‘CLIL and EMI in the Japanese context –Is clear demarcation possible?: an ELF perspective

‘CLIL and EMI in the Japanese
context – Is clear demarcation
possible?: an ELF perspective
Kumiko Murata
Waseda University
CLILの多様性と複言語コミュニテイー
Diversity in CLIL in Plurilingual Communities of Practice
Saturday, 26 January 2019
Sophia University, Tokyo

To start with the answer to
the question

Yes and No
Yes – mostly from a teachers’/ instructors’
perspective
(but not necessarily all, see for example,
Dafouz, Hüttner & Smit 2016)
No – mostly from a students’ perspective
( but again, depends on contexts, see
Konakahara, Murata & Iino 2019, Murata,
Iino & Konakahrara 2017, Murata et al. 2018,
Murata & Iino 2018)

Depending on different contexts
- Students’ cases -
Example 1 EMI-Programme (EMI-P)
- students are selected for this purpose and
mostly secured certain proficiency levels
before entering the programme,
(although there are still certain varieties
even within this community, depending on
students’ educational backgrounds
→more ‘Yes’

Similar to Erasmus EMI situations in Europe?
(see Kuteeva, 2019, Kuteeva & Airey 2013, Smit 2019)
But, → north v. south differences even within
Europe (Coleman 2006:6)
→ Demarcation increasingly difficult?
Example 2 EMI-course (EMI-C)
students’ willingness to improve their
target language ability → very strong
→ Sts tend to regard EMI courses not as the ones for
only learning the content, but also chances to be
exposed to the language of instruction, i.e., in this
case, English, especially when chances are limited
→ most Japanese university EMI courses?

Drastic increase of both EMI programmes/
courses and CLIL courses ← Globalisation
(Coleman 2006, Doiz, Lasagabaster & Sierra 2011,Jenkins
2014, 2019)
‘The main reason why European universities
offer programmes in English are:
- Attract international students;
- To prepare domestic students for the global
labour market; and
- To raise the profile of the institution. ‘
(Doiz, Lasagabaster & Sierra 2011:347,
see also Coleman 2006)

CLIL → the term coined in the European
context around 2000 under the influence
of the EU language policy (Smit & Dafouz
2012)
However,
under different names → it had been
practiced long before the term CLIL was
introduced
(see, for example, Widdowson 1978,
1979, and today’s plenary talk, etc.)

e.g., CBI (content-based instruction)
e.g. in the Canadian immersion programme
→ Of various types
(see Coleman 2006, Harada 2017)
From an SLA (Second Language Acquisition)
perspective
and
usually from an EFL (English as a Foreign
Language) or ESL (English as a Second
Language) perspective
but not from an ELF (English as a Lingua
Franca) perspective

To understand an ELF perspective in the above context,
it is useful to deepen our understanding of CLT & ESP:
To quote from Widdowson (1984) on communicative
language teaching (CLT)
’---, we have to develop a methodology which will lead
the learner to engage in language use as a dynamic
problem-solving activity within the confines of the
classroom.’ (p.227)
And on ESP (English for Specific Purposes):
Most students need English for their studies not as
a repertoire of formulaic language behavior but as a
creative capacity for achieving meaning by the
exercise of thought. (Widdowson 1984:211)

Defining CLIL
CLIL – is ‘ “a dual-focused educational
approach” which aims explicitly at a “fusion”
of both subject content and language
learning
(Smit and Dafouz 2012: 4, referring to Coyle, Hood & Marsh
2010:41-45, see also Coleman 2006)
‘--- to achieve the double benefit of
subject knowledge and improved target
language proficiency’ (Coleman 2006: 4-5)

CLIL
Dual objective of learning content
and language
→ Various forms/ types exist from language
learning perspectives
Then what about EMI?

Terms ‘CLIL’ & ‘EMI’ – interchangeably used?
‘some recent studies seem to utilize all of
these terms [EMI, CLIL, ICLHE(Integrating
Content and Language in Higher Education)]
interchangeably’ (Smit & Dafouz 2012: 4, see also
Murata 2019, Smit 2019)
- Both are deployed in multilingual contexts
In this context:
‘---officially English-medium courses often
involve some degree of parallel language use,
when both lecturers and students resort to
the local language (Bolton & Kuteeva 2012: 439)

Or Ljosland (2011), describing a situation in a
Norwegian university,
‘In contrast to the official policy of English as the
official language of instruction, day-to-day
interactions observed during the observation
part of the case study were surprisingly
multilingual: several languages were actually in
use in the case department’ (p. 998, See also Smit
2018)
Thus,
→ multilingual communication in EMI
context
→ often the case

