Archivo de la etiqueta: methodology

English as Medium of Instruction (EMI) and Methodological Change

captura de pantalla 2019-01-24 a las 18.10.09

Teacher talk in a foreign language – Use with caution!

Several years ago, a Spanish colleague who was teaching International Law to Spanish-speaking students in a university in Madrid, challenged my belief that instruction in EMI requires adapting one’s own teaching methodology.

“What do you mean I should scaffold the readings?” she asked. “I set the relevant texts, and it’s their students’ problem, not mine, to make sense of them.” Que se busquen la vida was the Spanish way of putting it.

In short, she saw the challenging of overcoming the language barrier as the students’ responsibility, exclusively, and found no need to teach her EMI course differently from how she would teach it in Spanish, both her and her students’ monther-tongue.

This short text provides a number of counter-arguments to this view, which I find is quite commonplace in EMI lecturers. It is based on my own experience teaching EMI courses and coordinating a team of EMI teachers. It is also supported by research in the field, by authors such as Emma Dafouz and David Lasagabaster.

The bottom-line is that traditional teacher-focused methodologies and instructional styles are less effective in EMI contexts than when lecturer and students are working in their L1 or a language they fully master. And, for this reason, it is my belief that most lecturers in most academic fields would gain from moving toward more learner-centered, collaborative learning methodologies that shift the attention away from teacher talk. Here are some reasons why:

1.- Teacher talk is less effective in English than in L1. Several studies have questioned EMI lecturers about the main obstacles of EMI, and many have identified the difficulty of interacting “naturally” and “spontaneously” with students.

Tellingly, one of these lecturers claimed that “for me, the biggest difference when teaching in English is that I find it hard to be spontaneous and (I believe) fun […] I can’t joke with the students, which for me is a way to keep them engaged.” (Dafouz, Núñez, Sancho y Foran 2007; cited in Dafouz 2015). Understandably, teaching styles that follow the “sage on the stage” paradigm will suffer more by switching to a foreign language.

2.- Teacher input is limited from language standpoint, and must be supplemented with materials produced by native speakers.

This is not merely a linguistic point, as it overlaps with the need for students to speak and write fluently and correctly about the subject content. This requires, for instance, effective use of academic vocabulary, lexical collocations…which are hard to master for non-native speakers.


  • The use of the verb “conduct” together with the nouns “research” or “an interview” (lexical collocations)
  • The specific use of academic verbs such as “discuss”, “argue”, “implement”, “assess”, etc.

Teachers often share with students their own notes and Powerpoint presentations. This may come as an adequate support of content acquisition, but I believe that, for students to obtain the full benefits of EMI instruction, the course design should also provide ample opportunities for engaging with authentic and non-authentic texts (written and aural) produced by native speakers of English.

These texts can range from less to more technical, including newspaper articles and video reports, documentaries, news stories, textbook chapters, journal articles, lab reports…In turn, work on these texts should promote a more learner-centered instruction that will offer opportunities for discussion, problem-solving and so on.

3.- More profoundly, as Emma Dafouz argues (2015), courses are taught and learnt in a given disciplinar and academic culture, that might not be identical with the culture of the same course as it would be learnt and taught in L1. This is how the author represents it graphically:

captura de pantalla 2019-01-21 a las 16.41.48

Source: (Dafouz, 2015)


In my experience as an EMI lecturer, it is worth it to offer students the chance of reading, say, academic essays and scientific reports published in English, as their genre requirements and conventions differ from the Spanish ones, and acquaintance with such genres are “a part of” learning those academic contents in L2. More so if we expect students to be able to speak or write in those genres as part of their coursework.

For instance, if we want students to write a Biology or Chemistry lab report in English, it makes sense that will have read, discussed and analyzed samples of lab reports published in English-speaking contexts, and not merely “translate” a lab report the way they would be done in the L1 contexts. The same is true of other academic / disciplinar genres such as debates, presentations or academic essays.

