Student Motivation in English-Medium Instruction

Empirical Studies in a Japanese University

Naoko Kojima

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000362381
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education Theory & Practice

This book explores Japanese students' learning experiences and challenges in English medium instruction (EMI) from
motivational perspectives. Using self-determination theory (SDT) as the framework, the first part reveals a lack of the three psychological needs of SDT (autonomy, competence, relatedness) that cause loss of students' initial interest in learning English language and content. The author outlines pedagogical interventions that can be implemented in order to make the learning environment better. The second half of the book shows the effects these interventions had on the fulfillment of the three psychological needs, especially perceived relatedness and autonomy. In conclusion, the author focuses on the importance of listening to Japanese students' voices and building a community that can motivate students, thus maximizing the pedagogical effectiveness of EMI. This volume will be useful to anyone involved in motivation, language learning or EMI research, pedagogy or practice.

1 Introduction

“Why do Japanese students give up so quickly?”

“It seems like there are two campuses at one university. The first campus has a good group of international students, and the other one has a less smart group of Japanese students who have no intention to learn.”

These were some of the comments made by the English-medium instruction (EMI) disciplinary instructors of Japanese students in EMI courses at the research site in this book (hereafter University A). It was quite disappointing for me, as an English-language instructor myself at the time, to hear these instructors’ low evaluation of their students. It made me wonder whether any students would try their best and persevere with demanding courses if their instructors did not believe in their potential. After hearing more critical comments about Japanese students in EMI courses from several other EMI disciplinary instructors there, I decided to find out what was happening to the Japanese students and to explore ways to support them. Investigating language learners’ motivation in EMI contexts will help Japanese students not only at University A, but also other institutions across Japan, given that EMI is becoming an “unstoppable phenomenon” and will soon be the new normal in tertiary education worldwide (Walkinshaw et al., 2017, p. 2).

Defining EMI and differences from CBI/CLIL

What is EMI?

EMI refers to “the use of the English language to teach academic subjects in countries or jurisdictions where the first language (L1) of the majority of the population is not English” (Dearden, 2015, p. 4). EMI has been increasingly implemented in higher education as English has become the de facto global language (Coleman, 2006; Crystal, 2003; Keeling, 2006). The five major characteristics of EMI, which are important to understand the definition of EMI used in this book, are as follows:

(a)EMI only uses English as the medium of instruction (i.e., not any other language such as French or German).

(b)Its main objective is content learning, so a language-learning curriculum rarely exists.

(c)It is mostly taught by disciplinary instructors with little to no experience of teaching language learners, or no professional training to do so.

(d)It is mostly implemented at the level of higher education.

(e)It includes some students who are native or near-native speakers of English.

While EMI has been widely adopted in Europe only since the 1990s, the target language (hereafter TL) has been used as a medium of instruction in language learning, including content-based instruction (CBI), since as far back the 1960s.

What is CBI/CLIL?

CBI is “the concurrent study of language and subject matter, with the form and sequence of language presentation dictated by content material” (Brinton et al., 1989, p. vii). It is usually associated with immersion programs in Canada, and the balance of emphasis between language instruction and content instruction in one course can vary (Stoller, 2008).

Research on CBI has been conducted for long enough to infer that, in terms of pedagogical effectiveness, CBI has a positive impact on both language and disciplinary learning (e.g., Kasper, 1994; Rodgers, 2006; Tsai & Shang, 2010; Winter, 2004). However, some more recent studies argue that the pedagogical effectiveness of having dual objectives is open to debate (Chang, 2010; Doiz et al., 2014; Wilkinson, 2005).

Content and language integrated learning (hereafter CLIL) is “a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language” (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 1). CLIL originated in Europe, where English has often been used as a medium of instruction in CLIL classrooms (Dalton-Puffer, 2007).

Many studies have discussed whether CBI and CLIL need to be considered separately or not (e.g., Brown & Bradford, 2017; Cenoz, 2015; Tedick & Cammarata, 2012; Watanabe et al., 2011). In fact, the differences between CBI and CLIL arise not so much from pedagogical practices but rather their historical background (Paran, 2013). CBI originated in immersion programs in Canadian bilingual contexts in 1960s (Brinton et al., 1989), whereas, CLIL was rapidly developed when the EU’s educational policy came into effect, which requires citizens to be competent in their mother tongue plus two additional languages (Llinares et al., 2012; Brown & Bradford, 2017). Cenoz (2015) compared CBI and CLIL from multiple perspectives in schools in the Basque Country, and concluded that they do not have any essential differences. In Japan, CBI and CLIL are often used synonymously (Brown & Bradford, 2017). In short, most of these studies conclude that CBI and CLIL are “two labels for the same reality” (Cenoz, 2015, p. 12; Coyle et al., 2010, p. 9). In line with these studies, CBI and CLIL are regarded in this book to have enough characteristics in common to be considered the same. To compare CBI/CLIL to EMI, the following (one main and four sub) aspects of CBI/CLIL need to be described:

(a)CBI/CLIL has a curriculum based on both language and content learning, so teaching practices are conducted based on these aspects;

(b)is for TL learners;

(c)in Japan, is usually taught by language teachers;

(d)includes English and other languages as TLs (e.g., German or French), and

(e)has been applied at different educational levels.