EMI
- Widely promoted in the process of
globalization, especially since the late 90s.
(Coleman 2006:6, Murata & Iino 2018)
ERASMUS→ securing the mobility of
students and faculty within the
EU,
the acceleration of globalization
→ enabled students from other
parts of the world to enroll in
the programmes

However,
EMI practice (and/or EMI research)
specifically from an ELF perspective
→ Still very limited
The reality of EMI practice in the EU context
→ ELF
i.e., English is really used as a lingua franca
not only in Europe, but also
→ increasingly elsewhere in the world as well

Asian contexts
Colonial history behind the introduction of
EMI
At the outset → No choice → used by the
colonisers as a means of instruction, etc
→ at least at the outset, ENS-orientated
Development of local varieties
The use of English by locally-trained
teachers to local students
→ Kachru’s (1982,1985) outer circle varieties
→ WE paradigm (Widdowson 2015)

EMI – practiced within multilingual society
(e.g. Singapore, Malaysia)
English → increasingly used as a LF,
but still mostly in the WE or NSE
paradigm
With the acceleration of globalization
→ Mobility of people , particularly students
→ also high in the Asian context
→ ELF reality ?
(see Kirkpatrick 2010)

e.g. ASEAN → ELF context (see Kirkpatrick 2010)
→ but constrained by language policy
e.g. Singapore - ‘Speak good English’
policy
→ more SE-based
(see Seidlhofer 2018)
EMI orientation
at the government policy level
→ ENS –orientated ?
reality → ELF context
the GAP between policy and the reality

East Asian Contexts
Consequences of globalization and the
influence of the QS, THE rankings
Promotion of EMI to attract international
students (Park 2019, Wang 2019)
Enhancement of local/ home students’
language ability
→ Introduction of EMI
→ Should be ELF-orientated
But reality → very much ENS-
orientated (Jenkins 2014, 2019, Murata 2019)

Because of the great gap between policy
and the reality
→ Struggles by students who are
constrained by NS norms
- But depends on their experience and
previous exposure to ELF
- Complex mixture of students’
population
(see Iino& Murata 2013, 2016, Murata et al. 2017,
2018)

Some examples of students’ struggles:
4. Most of other students are returnees and
international students, so I feel ashamed of
my jun-Japa English pronunciation, that is,
Japanese English. (1M2)
まわりが入ったら本当に帰国子女と留学生しかいなくて。で、
発音も恥ずかしいしさ。なんていうの、ジャパン、ジャパ
ニーズイングリッシュみたいな。
(from Iino & Murata 2016:121)
6. I sometimes feel ashamed when I speak
with NSs, because the level of English is so
different and I’m not confident at all if my
English is “correct”. (2-4M13)
ネイテイブと話すのは、能力が違うので、「あっている
のか」と考え、恥ずかしさを感じることがある。
(from Iino & Murata 2016:122)

Students’ perception of and
attitudes towards EMI
Research results based on Iino & Murata
(2013, 2016), Konakahara, Murata & Iino
(2019), Murata et al. (2017, 2018).
General tendencies
Largely appreciative of EMI
But different, depending on different
contexts and students’ backgrounds

EMI-P (Programme) students
Appreciation – how EMI has enabled them
• to communicate with people from
different linguacultural backgrounds
Example 1
•I can listen to international
students’ talk and know diverse
culture through it.
「留学生の話も聞け、多様な文化を知ることができる」
(EMI-P-Q2: EMI-P3-U1-JP(jpn)-Y_US2)
(from Konakahara, Murata & Iino 2019:166)

Appreciation
Example 2
•By learning in English, we can
obtain not only ideas based on
Japanese perspectives, but also
those based on foreign
perspectives from international
members.
「英語で学ぶことによって日本人による日本的なアイディア
だけでなく、国際的なメンバーと海外からの視点も踏まえて
学ぶことができるから」 (EMI-P-Q2: EMI-P18-U3-JP(jpn)-Y_SE1)

EMI-C (Course) students
– typical Japanese or East Asian EMI contexts,
where most students basically consist of those
from the same L1 background
→ Necessity of conducting courses in English
→ limited → more expectations of
language improvement (cf. CLIL )
– the aspect of language learning
→ Not separable from content-learning
→ At least from a students’ perspective