For all these reasons, as Dafouz (2015) argues, EMI lecturers would gain from promoting a more learner-centered teaching methodology, enhancing the role of the teacher as mediator of information. And offer a number of explicit scaffolds to support learners in mastering the course contents in a language neither them nor the teacher is fully proficient in. In another article I will be discussing what some of these scaffolds can be.



Dafouz Milne, E. (2015). Más allá del inglés: la competencia lingüística multi-dimensional como estrategia para la enseñanza en la universidad internacional. Educación y Futuro, 32, 15-34. The full text is available here:





Deja un comentario

Archivado bajo English, essay, higher education, Sin categoría, teaching

The need to go beyond an individualistic conception of teaching at university

I am currently in the process of planning a 4th year course on Content and Language Integrated Learning at Universidad Pontificia Comillas. Now, as you may know this is one of the courses I’ve been teaching for the last 5 years, and pride myself on contributing, albeit modestly, to my students becoming effective CLIL subject teachers.

Well, the special thing this year is that I will be teaching the two sections of the course together with two other teachers – not splitting sections into sub-sections as originally planned, but following a team-teaching strategy. That’s spending a lot of time together in class, but using the extra humanpower (so to speak) to better monitor student’s individual and group work, provide better feedback, and have an alternative vision to the leading teacher’s.

Now, this is bound to be challenging and, in all cases, more work for the three of us. But, the more I think, the more I feel it will help overcome my limitations as a teacher and, why not, send a strong symbolic message to the student teachers who’ll benefit from our work.

We teachers tend to be individualistic – our method, our students, our classroom (with our doors conveniently shut, of course). At CES Don Bosco, my previous institution, I was lucky enough to teach the same teacher trainees over a period of three years. This was useful in so many ways, and one of my targets was to develop some language and teaching skills across several subjects and years: skills such as effective public speaking, lesson planning skills or basic language awareness. Effective as that might have proved, I feel that these and other skills would have been better integrated by students had my colleagues teaching in the EFL specialism and I managed to work in a more coordinated way so as to give students a greater sense of continuity and cohesion in what they were being asked to learn.

And this is a shortcoming of the education we provide in many university programs: the fragmentation. I have been noticing during the last years -probably more since the advent of the new Grados (4 year degrees based on the European credit transfer system) and their semester-long courses, that many (maybe most) students don’t naturally make connections between what they learn in different, yet strongly related, courses.

Once, a colleague of mine complained to me that her students were terrible at delivering presentations. Surprising, I thought, as those same students had done terrific work on public speaking with me just a semester before. More recently, teaching Comillas Translation students, I have noticed how hard it is to get them to cite their sources consistently when writing an essay or an assignment, and closely follow a citation guide (APA, in this case). They will do it, eventually (they need it to pass), but more often than not in the next course and with the next teacher they will revert to their high school ways unless being explicitly required to follow the criteria they learned with me. And this, of course, requires coordination between the teaching staff.

The moral of all this? Well, of course it’s rewarding to be valued by what happens in your class. However, you can still hold on to your unique teaching style and have a lot of fun in class while making some compromises so that students will not only remember you, but the whole “package” they received from the institution.

John Hattie sums it up nicely in Visible Learning for Teachers (2012, p.15):

Too often, we see the essential nature of our profession as autonomy – autonomy to teach how we know best, autonomy to choose resources and methods that we think are best, and autonomy to go back tomorrow and have another chance of doing what we have already done many times. […] We have good evidence that most, if not all, of our methods, resources and teaching do have a positive effect on achievement – and many attain greater-than-average effects. The profession needs to be embracing the notions of what it is to be successful in teaching, helping all in a collaborative manner [emphasis mine] to attain this excellence, and recognizing major effects when they are evident.

team chalkboard big



Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. New York: Routledge.




Deja un comentario

Archivado bajo higher education