From monologue to dialogue
Opening teachers’ minds to authentic interaction with students
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/jmtp.23500Keywords:
Dialogic interaction, English Medium Instruction (EMI), Higher Education, teacher trainingAbstract
Interaction undoubtedly is key to learning in higher education. It is particularly relevant in an English medium instruction (EMI) setting when students use a foreign language for learning as it provides important opportunities for the negotiation of meaning. In this article, we present and critically discuss EMI teacher training interventions in Switzerland designed to encourage dialogic interaction in the EMI classroom. EMI teacher training interventions, in the case of this study, rely on the EMI teaching competence reference framework outlined in Studer (2018). Through observations, (self-)assessments and surveys, teachers are assessed against four levels of attention to language in their classes, ranging from a focus on mutual comprehension to dialogue and the formal integration of language into the content of their classes. The paper shows that many EMI teachers tend to be more concerned with basic language and monologic competence, while sidelining dialogic competence. The paper will also show that the mental switch required to move the focus from ‘stage performance’ and self-awareness to authentic dialogue represents a significant challenge for our training programmes.
References
Abels, G. and Behrens, M. (2009). Interviewing experts in political science: A reflection on gender and policy effects based on secondary analysis. In A. Bogner, B. Littig and W. Menz (eds), Interviewing experts (pp. 138–56). Palgrave Macmillan.
Ädel, A. (2012). ‘What I want you to remember is …’: Audience orientation in monologic academic discourse. English Text Construction, 5(1), 101–127.
Auer, P. (1992). Introduction: John Gumperz’ approach to contextualization. In P. Auer and A. di Luzio (eds), The contextualization of language (pp. 1–37). John Benjamins.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. University of Texas Press.
Bradford, A. (2019). It’s not all about English! The problem of language foregrounding in English-medium programmes in Japan. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 40(8), 707–720. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2018.1551402
Butterfield L. D., Borgen W. A., Amundson N. E. and Maglio A. S. T. (2005). Fifty years of the critical incident technique: 1954–2004 and beyond. Qualitative Research, 5(4), 475–497.
Curran, C. A. (1972). Counseling-learning: A whole-person model for education. Grune & Stratton.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E. and Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute.
Doiz, A. and Lasagabaster, D. (2022). Looking into English-medium instruction teachers’ metadiscourse: An ELF perspective. System, 105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102730
Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327–358.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H. and Wenderoth M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. PNAS, 111, 8410–8415.
Gibbs, G. and Coffey, M. (2004). The impact of training of university teachers on their teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5(1), 87–100.
Guarda, M. and Helm, F. (2017). ‘I have discovered new teaching pathways’: The link between language shift and teaching practice. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(7), 897–913. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2015.1125848
Gumperz, J. (1999). On interactional sociolinguistic method. In S. Sarangi and C. Roberts (eds), Talk, work and institutional order (pp. 453–471). Mouton de Gruyter.
Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action. Vol. 2: Lifeworld and system – a critique of functionalist reason. Beacon Press.
Harder, P. (1980). Discourse as self-expression: On the reduced personality of the second-language learner. Applied Linguistics, 1(3), 262–270.
Hardman, J. and Hardman, F. (2017). Guided co-construction in classroom talk. In S. Wortham, D. Kim and S. May (eds), Discourse and education (pp. 199–210). Springer.
Holquist, M. (2002). Dialogism (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Inamorato dos Santos, A., Gaušas, S., Mackevi?i?t?, R., Jotautyt?, A. and Martinaitis, Ž. (2019). Innovating professional development in higher education: An analysis of practices. European Union.
Krashen, S. D. (1986). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press.
La Forge, P. G. (1983). Counselling and culture in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press.
Lasagabaster, D. and Doiz, A. (eds) (2021). Language use in English-medium instruction at university: International perspectives on teacher practice. Routledge.
Leask, B. (2015). Internationalizing the curriculum. Routledge.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie and T. K. Bhatia (eds), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). Academic Press.
Macaro, E. (2015). English medium instruction: Time to start asking some difficult questions. Modern English Teacher, 24(2), 4–7.
Marková, I. (2003). Dialogicality and social representations. The dynamics of mind. Cambridge University Press.
Matusov, E. (2018). Ethic authorial dialogism as a candidate for post-postmodernism. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 50(14), 1467–1468.
Matusov, E. (2009). Journey into dialogic pedagogy. Nova Science.
Matusov, E. and Lemke, J. (2015). Values in dialogic pedagogy. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 3, 1–20.
Mayring, P. (2010). Qualitative inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und techniken. Beltz.
Morell, T. and Nickolaevna, V. K. (2021). English medium instruction (EMI) teacher training in higher education. Special issue of Alicante Journal of English Studies, 34.
Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology: A textbook for teachers. Prentice-Hall.
Piquer-Píriz, A-M. and Castellano-Risco, I. R. (2021). Lecturers’ training needs in EMI programmes: Beyond language competence. Alicante Journal of English Studies, 34, 83–105.
Print, M. (2020). Curriculum development and design (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Rogers, C. (1951). Client-centered therapy: Its current practice, implications and theory. Constable.
Rogers, C. R. and Farson, R. E. (2015). Active listening. Martino.
Rosenberg, M. B. (1999). Nonviolent communication: A language of compassion. PuddleDancer Press.
Rychly, L. and Graves, E. (2012). Teacher characteristics for culturally responsive pedagogy. Multicultural Perspectives, 14(1), 44–49.
Schaffalitzky, C. (2022). What makes authentic questions authentic? Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 10, A30–A42.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Temple Smith.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning. Jossey-Bass.
Spiller, B. (2004). Stil/Style. In U. Ammon (ed.), Soziolinguistik/Sociolinguistics (pp. 206–216). Mouton de Gruyter.
Studer, P. (2015). Coping with English: Students’ perceptions of their teachers’ linguistic competence in undergraduate science teaching. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 183–201.
Studer, P. (2016). Lecturers’ communicative strategies in English-medium instruction: The importance of classroom interaction. In P. Studer (ed.), Communicative competence and didactic challenges: A case study of English-medium instruction in third-level education in Switzerland (pp. 7–20). ZHAW.
Studer, P. (2018). English in the age of comprehensive internationalization: Defining competence guidelines for teachers in higher education. Bulletin suisse de linguistique appliquée VALS-ASLA, 107, 27–47.
Studer, P. (2022). Re-visiting English-medium instruction in the light of comprehensive internationalisation: A case for sociocultural competence. In L. Keim, S. Khan, À. Pinyana and À. Raluy (eds), Internationalisation and intercultural competences in higher education: Quality and innovation (pp. 17–32). Editorial Octaedro.
Suviniity, J. (2012). Lectures in English as a lingua franca: Interactional features. University of Helsinki.
Tang, K. S. (2020). Discourse strategies for science teaching and learning. Routledge.
Zare, J. and Tavakoli, M. (2017). The use of personal metadiscourse over monologic and dialogic modes of academic speech. Discourse Process, 54, 163–175.
Zhang, L. (2017). Classroom discourse in content-based instruction in higher education: A focus on teachers’ use of metadiscourse. PhD thesis, University of Hong Kong.
Zhang, L. and Lo, Y. Y. (2021). EMI teachers’ use of interactive metadiscourse in lecture organization and knowledge construction. In D. Lasagabaster and A. Doiz (eds), Language use in English-medium instruction at university: International perspectives on teacher practice (pp. 56–79). Routledge.