Examples of EMI-C students’
comments:
[I take EMI classes because] EMI leads to
improving English ability.
「英語力の向上につながるため」
(EMI-C-Q2: EMI-C 26-U2-JP(jpn)-N)
[I take EMI classes because] I can acquire
communication ability in English.
「英語でのコミュニケーション能力を身につけられるから」
(EMI-P-Q2: EMI-P3-U1-JP(jpn-Y_US2)

Teachers/ Instructors
→ aware of difference in students’
language ability, thus often accommodate
to their needs, considering, for example,
the choice of words, and paraphrasing
where necessary to secure students’
understanding of the content matter
(Murata et al. 2017, see also Doiz et al.2011,
but also see Airey 2012)
The above situation
→ Applicable to most Japanese or East Asian
EMI contexts?

Thus, pedagogically
EMI-C (Course) in Japanese or East Asian
Contexts
→ Gradual transition, for example, from
CLIL to EMI → necessary?
e.g. Introductory CLIL courses could be
useful
(e.g., Dept. of English Language & Literature,
Faculty of Education, Waseda University ,
See Harada (2017))

HOWEVER,
CLIL an EMI courses/ programmes
→ should be taught and learn
from an ELF perspective, particularly, if we
are to educate students to be
global citizens
i.e., not emphasizing conformity to NS
norms if we are to bring up global citizens,
and not being too much constrained by
NS norms, which prevents them from
actively participating in class (see Iino &
Murata 2013, 2016, Murata et al. 2017, 2018,
forthcoming)

EMI in the East Asian context
Students with less exposure to the use of
English
→ Regard EMI very much as opportunities
to listen to and ‘use English’ for their
content learning purposes
(see Murata et al. 2017, 2018)

To produce more natural ELF environments in
CLIL/ EMI courses
→ Diversity of students and faculty
→ necessary
→ Encourage students to use ‘their’ English
(cf. Kohn 2018)
→ important

References
Airey, J. 2012. ‘I don’t teach language.’ The linguistic attitudes of physics lectures in Sweden.
AILA Review, 25, 64-79.
Bolton, K. & Kuteeva, M. 2012. English as an academic language at a Swedish university :
parallel language use and the ‘threat’ of English. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 33, 429-447.
Coleman, J. A. 2006. English-medium teaching in European higher education. Language
Teaching. 39 (1):1-14.
Coyle, D., Hood, P. & Marsh, D. 2010. Content and language integrated learning, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Dafouz, E., J. Hüttner, and U. Smit 2016. University Teachers’ Beliefs of Language and Content
Integration in English-Medium Education in Multilingual University Settings. In Nikula, T.,
E. Dafouz, P. Moore and U. Smit (eds.) 2016. Conceptualising Integration in CLIL and
Multilingual Education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp.123-143.
Doiz, A., D. Lasagabaster, and J.M. Sierra 2011. Internationalisaiton, multilingualism and
English-medium instruction. World Englishes 30(3):345-359.
Harada, T. 2017. Developing a Content-Based English as a Foreign Language Program: Needs
Analysis and Curriculum Design at the University Leve. In Snow, M.A. and D.M. Brinton
(eds.) The Content-Based Classroom: New Perspectives on Integrating Language and
C o n t e n t . A n n A r b o r : T h e U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n P r e s s , 3 7 - 5 2 .

Iino, M. & Murata, K. 2013. We are jun-Japa - Dynamics of ELF communication in
an English medium academic contet. Waseda Working Papers in English as a
Lingua Franca, 2, 84-100.
Iino, M. and K. Murata. 2016. Dynamics of ELF communication in an English-
medium academic context in Japan - from EFL learners to ELF users. In Murata
(ed.) 2016, pp.111-31.
Jenkins, J. 2014. English as a Lingua Franca in the International University – The
Politics of Academic Language Policy. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Jenkins, J. 2019. The internationalization of higher educaiton: but what about its
lingua franca? In: Murata, K. (ed.) English-Medium Instruction from an English
as a Lingua Franca Perspective: Exploring the Higher Education Context. Oxon:
Routledge, 15-31.
Kachru, B.B. 1985. Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English
language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk and H. G. Widdowson (eds.) English in
the World: Teaching and learning the language and literatures. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp.11-30.
Kachru, B. B. (ed.) 1992. The Other Tongue: English across Cultures. 2nd ed.
Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Kirkpatrick, A. 2010. English as a Lingua Franca in ASEAN: a multilingual model.
Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Kohn, K. 2018. MY English: a social constructivist perspective on ELF. Journal of
English as a Lingua Franca, 7, 1-24.

