Aintzane Doiz<\/strong> David Lasagabaster <\/strong> English-medium instruction (EMI) programmes are on the upswing in universities all over the world. However, the literature indicates that EMI instructors hardly pay any attention to the language aspect, in the belief that they are content \u2013and not language\u2013 teachers. In an attempt to make EMI teachers reflect on the paramount role that language and, in particular, teacher-fronted questions play in their classes, in this study four EMI history teachers were video-recorded during six two-hour-long sessions each. Following Gall and Acheson (2011), the three steps of clinical supervision were implemented: planning conference, classroom observation, and feedback conference. By including the teachers as active participants in the process, both the researchers and the teachers looked at the data gathered in the classroom observations and analysed them. As a result of the side-by-side supervision, decisions were made on an equal footing by the researcher and the teacher. This model of supervision provides EMI teachers with objective feedback on their instruction, while they are encouraged to reach their own conclusions. Differences in the receptiveness to the reflective practice among the teachers were observed, suggesting the need to work with teachers on the benefits of professional teaching interventions, such as the one described here.<\/p>\n Keywords<\/em><\/strong>: English-medium instruction (EMI), teachers, reflective practice, teacher-fronted questions, English, classroom observation<\/p>\n The surge of English-medium instruction (EMI) programmes can mainly be put down to the role of English as the current lingua franca in the academia. The use of English in university contexts in which local languages were previously the habitual means of instruction is labelled as Englishization and it has become such a global trend that Block and Khan (2021) attribute it to the general feeling that there is no alternative available, what the latter authors label as TINA. As a result, an increasing number of higher education institutions have jumped on the EMI bandwagon, although some of them more willingly than others (Wilkinson & Gabri\u00ebls, 2021) and many of them without providing the necessary methodological support (Lasagabaster, 2022).<\/p>\n The hegemonic position of English has however brought about tensions in multilingual university settings and has often led to classroom situations in which the use of language is unregulated (Kuteeva, 2023). In fact, and strikingly, one of the most recurrent findings found in the literature (Aguilar, 2017; Airey, 2012; Costa, 2012) has to do with the fact that language is hardly paid heed to, as EMI teachers\u2019 focus lies almost exclusively on subject matter teaching, whereas language issues play second fiddle or, more often than not, none at all (Lasagabaster & Doiz, 2021).<\/p>\n Despite the fact that EMI teachers tend to overlook language matters and usually have no time to reflect on their teaching practices, EMI students would greatly benefit from both attention to the nuances of the language of their specialization (which is why attention to form should be an integral part of any EMI course) and a reflection process on the part of their teachers. However, EMI teachers believe that such a focus on language is beyond their remit and they usually find it hard to take time to carry out a reflective process focused on their teaching. This is where reflective teaching comes to the fore, as it may help EMI teachers to reflect on their teaching philosophy, beliefs and practices with a view to making their teaching more effective.<\/p>\n Gall and Acheson (2011) point out that clinical supervision relies on teachers as active participants in the supervisory process, that is, they propose a model of supervision that is interactive, democratic and teacher-centered, the main goal being the improvement of teachers\u2019 classroom instruction. In this way, the approach is not supervisor-centered and leads to a binding of both the teacher and the supervisor or researcher that becomes intimate and collaborative and, therefore, it is a far cry from the traditional top-down supervision. The use of the term clinical<\/em> has nothing to do with pathology but rather refers to the \u201cface-to-face relationship between the teacher and the supervisor and a focus on the teacher\u2019s actual behavior in the classroom\u201d (p. 6).<\/p>\n Clinical supervision consists of three main phases: planning conference, classroom observation, and feedback conference. In the first phase, the so-called planning conference, the supervisors (in this case the authors of the paper) meet with the EMI teachers and plan for classroom observation. The EMI teachers are given the opportunity to explain their concerns, aspirations and needs, while the supervisors gather all the information to later on reflect on the issues raised by the teachers.<\/p>\n During the second phase, namely the classroom observation, the supervisors observe some lessons and record them in order to later on analyse the objectives set during the initial planning conference. It has to be noted that the supervisors need to adopt a neutral stance during the data collection process. In the case of this study the focus was on teachers\u2019 questioning practices, since questions significantly affect not only classroom interaction (Chang, 2012), but also pave the way for teachers to co-construct knowledge in collaboration with students (Al-Adeimi & O\u2019Connor, 2021; Dafouz & S\u00e1nchez-Garc\u00eda, 2013) and to bolster classroom participation (Fortanet-G\u00f3mez & Ruiz-Madrid, 2014; Kawalkar & Vijapurkar, 2013). Interestingly, whereas the role of questions has been extensively researched at pre-university levels, the number of studies undertaken at tertiary level is much more limited (Lasagabaster & Doiz, 2023). It is important to note that previous studies carried out in EMI settings (Guarda & Helm, 2017; Morell, 2020) reveal that the higher the degree of teacher\/student(s) interaction, the better the EMI teaching quality, which is why questioning practices deserve much more attention than they have hitherto received.