Ideologies of teachers and students towards meso-level English-medium instruction policy and translanguaging in the STEM classroom at a Malaysian university
Mohammad Mosiur Rahman, Md. Shaiful Islam, Abdul Karim, Manjet Kaur Mehar Singh, Guangwei Hu
{"title":"Ideologies of teachers and students towards meso-level English-medium instruction policy and translanguaging in the STEM classroom at a Malaysian university","authors":"Mohammad Mosiur Rahman, Md. Shaiful Islam, Abdul Karim, Manjet Kaur Mehar Singh, Guangwei Hu","doi":"10.1515/applirev-2023-0040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"English medium instruction (EMI) as a language policy in higher education is based on monolingual conceptions and limits the use of the full linguistic repertoire of bilinguals/multilinguals in the university classroom. Informed by the constructs of language ideology (Spolsky, Bernard. 2009. <jats:italic>Language management</jats:italic>. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press), translanguaging (Li, Wei. 2018. Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. <jats:italic>Applied Linguistics</jats:italic> 39(1). 9–30) and pedagogical translanguaging (Creese, Angela & Adrian Blackledge. 2010. Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? <jats:italic>The Modern Language Journal</jats:italic> 94(1). 103–115), this case study aimed to examine the ideologies held by micro-level stakeholders (i.e., teachers and students) towards institutional English-only EMI policy, translanguaging, and the significance and scope of pedagogical translanguaging in EMI classrooms. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with six teachers and 10 students at a public research university in Malaysia. Also collected were a variety of publicly accessible institutional documents, including the focal university’s programme brochures, promotional materials and policy statements on its website. Analyses of the interviews and documents revealed that although EMI was officially adopted in the programmes, both teachers and students advocated for translanguaging and underscored its important role in the transmission of new information, effective communication, and scientific meaning-making. In light of these findings, the study concludes that an inclusive language policy is required that allows teachers and students to access all their linguistic resources.","PeriodicalId":46472,"journal":{"name":"Applied Linguistics Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Linguistics Review","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2023-0040","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
English medium instruction (EMI) as a language policy in higher education is based on monolingual conceptions and limits the use of the full linguistic repertoire of bilinguals/multilinguals in the university classroom. Informed by the constructs of language ideology (Spolsky, Bernard. 2009. Language management. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press), translanguaging (Li, Wei. 2018. Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics 39(1). 9–30) and pedagogical translanguaging (Creese, Angela & Adrian Blackledge. 2010. Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal 94(1). 103–115), this case study aimed to examine the ideologies held by micro-level stakeholders (i.e., teachers and students) towards institutional English-only EMI policy, translanguaging, and the significance and scope of pedagogical translanguaging in EMI classrooms. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with six teachers and 10 students at a public research university in Malaysia. Also collected were a variety of publicly accessible institutional documents, including the focal university’s programme brochures, promotional materials and policy statements on its website. Analyses of the interviews and documents revealed that although EMI was officially adopted in the programmes, both teachers and students advocated for translanguaging and underscored its important role in the transmission of new information, effective communication, and scientific meaning-making. In light of these findings, the study concludes that an inclusive language policy is required that allows teachers and students to access all their linguistic resources.
英语教学(EMI)作为高等教育中的一项语言政策,是以单语概念为基础的,限制了双语者/多语者在大学课堂上使用全部语言。语言意识形态的构建(Spolsky, Bernard.2009.语言管理》。Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press)、翻译语言(Li, Wei.2018.Translanguaging as a practical theory of language.应用语言学 39(1).9-30) and pedagogical translanguaging (Creese, Angela & Adrian Blackledge.2010.双语课堂中的语言转换:学与教的教学法?现代语言杂志》94(1)。103-115),本案例研究旨在考察微观层面的利益相关者(即教师和学生)对机构的纯英语 EMI 政策、译语教学以及 EMI 课堂中译语教学的意义和范围所持有的意识形态。我们对马来西亚一所公立研究型大学的 6 名教师和 10 名学生进行了半结构式访谈。此外,还收集了各种可公开查阅的机构文件,包括重点大学的课程手册、宣传材料及其网站上的政策声明。对访谈和文件的分析表明,尽管在课程中正式采用了英美语言,但教师和学生都提倡翻译语言,并强调翻译语言在传递新信息、有效沟通和科学意义表达方面的重要作用。鉴于这些发现,本研究得出结论认为,需要制定一项包容性的语言政策,使教师和学 生能够利用他们所有的语言资源。