Academic English Language Policies and Their Impacts on Language Practices in

English-Medium Universities

Ali Karakaş

Ph.D Candidate in Applied Linguistics

The Humanities Graduate School Student Network (GradNet)8th Annual Postgraduate Conference

Monday 23rd March 2015

Overview

Background

English-medium instruction (EMI) gathered great momentum in educational institutions. •Dramatic increase in the number of EMI programs/universities - both at undergraduate and postgraduate level (Ammon & McConnell, 2002; Dearden, 2014; Wächter & Maiworm, 2008).

•Increasing number of international students and teaching staff in non-Anglophone countries

In Turkey: Internationalization strategies •Membership to the Bologna process

•Big switch to EMI: around 20% of the programs (Arik & Arik, 2014)

•Huge increase in the number of international students and staff

Rationale

So far, focus on issues unrelated to language:– Cognitive pedagogical aspect– Socio-political aspect – Educational language planning aspects (Selvi, 2014)– Largely discussed & researched

Currently, focus on language-related issues: – Linguistic aspects language policy & practice matters (Turner & Robson, 2008).

– Little research in non-Anglophone settings (e.g. Björkman, 2011,

2013; Kuteeva, 2014; Saarinen & Nikula, 2013), particularly in Turkey (Jenkins, 2014).

Medium of Instruction (MI)

debate

The notion of ‘E’ (English)

Rationale

Why English language policies?

‘’…determine criteria for language correctness, oblige people to adopt certain ways of speaking and writing, create definitions about language and especially determine the priority of certain languages in society and how these languages should be used, taught and learned’’

(Shohamy, 2006, p. 77)

Research aims

to investigate the English language policies of EMI universities in Turkey and their potential impacts on the stakeholders’ language practices

• the kind of English overtly stated or covertly implied as appropriate for academic English use in universities’ language policy (document analysis)

• what stakeholders think about universities’ language policies, particularly in relation to institutions’ desired language practices (questionnaires)

• whether these policies impact the stakeholders’ language practices, if so how (what factors at play) (interviews & focus groups)

Conceptual orientations

Critical Language Policy (LP)

Definitions

“an officially mandated set of rules for language use and form within a nation-state” (Spolsky, 2012, p. 3).

“language policy (LP) is the primary mechanism for organizing, managing and manipulating language behaviours as it consists of decisions made about languages and their uses in society” (Shohamy, 2006, p. 45)

is concerned with choices, as noted by Walter and Benson (2012), but they also comprise the beliefs and values shaping the choices made (Spolsky, 2005).

Language policy framework (Spolsky, 2004)

what individuals actually do while using the language (e.g. their pattern of linguistic choices, formality, following the agreed rules or not and etc.).

- a set of beliefs as regards language and language use

“the formulation and proclamation of an explicit plan or policy, usually but not necessarily written in a formal document, about language use” (Spolsky, 2004, p. 14).

Extended language policy (Shohamy, 2006)

… LP [language policy] should not be limited to the examination of declared and official statements. Rather, the real policy is executed through a variety of mechanisms that determine the de facto practices. There is a need, therefore, to examine the use of mechanisms and study their consequences and effects on de facto LP, as it is through these mechanisms that the de facto language policy is created and manifested” (Shohamy, 2006, p. 54)

Language policy mechanisms

a.Rules and regulations

b.Language educational policies

c.Language tests

d.Language in public space

e.Ideologies, myths, propaganda and coercion

The Study

Istanbul Ankara

The Study

• 14 lecturers & 20 students

• Content analysis and discourse analysis

• Two focus groups: one with Ss from Bilkent, the other with Ss from Bogazici

• Each university's website data and accessible policy documents

• Online & hard copy questionnaire on perceptions of English/EMI and experiences (40 questions, roughly 15 mins)

• 423 responses (351 Ss/72 Ls)

International tests

TOEFL : American English (AmE)

IELTS : British English (Bre)

FCE : AmE & BrE

Findings: The kind of English

Bilkent University: Assessment criteria for the speaking test

use a range of grammar and vocabulary, both accurately and appropriately

expand their answers and produce relevant, coherent and meaningful speech

speak fluently without unnatural hesitation interact naturally and use appropriate interaction conventions to initiate and develop interaction

use correct intonation and rhythm and pronounce individual sounds correctly so as to be understood clearly

Institutional language tests

Bilkent: COPE (Certificate of English proficiency

Bogazici: English proficiency exam

METU: English proficiency exam

For students

Findings: The kind of English

Bogazici university: Assessment criteria for the writing test

“During the evaluation process, what is predicated on is a grammatically and semantically competent academic English, and expression of ideas in a coherent manner”

METU: Assessment objective for the writing part

To assess the candidate's ability to use correct, appropriate language structures, vocabulary and discourse features in writing, to follow the conventions of standard written English, to produce a cohesive and coherent piece of writing that accomplishes the given task.