Some studies have reported the positive learning outcomes of CLIL, especially in language learning (Lasagabaster, 2008, 2011; Lorenzo et al., 2010). Sylvén and Thompson (2015) conducted a quantitative study in high schools in Sweden and found initial motivation of students in CLIL courses is already higher than students in non-CLIL courses. It means that high student motivation in CLIL courses are not necessarily the outcome of the CLIL approach, but students who are motivated tend to take CLIL. Thus, more studies have to be conducted to prove the dual pedagogical effectiveness of CLIL. Moreover, the limited learning opportunities for content in CLIL have been pointed out, as teachers are experts of either language teaching or content, but not both (Dalton-Puffer, 2007; Hoare, 2010). As described above, it is premature to conclude that CLIL is more efficient than learning language and discipline-specific content separately.

EMI is different from CBI/CLIL, yet it shares some similarities. The biggest is that stakeholders—such as policy makers, students, and even their parents—presume that students improve their English proficiency “naturally” when learning the course content in English because of the amount of exposure they get (Coleman, 2006; Swain, 1996).

In reality, however, comprehending lectures entirely in English is extremely tough for students with limited English proficiency and/or little experience learning in English. This could be a cause of motivation loss and negative attitudes toward EMI, even leading to some students dropping out. This means that EMI courses are facing serious motivation problems. As English is becoming the lingua franca in academia and EMI is becoming a new normal in tertiary education (Walkinshaw et al., 2017), dissecting EMI classrooms from a viewpoint of student motivation is an urgent matter in order to protect student learning opportunities. Consequently, various stakeholders will benefit from this book, including administrators who are unfamiliar with classroom proceedings and EMI disciplinary instructors who are aware that their EMI classrooms do not go as planned but do not know why or how to improve them (O’Dowd, 2018). In addition, the book is beneficial for language instructors as they can help EMI disciplinary instructors with methodological input to teach language learners (Macaro et al., 2019). Further, the book documents the oft-overlooked opinions of Japanese students. Japanese students are not trained to be critical of authority (Hofstede, 1980), nor do they express their emotions and opinions verbally (Nakane, 2006). Yet, Japanese students constitute the majority of the EMI student body in Japan (Shimauchi, 2016), so they must be treated as important and their opinions as essential to formulating successful EMI programs. Thus, this book attempts to make their voices heard regarding the learning experience in EMI classrooms and thereby empower them.

Aims of the book and data collection procedure

The studies underlying this book have a twofold aim, with the following specific objectives:

(1)To understand the current situation and challenges that EMI is facing from the perspectives of Japanese students’ motivation;

(2)to design and implement a series of pedagogical interventions and examine its effectiveness as a possible solution to the problems explored in the first half of this book.

In order to achieve the aim of this book, a series of the empirical studies was conducted at University A from the academic year 2014 to 2016. To produce a fuller picture of the current issues and challenges of EMI from Japanese student perspectives, mixed-method approaches were applied (Dörnyei, 2007; Van de Mieroop, 2005). It is essential to grasp the reality of EMI classrooms to determine its costs and benefits and to find a way to maximize its benefits from Japanese students’ perspectives.

In each study, students were informed about the aims of the research, and that participation was voluntary and would not negatively affect their grades in any way. For the quantitative studies, they were further informed that their answers would be statistically analyzed, so that individuals could not be identified via their answers. For qualitative studies, they were informed that the data would be presented in a way that individuals could not be identified, such as by using pseudonyms. In addition, all student interviews were recorded with their explicit consent. Participants signed the consent form if they agreed.

Contextual background

University A is a private institution in southeast Japan, founded in 2000 as one of Japan’s first Japanese–English bilingual universities. Since then, it has been a driving force for the internationalization of tertiary education in the country. The university was chosen as the research site because it has implemented EMI across the university since its establishment. Since many institutions are pressured to increase the number of EMI courses, sharing what University A is experiencing could be tremendously beneficial.

At the time of the research, more than 50 percent of its full-time professors were from overseas, and about half the students were international students, mainly from Asian countries such as Vietnam, South Korea, and China. To recruit this international student population, University A offers its entrance exam in Japanese and English. Students who take the exam in Japanese are categorized as “Japanese-based students” (hereafter Japanese students), while those who take it in English are classified as “English-based students”; 90 percent of the university’s undergraduate courses are offered in Japanese and English, so stu...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Information
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Figure
• List of Tables
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Why motivation in EMI?
• 3 Two faces of EMI motivation: Learning English and content
• 4 How do Japanese students feel in EMI classrooms?
• 5 Pedagogical interventions to motivate students
• 6 Importance of community in enhancing motivation
• 7 Conclusion: Future directions for pedagogy of EMI
• Index