English medium instruction for whom and for what? Rethinking the language-content relationship in higher education.

In this conceptual paper I examine how current understandings of English medium instruction (EMI) can be refined to inform language policy-making and practice in higher education. Starting from a set of EMI definitions (Dafouz, E., & Smit, U. 2020. ROAD-MAPPING English medium education in the internationalized university. Palgrave Macmillan; Macaro, E. 2018. English medium instruction. Oxford University Press; Pecorari, D., & Malmström, H. 2018. At the crossroads of TESOL and English medium instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 52(3), 497–515) and the language-content spectrum that was first put forward by Met (1998. Curriculum decision-making in content-based language teaching. In J. Cenoz, & F. Genesee (Eds.), Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and multilingual education (pp. 35–63). Multilingual Matters), I highlight how EMI has been approached in existing literature and how it may converge or diverge with other bilingual labels. Using an institutional case as an example, I argue that the conceptualisation of the language-content duality could be expanded to better reflect the different manifestations of EMI in reality, and to provide space for tracing terminological movements in the process of policy implementation. To do so, a dynamic language-content model is introduced, drawing attention to different depths of integration based on what is controlled (e.g. language and/or content) and how much control is taken (e.g. in curriculum-planning, teaching, and/or assessment). The model can be viewed as a second generation of the language-content continuum, complementing existing EMI definitions while opening up wider possibilities for dealing with the interplay between language and content in university settings. The paper closes with implications for EMI policy-making and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]