lasagabaster, David <p><span lang="EN-US">Over the last decade, English language content teaching (EMI) has increased exponentially in higher education institutions in non-English-speaking countries. In these institutions, English, and not the L1 of students or faculty, is the medium of communication in the classroom, although it is not the focus of study or assessed (Hynninen, 2012). Therefore, EMI teachers often perceive themselves as content teachers but not language teachers. Despite this, English occasionally becomes a topic of debate or discussion in EMI classes, incorporating conversations about the English language itself.</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">The objective of this chapter is to contribute to research on the integration of content and language in higher education. We aim to shed light on content teachers' attitudes toward foreign language development, investigating whether and how they address linguistic issues. To this end, we use the notion of language-related episodes (LREs) (Basturkmen and Shackleford, 2015) to quantify and determine the prevalence of instances in which attention is paid to language in 12 EMI classes taught across three subjects in the Department of History at the University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU).</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">Analysis of the lecture recordings yielded an average of 9 LREs per hour. This is considerably lower than the average of 20 LREs per hour found in other contexts (Basturkmen & Shackleford, 2015: 93). Most of the LREs we observed were initiated by teachers, not students, and unlike traditional ESL classes, which typically contain reactive LREs (Ellis, Lowen, & Basturkmen, 1999), the LREs in our EMI context were primarily preemptive episodes. That is, teachers anticipated potential language problems (preemptive use), but no teacher corrected any English-related aspects (reactive use). Ninety-eight point two percent of the LREs were vocabulary-related. That is, content teachers become the primary authority for coding subject-related vocabulary into English in EMI. They are the experts on specialized terminology. There was not a single case of grammatical LRE, possibly due to the fear that content teachers have of doing something they do not feel prepared for: language teaching (Costa, 2012: 38).</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">The work presented here has several notable pedagogical implications. First, since our results indicate that preventive vocabulary LREs are the most common, developing glossaries would be very useful for students and teachers. Second, given that pronunciation-based or grammatical LREs are very rare or nonexistent, discussions should be held with the content teacher about how to introduce them into the EMI classroom. In this regard, collaboration between the language teacher and the content teacher becomes especially important. Second, decisions about the preparation and design of materials for EMI classes can be better informed by taking into account the types of LREs encountered in the classes. Third, it would be beneficial to invite EMI students to initiate LREs so that teachers do not monopolize the role of initiator. Finally, when students make obvious grammatical or pronunciation errors, EMI teachers should attempt to correct them to prevent fossilization. Teachers must take responsibility for their students' linguistic development without assuming the role of a traditional language teacher, but rather raise awareness among students about the need to use English correctly.</span></p> |
| title | Analysing EMI Teachers' and Students' Talk about Language and Language Use |
| url | https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003134534 |