Standard (native) English

For teaching staff: Interview notes

Findings: The kind of English

Recruitment policy: 3 criteria

•Proof of English proficiency

• Micro-teaching• Interviews• Proficiency test score (e.g. TOEFL, IELTS, YDS)

• Cross translation (from TR to Eng- Eng to TR)

•International publication (publication in English)

•Overseas experience (e.g. PhD, exchange)

Findings: Lecturers’ perceptions

SN NS. agree Agree Disagree S. disagree Mean SD

f % f % f % f % x̄ s

S9 72 8 11.1 15 20.8 33 45.8 16 22.2 2.20 .91

S14 72 5 6.9 27 37.5 28 38.9 12 16.7 2.34 .84

S15 72 5 6.9 34 47.2 29 40.3 4 5.6 2.55 .70

S9. The university wants lecturers to use British or American English in teaching rather than other kinds of English.

S14. The university enforces native English on lecturers by forcing them to publish their papers in English.

S15. Lecturers often get their papers proofread in order to avoid rejection of their papers by journals.

68% disagree

55.6% disagree

54.1% agree

Findings: Students’ perceptions

No N S. Agree Agree Disagree S. disagree Mean SD

f % f % f % f % x̄ s

S1 33167 19.1 167 47.6 81 23.1 16 4.6 2.86 .78

S5 33354 15.4 157 44.7 88 25.1 34 9.7 2.69 .86

S7 32268 19.4 196 55.8 51 14.5 7 2.0 3.00 .67

S1. The preparatory school of the university attempts to teach students native English (e.g. British or American English).

S5. The university's own English proficiency exam measures students' English skills in British or American English.

S7. International proficiency exams (i.e. TOEFL, IELTS) test students' proficiency in native (British or American) English.

66.7% agree

60.1% agree

75.2% agree

Findings: potential impacts on practices

Normative Approach: Conformity to St.NE important

A : Interviewer L8: Female, Bilkent, History

Findings: potential impacts on practices

Normative Approach: Conformity to St.NE important

A : Interviewer L10: Male, Metu, Mechanical Engineering

Findings: potential impacts on practicesA : Interviewer S6: Female, Metu, History

incorrectpronunciation

non-native &

non-standard accent

unacceptable

Findings: potential impacts on practicesA : Interviewer S6: Female, Metu, History

Conclusions

The kind of English appropriate for academic tasks

•Standard (native) English

Lecturers’ & Students’ Perceptions of the policies

Many students believe that

• their universities attempt to teach them NE in the preparatory school• language tests recognized by their universities measure their English

against standard NE benchmark

Some lecturers believe that

• their universities require them to use standard NE in teaching• publishing in English requires them to use standard NE• it is necessary to get their papers proofread to avoid rejections

Potential impacts

• policies concerning language use influence language practices• policy actors’ beliefs about language use lead students to adopt

certain ways of language use

• Ammon, U., & McConnell, G. (2002). English as an academic language in Europe: A survey of its use in teaching. Bern: Peter Lang.

• Arik, B. T., & Arik, E. (2014). The role and status of English in Turkish higher education. English Today, 30(4), 5–10. doi:10.1017/S0266078414000339

• Björkman, B. (2011). English as a lingua franca in higher education: Implications for EAP. Ibérica, 22, 79–100.• Burridge, K. (2004). Blooming English: Observations on the roots, cultivation and hybrids of the English

language. Cambridge University Press.• Dearden, J. (2014). English as a medium of instruction – a growing global phenomenon: phase 1 Interim report

(pp. 1–8). Oxford: British Council.• Jenkins, J. (2014). English as a Lingua Franca in the international university. The politics of academic English

language policy. Abingdon, GB: Routledge.• Kuteeva, M. (2014). The parallel language use of Swedish and English: the question of “nativeness” in university

policies and practices. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35(4), 332–344. doi:10.1080/01434632.2013.874432.

• Saarinen, T. & Nikula, T. (2013). Implicit Policy, Invisible Language: Policies and Practices of International Degree Programs in Finnish Higher Education. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster, & J. M. Sierra (Eds.). English-medium instruction at universities: Global Challenges. (pp. 131-150). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

• Selvi, A. (2014). The medium-of-instruction debate in Turkey: oscillating between national ideas and bilingual ideals. Current Issues in Language Planning, 1–20. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14664208.2014.898357

• Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. London: Routledge.• Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy: Key topics in sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.• Turner, Y., & Robson, S. (2008). Internationalizing the university. London: Continuum Intl. Pub. Group.• Wachter, B. & Maiworm, F. (2008). English-taught programmes in European higher education: The picture in

2007. Lemmens: ACA Papers on Cooperation in Education

References