Conceptualizing the institutional influence on the student learning experiences

From the earlier periods of the 20th _{century to the present, social scientists} (Collins, 1979; Davies, 1994; Rowan and Miskel, 1999; Scott, 2008; Weber and Parsons, 2012) have acknowledged the importance of education and its institutional configurations. Researchers have tried to capture the complexity, contingency and the contestations of educational institutions and the practices

that give rise to academic attainment and success. These practices take different shapes and forms depending on the context in which they exist.

This section draws on aspects of institutional theory (Brinton and Nee, 1998; DiMaggio, 1998; Meyer and Rowan, 2006; Rowan and Miskel, 1999; Scott, 2008) to understand the deeper and more resilient aspects of educational institutions and their influence on teaching and learning. The process of understanding institutional influence involves scrutinising the processes by which social behaviours (i.e. schemas, rules, norms, and routines) are established as authoritative guidelines within an institution for its different operative processes, including teaching and learning.

The term institution is defined differently in institutional theory with no clear agreement on what it actually means. Scott (2001, p. 48) defines institutions as:

…social structures that have attained a high degree of resilience. [These] are composed of cultural-cognitive, normative, and regulative elements that […] provide stability and meaning to social life. […] Institutions operate at different levels of jurisdiction, from the world system to localized interpersonal relationships. Institutions by definition connote stability but are subject to change processes, both incremental and discontinuous.

In his definition of the neo-institutional field, Powell (1991, p. 8) provides an operational definition of institutions by saying that:

the new institutionalism in organization theory and sociology comprises a rejection of rational-actor models, an interest in institutions as independent variables, a turn toward cognitive and cultural explanations, and an interest in properties of supra-individual units of analysis that cannot be reduced to aggregations or direct consequences of individuals’ attributes or motives.

This definition suggests that institutions are living social structures that have concrete as well as fluid social practices. These social practices can be characterised as regulative, normative, and/or cognitive-cultural (Bjorck, 2004). There are two traditions to utilizing and understanding the influence of institutional theory. The traditional views tend to perceive institutions as objective structures that are independent of human actions (Selznick, 1984) and thus most of the institutional analysis in such a view focuses on understanding the influence of legal structures. In contrast, the newer tradition of analysing institutions centres on the institutional legal structures as being human-made, which connects these institutions to the wider social structures (Immergut, 1998; Ingram and Clay, 2000; Jones et al., 2005; Meyer and Rowan, 2006; Olssen and Peters, 2005). Such views suggest a strong relationship between institutional practices with the wider social structures within which the institution exists. Therefore, there is a concerted effort to link institutions closely to the local communities and place them in the context of a wider social grouping. This study is located within the newer tradition of institutional theory, whereby an institution is seen as an entity that is regulated by rules made by people in order to establish certain norms within that institution, as well as to define its relationship with wider social structures such as the general education and political systems. The notion of institutional analysis in this study refers to the act of scrutinizing the different policies enacted by QU-HS in relation to the English language and their influence on teaching and learning. In relation to education, and higher education in particular, institutional analysis is used to understand the social behaviours of educational institutions and how they affect student learning (Gibbs and Dunbat-Goddet, 2007; Gibbs, 2005; Jones et al., 2005; Kezar, 2006; Meyer and Rowan, 2006; Porter, 2006; Yorke and Longden, 2008). These behaviours manifest in concrete policies and unwritten practices which influence different aspects of managing/governing

institutions, including teaching and learning. More specifically, the influence can be seen at the input level (e.g. teachers’ recruitment and student admission), at the process level (e.g. knowledge production and the structure of the programme) and at the output level (e.g. who graduates). In addition, these policies and practices do not exist in a vacuum; instead they reflect the wider social and political structures in which the institutions exist (McDonough, 1997; Paulsen and St John, 2002; Walpole, 2003). This dialogue between these structures and the institutions involves the development of rules, categories, values, norms and even physical appearances of the institutions (Mills, 2008). Different studies discuss the influence of policies and practices on the running of higher education institutions, particularly in relation to teaching and learning. Clarke (2007), Marginson (2008) and Usher and Savino (2007) argue that the various policies and practices a university adopts in relation to the types of course it provides and the type of research it generates influence the position of the university on the global stage, and thus influence the types of student it admits and the academics it recruits. Grenfell and James (2004), Marginson (2008) and Naidoo (2004) suggest that the higher an university is on the global ranking scale, the more autonomy it has in modifying or influencing the rules of play in the field of higher education for its own advantage.

The policies and practices enacted by higher education institutions can also influence educational programmes at the process level. They influence the provision of certain educational programmes in some universities (Alkhazim, 2003; Ashwin, 2009; Clarke, 2007; McDonough, 1997). Supporting McDonough (1997), Ashwin (2009) argues that the policies of the university can influence the content and the structure of certain educational programmes it offers. For example, a course like sociology is taught differently by two UK higher education institutions according to the position of the university in the field (Abbas and McLean, 2007). Elite and traditional universities tend to teach such

courses in more abstract and philosophical ways, while modern universities seem to focus more on the applied part of sociology (ibid). Thus, the contents and the way certain courses are organised and taught by academics are likely to vary from one institution to another based on the different policies and practices that influence the positioning of these institutions in the league tables in higher education (James, 2013).

