THE IMPLEMENTATION OF EMI (ENGLISH MEDIUM INSTRUCTION) IN INDONESIAN UNIVERSITIES: ITS OPPORTUNITIES, ITS THREATS, ITS PROBLEMS, AND ITS POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

J. I. Ibrahim
{"title":"THE IMPLEMENTATION OF EMI (ENGLISH MEDIUM INSTRUCTION) IN INDONESIAN UNIVERSITIES: ITS OPPORTUNITIES, ITS THREATS, ITS PROBLEMS, AND ITS POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS","authors":"J. I. Ibrahim","doi":"10.9744/kata.3.2.121-138","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, I attempt to find out whether EMI (English Medium Instruction) can be an effective means of enhancing students' and teachers' language proficiency at university (bilingualism) and whether bilingualism necessarily leads to biliteracy. In addition, I would like to propose a model on which a smooth transition to a full EMI implementation can be achieved, should it be adopted. From literature reviews, I conclude that EMI (using English to teach content subjects) can be a better means of solving learners' language problems than teaching English as a subject, because it allows learners more exposure to the language (comprehensible input) and more opportunity to use it (comprehensible output). However, due to its classroom-based nature, EMI is not likely to develop the four language skills (listening, reading, speaking, & writing) equally for both students and teachers. On the other hand, the assumption that EMI will automatically result in biliteracy is unsupported, because only bilinguals competent in both languages can take a full advantage of their bilingualism. Students or teachers who are not adequately developed in the language are likely to suffer academically, socially, and psychologically instead. \nSince research has found that total/full immersion is not the right method for language-incompetent students, the writer believes that both a bridging program and a partial EMI program are necessary at least at the initial stage of EMI implementation. The bridging program should be based on students' and teachers' academic and linguistic needs (EAP); the partial EMI program may be based on limitations on three factors: the participants, the scope of use, and the settings. Finally, in order for the program to run smoothly, mixed-mode teaching in the classroom should be discouraged and a conducive atmosphere for second language acquisition should be established both in the classroom and outside the classroom","PeriodicalId":30120,"journal":{"name":"Kta A Biannual Publication on the Study of Language and Literature","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"52","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kta A Biannual Publication on the Study of Language and Literature","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.9744/kata.3.2.121-138","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 52

Abstract

In this paper, I attempt to find out whether EMI (English Medium Instruction) can be an effective means of enhancing students' and teachers' language proficiency at university (bilingualism) and whether bilingualism necessarily leads to biliteracy. In addition, I would like to propose a model on which a smooth transition to a full EMI implementation can be achieved, should it be adopted. From literature reviews, I conclude that EMI (using English to teach content subjects) can be a better means of solving learners' language problems than teaching English as a subject, because it allows learners more exposure to the language (comprehensible input) and more opportunity to use it (comprehensible output). However, due to its classroom-based nature, EMI is not likely to develop the four language skills (listening, reading, speaking, & writing) equally for both students and teachers. On the other hand, the assumption that EMI will automatically result in biliteracy is unsupported, because only bilinguals competent in both languages can take a full advantage of their bilingualism. Students or teachers who are not adequately developed in the language are likely to suffer academically, socially, and psychologically instead. Since research has found that total/full immersion is not the right method for language-incompetent students, the writer believes that both a bridging program and a partial EMI program are necessary at least at the initial stage of EMI implementation. The bridging program should be based on students' and teachers' academic and linguistic needs (EAP); the partial EMI program may be based on limitations on three factors: the participants, the scope of use, and the settings. Finally, in order for the program to run smoothly, mixed-mode teaching in the classroom should be discouraged and a conducive atmosphere for second language acquisition should be established both in the classroom and outside the classroom
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
印尼大学实施英语教学的机会、威胁、问题及可能的解决方法
在本文中,我试图找出EMI(英语媒介教学)是否可以作为一种有效的手段来提高学生和教师在大学的语言能力(双语)和双语是否必然导致双语。此外,我想提出一个模型,在此模型上,如果采用的话,可以实现向全面EMI实施的平稳过渡。从文献综述中,我得出结论,EMI(使用英语教授内容科目)可以比将英语作为一门学科教授更好地解决学习者的语言问题,因为它允许学习者更多地接触语言(可理解的输入)和更多的机会使用它(可理解的输出)。然而,由于其基于课堂的性质,EMI不太可能为学生和教师平等地培养四种语言技能(听、读、说、写)。另一方面,EMI将自动导致双语的假设是不支持的,因为只有精通两种语言的双语人才能充分利用他们的双语能力。在语言方面没有得到充分发展的学生或教师可能会在学业、社交和心理上受到影响。由于研究发现,对于语言能力不佳的学生来说,完全/完全沉浸并不是正确的方法,因此作者认为,至少在实施EMI的初始阶段,桥接计划和部分EMI计划都是必要的。衔接课程应以学生和教师的学术和语言需求(EAP)为基础;部分EMI计划可能基于三个因素的限制:参与者,使用范围和设置。最后,为了使项目顺利进行,应避免在课堂上采用混合教学模式,在课堂内外营造有利于二语习得的氛围
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Origins of Language Index The Sounds of Language First Language Acquisition The Role of Girls as Mothers in Harry Potter Series
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1