Konakahara, M., Murata, K. & Iino, M. 2019. ‘English’-medium instruction in a
Japanese university: Exploring students’ and lectures’ voices from an ELF
perspective. In: Murata, K. (ed.) English-Medium Instruction from an English as
a Lingua Franca Perspective: Exploring the Higher Education Context. Oxon:
Routledge, 157-175.
Kuteeva, M. 2019. Researching English-medium instruction at Swedish universities:
developments over the past decade. In: Murata, K. (ed.) English-Medium
Instruction from an English as a Lingua Franca Perspective: Exploring the
Higher Education Context. Oxon: Routledge, 46-63.
Kuteeva, M. & Airey, J. 2013. Disciplinary differences in the use of English in higher
education: Reflections on recent language policy developments. Higher
Education, 67, 533-549.
Ljosland, R. 2011. English as an Academic Lingua Franca: Language policies and
multilingual practices in a Norwegian university. Journal of Pragmatics.
43(4):991-1004.
Murata, K. (ed.) 2019. English-Medium Instruction from an English as a Lingua
Franca Perspective: Exploring the Higher Education Context, Oxon, Routledge.
Murata, K. & Iino, M. 2018. EMI in higher education: An ELF perspective. In:
Jenkins, J., Baker, W. & Dewey, M. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of English
as a Lingua Franca. Oxon: Routledge, 400-412.
Murata, K. Iino, M. & Konakahara, M. 2017. An investigation into attitudes towards
ELF (English as a lingua franca) in EMI (English-medium instruction) and
business settings and its implication for English language pedagogy. Waseda
Review of Education), 31, 21-38.

Murata, K., Iino, M., & Konakahara, M. (forthcoming). Realities of EMI
practices among multilingual students in a Japanese university.
In J. Jenkins & A.Mauranen (Eds.), Linguistic diversity in international
universities. Oxon: Routledge
Murata, K., Konakahara, M., Iino, M. & Toyoshima, N. 2018. An
investigation into the use of and attitudes toward ELF (English as a
lingua franca) in English-medium instruction (EMI) classes and its
implications for English language teaching. Waseda Review of Education, 32,
55-76.
Park, J-K. 2019. English-medium instruction in the Korean higher education
context: from an English as a lingua franca perspective. In K. Murata (Ed.),
English –medium instruction from an English as a lingua franca perspective:
Exploring the higher education context. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 64-77.
Seidlhofer, B. (2018b). Standard English and the dynamics of ELF variation. In J.
Jenkins, W. Baker, & M. Dewey (eds.), The Routledge handbook of English as a
lingua franca. Oxon: Routledge, 85-100.
Smit, U. 2019. Classroom discourse in EMI: on the dynamics of multilingual
practices. In: Murata, K. (ed.) English-Medium Instruction from an English as a
Lingua Franca Perspective: Exploring the Higher Education Context. Oxon:
Routledge, 99-122.

Smit, U. & Dafouz, E. 2012. Integrating content and language in higher education:
An introduction to English-medium policies, conceptual issues and research
practices across Europe. AILA Review, 25, 1-12.
Wang, Y. (2018). The role of English in the internationalisation of higher education:
a case study of a Chinese university’s education policy and practice. In K.
Murata (ed.), English –medium instruction from an English as a lingua franca
perspective: Exploring the higher education context. Abingdon, Oxon:
Routledge, 201-218.
Widdowson, H. G. 1978. Teaching language as communication, Oxford, Oxford
University Press.
Widdowson, H. G. 1979. Explorations in applied linguistics, Oxford, Oxford
University Press.
Widdowson, H. G. 1984. Explorations in applied linguistics, Oxford, Oxford
University Press.
Widdowson, H. G. 2015. The pragmatics of ELF variation. Waseda Working Papers
in ELF(English as a Lingua Franca), 4, 17-27.

Thank you!
Kumiko Murata(murata@waseda.jp)
This research is supported by JSPS Grants-in-Aid for
Scientific Research, Foundation B, No.26284083 and
also by the funding from the Institute for Advanced
Studies in Education, Waseda University.

‘CLIL and EMI in the Japanese context –Is clear demarcation possible?: an ELF perspective

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to ‘CLIL and EMI in the Japanese context –Is clear demarcation possible?: an ELF perspective (20)

More from Richard Pinner (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

‘CLIL and EMI in the Japanese context –Is clear demarcation possible?: an ELF perspective