EMI Programme in HASS

This section presents the terms EMI and CLIL, viewed by the university through my lens. It also explains how the university managed the EMI programme in the post-workshop period. This section explains the English Linguistic Gears or ELGs and obligatory EMI activities used in HASS. In 2016, the HASS authorities decided to withdraw from this CLIL workshop at OverseasU due to financial restrictions. Today, this programme is no longer available.

4.4.1 Taking CLIL to EMI Programme

EMI at HASS played a crucial role in creating instructing and learning excellence at national and international levels, and in developing undergraduate students’ competency in English as the lecturers’ and students’ first foreign language. EMI lacked pedagogical knowledge and guidelines for subject-content lecturers to instruct content through English. Hence, HASS authorities were expecting that the lecturers would apply three CLIL pillars in their classrooms even though they are working on an EMI environment.

Some issues were raised when using the CLIL approach in an EMI programme. CLIL originally was designed to teach primary/secondary students. In contrast, EMI initially was planned to employ with university students. In other words, CLIL and EMI were used in different contexts: school and university. HASS authorities decided to use CLIL with undergraduate students instead. In HASS, while CLIL was treated as a pedagogy of content instruction, EMI was viewed as a different aspect from CLIL. Indeed, CLIL focused on both content and language. It had a clear pedagogy that became an important aspect of instruction in language. Thus, CLIL directly taught target language to students. However, EMI did not focus on the English language instruction, but emphasised content instruction only. That is, EMI could promote students’ language acquisition through reading and listening to input materials. Although there was some similarity in EMI and CLIL in that they shared the same aspect of English as the choice of MOI, in the CLIL approach, lecturers could make choices of whether to use English or other foreign languages. However, English was the choice of language selected by the HASS authorities in

order to introduce to the lecturers to conveying academic content to students in EMI classrooms.

It seemed that the lecturers would also weave the CLIL Language Pillars into English Linguistic Gears prior to their instruction.

4.4.2 English Linguistic Gears

EMI in HASS at HomeU offered lecturers a wide range of English utilisation during the delivery of subject matter. Figure 4.7 below illustrates features of English Linguistic Gears or ELGs.

Figure 4.7: English Linguistic Gears

There were three Gears of English immersion levels: Gear One required that EMI classes must use English at least 25 percent of the class time throughout the semester; Gear Two involved English use of 50 percent; and Gear Three stipulated that English must be used during at least 75 percent of class time. ELGs also display a conceptual understanding of Thai levels that can occur in EMI classes. ‘Weak EMI’ allows Thai to be used for 75 percent of the whole course. In ‘Mild EMI’ involving 50 percent, Thai equally stands with English. ‘Strong EMI’ provides the use of less Thai for 25 percent.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Gear 1 Gear 2 Gear 3 English, 25 50 75 First language, 75 50 25

In addition to lecturer talk, each Gear had particular requirements for instructing and learning types. Gear One involved the use of English handouts, input instructional materials, resources, and other documents. It required the use of English, in giving lectures or running classroom tasks, for at least 12 out of 48 hours. Gear Two required all materials and resources to be in English. Written reports and/or oral presentation must be in English. It required the use of English in class for at least 24 hours over the duration of the course. Gear Three stated that all materials, and resources must be written in English. Written reports and/or oral presentation must also be in English. Mid-term or final term examinations must be done in English. English must be used for at least 36 hours. Also, the classroom tasks should be ‘hands-on’ tasks, and such tasks should also promote classroom interaction.

In ELG documents, there is no stated guideline about assessment items and how much students are expected to use English in class. The major areas relate to the content lecturers’ practices rather than assessment and students. While ELGs have a strong influence on content lecturers, the requirements for proportions of L1 and L2 to be used by students in class were disregarded. However, at one point in the ELG documents, it is stated that, in Gears Two and Three, the students should “write reports and/or give presentations in English” (p. 3) (Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2016a). What is more, in Gear Three, the content lecturers should provide “midterm or final term test items in English” (p. 3) (Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2016a); however, it does not state which language the students should use for the tests.

4.4.3 Activities in Post-Workshop

After the workshop participation, all the trained EMI lecturers immediately signed up to the English-medium instruction agreement to deliver one EMI course for the first time. The faculty also encouraged them to use EMI by offering funding for EMI subjects according to levels of the Gears. Lecturers who were eligible to have funding, must have lecture-based subjects; lesson plans, content in relation to the lesson plans; and English in lectures or classroom tasks. They must not be English

specialists that normally conducted English subjects. New EMI lecturers, who were using Gear One for the first year, received 2,000 Baht (NZD 80) per each enrolled credit, but not more than three credits. Normally, one subject was awarded two to three credits. Gear Two was worth about 4,000 Baht (NZD 160), while Gear Three offered 6,000 Baht (NZD 240) per credit.

All EMI lecturers were required to select one ELG to use in their subjects. They should choose appropriate ELGs to employ as guidance tools to control speed, effort, and power involved in using English. Other than that, the lecturers were expected to apply what they learned from the workshop in the three CLIL Pillars, to their contexts from preparation to instruction stages. Although this requirement was not explicitly stated in the policy/document, the HASS authorities expressed their expectation that the lecturers would have successfully integrated ELGs into the CLIL Pillars in their practices. Lecturers prepared instructional materials such as reading, handouts, and PowerPoint Presentation. These things were content input materials written in English. They also designed classroom tasks that helped students gain more understanding. Some lecturers prepared their lecture notes in English. Although they had learned pedagogical knowledge from the workshop in groups, they personally applied such knowledge to their own instructing preferences and contexts. With preparation for EMI lessons in the near future, the content lecturers had confidence (to some degree) in deploying both ELGs and the CLIL Pillars at the first attempt under the new circumstances (e.g., new semester, new subjects, and new students).

4.5 Chapter Summary

In conclusion, EMI policies in HomeU and HASS were originally derived from the National Economic and Social Development Plan. The plan intended to develop Thai citizens to live and work in domestic and international arenas, so English skills were essential aspects to take into account. Focusing on actions, HomeU followed the national plan and developed its own policy to construct it to be more contextual and more reflective of HomeU’s expertise and needs. Particularly, English as a medium of instruction planning and action was the main focus. Once the policy passed to HASS, the faculty made it more practical for their content lecturers since

they were unable to follow the institutional policy fully. There was convincing evidence of this when the lecturers were sent to attend CLIL workshops in OverseasU. Later, they had to apply what they had learnt to their own EMI classes. In HASS, three elements of CLIL, known as the ‘pillars model of CLIL,’ were applied in EMI programmes as the main pedagogy.

The next chapter will present the findings of lecturer cognition and practices regarding the implementation of EMI policy, English Linguistic Gears, and the Pillars.