Regarding the use of the English language as a medium of instruction (EMI), Green et al. (2012) argued that universities around the world have adopted English in order to improve student prospects in global graduate employment and mobility prospects due to increased demand for graduates who are proficient in English language skills. For example, Rwanda, which was a Belgian colony, once used mainly French or the indigenous Kinyarwanda dialect as a medium of instruction in its higher education institutions. However, the old and elite universities, such as the Kigali Institute of Science and Technology, have now adopted EMI in order to affirm the country’s independence from France, but also to allow it to compete globally. Also, it claimed that use of English allows the graduates of the Kigali Institute better opportunities to engage academically with other institutions of higher education in the East African community, which use EMI. In addition, it improves the students’ employment opportunities in the global market.

In the Middle East, English is rapidly becoming the language of choice at new universities (Green et al., 2012). Universities that adopt EMI want to prove their association with the western education system and claim to provide their graduates with up-to-date knowledge in English. These universities view the use of English in higher education not only as a tool that empowers their graduates to compete in the international job market, but also to compete in gaining access to postgraduate education in countries where English is the medium of instruction (Green et al., 2012).

Moreover, in order to attract students from Anglophone countries, many European higher education institutions have adopted a new language policy by introducing English as an additional language of instruction in different postgraduate-level educational programmes. For example, many Dutch universities offer their postgraduate programmes in English (Green et al., 2012). In order to cope with the demands of English medium instructions, these universities require their students to take tests such as the Test Of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) and the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) before admission and offer remedial English language courses within degree programmes.

In seeking to understand the immense popularity of English language teaching in KSA, Al-Khairy (2013) and Bersamina (2009) found that many higher education institutions have started to offer English language courses in their degree programmes. This is in response to the government reform of higher education and attempt to raise standards to cope with the opportunities that globalization and new technology bring. In KSA, English is regarded as a tool that helps students to gain access to updated knowledge and skills; it is also seen as a language that is the basis of science and technology (Abu-Rizaizah, 2010; Al-Hazimi et al., 2004; Alkhazim, 2003). Although the policy of making English the medium of instruction is not compulsory, many universities have begun to change their language of instruction from Arabic to English either fully or partially in order to provide increased access to academic and professional opportunities (Al-Khairy, 2013; Al-Seghayer, 2012; Alebaikan and Troudi, 2010).

Despite the advantages of using EMI that were articulated in the studies cited above, there are other studies that suggest otherwise. Most of these studies suggest that the use of EMI causes a variety of problems for learning and teaching (Annamalai, 2004; Littlewood and Liu, 1996; Vavrus, 2002). In Hong

Kong, Littlewood and Liu (1996) stress that students studying in EMI are found to perform worse in their exams in comparison to those who study in their native language. In addition, it was suggested that students in Hong Kong tend to participate less in classroom activities when EMI is used, and that their motivation to learn tends to decline because of the frustration of not being able to understand the language of instruction (Salili and Tsui, 2005). Evans (2009) and Llewellyn et al. (1982) argue that in settings where EMI is used, students tend to rely heavily on memorisation rather than engagement as a learning approach. Vavrus (2000) and Annamalai (2004) suggest that the use of EMI in Tanzania and India limits students’ understanding of the subjects taught.

Although it seems that there is an ongoing debate about the advantages and disadvantages of using EMI in many educational settings, it is important to note that the issue of medium of instruction as an institutional choice could have an impact on educational aspects of an institution. Drawing on the work of Bourdieu (2005) and Ashwin (2009), it is argued that institutional policy and practices have a significant influence on teaching and learning processes in that they can influence the structure of the academic programmes as well as the medium of instruction.

Institutional policy and practice also informs the types of student admitted to the university programmes and the teachers who can teach the courses on offer. This happens through the decisions that academics make in relation to the university they choose to work in and who they feel can appreciate their academic qualifications, their teaching experiences and their teaching attitudes (Bleiklie and Byrkjeflot, 2002; Henkel, 2005; Lee and Boud, 2003). Thus, an institution’s policies and practices are seen to inform its performance, which in turn influences the types of students and academics it attracts and the kind of teaching-learning environment it provides.

The lens of institutional theory allows an analysis into what might be the origin of institutional policies. Also, it emphasises the importance of institutional influence on learning and teaching in higher education. It explains how different policies and practices adopted by universities influence student admission, academic recruitment and the provision/modification of educational programmes. In the context of this study, institutional theory is utilized in order to address the origin of different policies and practices enacted by QU-HS in relation to EFL teaching and learning; and how policies and practices influence the students’ learning experiences. These aspects are discussed further in detail in Chapter 5.

3.3 Conceptualizing the influence of families’ backgrounds on the student