<\/p>\n Finally, in the third phase or feedback conference, the supervisors meet with the EMI teachers and jointly analyse some extracts of the data recorded by the former, interpret the gathered information from the teachers\u2019 perspective and reach decisions about the next steps to be taken: The main onus in this last phase is placed on the EMI teachers, though. The analysis of the videos thus contributes to diagnosing and solving instructional problems that may arise regarding how EMI teachers handle questions in class.<\/p>\n Reviews of research on reflective practice clearly demonstrate that, when reflection is cogently implemented, results are very positive because, by engaging teachers in this reflective process, its transformative potential is unleashed (Farrell, 2018). Reflective practice can turn out to be beneficial even for highly experienced in-service teachers, as is the case of the participants in our study, because the reflection on their teaching philosophy, principles and practices (Freeman, 2016) may enhance their awareness and, consequently, they can \u201cbecome more empowered to not only reflect on their practice but also be transformed so that they can provide optimum learning opportunities for their students\u201d (Farrell, 2018, p. 130).<\/p>\n With this in mind, this article is focused on the feedback conference, in which after watching a few video excerpts of their classroom performance, EMI teachers reflect on a number of areas related to their questioning practices that may (or may not) need to be improved. The participants may comment that they did not provide enough waiting time, that they did not ask the right question to elicit an answer from their students\u2019, or they may be happy with how they brought up a particular question in a specific classroom situation. The underlying idea is that EMI teachers approach reflective practice as a tool not only to make their teaching more effective but also as a way to identify their own best classroom practices. In this way EMI teachers can self-diagnose teaching problems in collaboration with the supervisors and ponder remedial steps that could be taken on the basis of the reflection process. As Farrell (2020, p. 278) puts it: \u201cReflection is a key competency for teachers as it allows them to analyze and adapt their teaching to EMI students in specific social, cultural and political contexts.\u201d<\/p>\n Research Questions<\/strong><\/p>\n Taking into account the review of the literature above, in this article we aim to address the following four research questions:<\/p>\n RQ1. What kind of strategies do EMI teachers think they use to ask questions?<\/p>\n RQ2. How do they think the questions they ask affect EMI classroom interaction?<\/p>\n RQ3. What reflection does watching video excerpts of their questions in class stimulate among teachers about how they ask questions and the (lack of) interaction they promote?<\/p>\n RQ4. Do they think that this reflection process could be useful for their teaching?<\/p>\n This study was carried out at the University of the Basque Country UPV\/EHU in Spain, an officially bilingual institution in both Basque (the minority language) and Spanish (the majority language). Since the so-called Multilingualism Plan was established in 2005, whose aim was to bolster the use of foreign languages as additional means of instruction, the number of courses delivered in English has steadily increased, to the extent that EMI courses are present in all the degrees. Due to its multilingual nature, the students enrolled in the UPV\/EHU usually encounter three languages on campus and in their degrees, namely Basque, Spanish and English. The students enrolled in EMI courses do so on a voluntary basis, as EMI is not compulsory at the UPV\/EHU. This is a factor that, in principle, would help to boost classroom interaction and participation, since students are motivated to learn in English as they are not forced to participate in EMI courses. In addition, classes are rather small in size (usually less than 15 students per class) and this should also foster participation, although previous studies reveal that this is not always the case (Doiz & Lasagabaster, 2023; Lasagabaster & Doiz, 2023).<\/p>\n Although several EMI professional development courses are offered at this particular institution, none of them contemplates reflective practice as an integral part of EMI teachers\u2019 training. The courses available revolve around the improvement of oral and written communication and pronunciation in English, the use of technology, co-worker group tutorials, or communication across cultures, but they do not tend to include a reflective practice component, as we intend to do in our study.<\/p>\n From March 16th<\/sup> to March 21st<\/sup> 2024 four individual interviews were carried out with four history teachers at the UPV\/EHU. Participants were all males and held a certificate at the C1 level in English according to the European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), as required by their higher education institution in order to be allowed to teach EMI courses. The English level C1 is the fifth level out of six in the CEFR and its holders are able to function independently and with a great deal of precision on a wide variety of subjects without any prior preparation, as well as to use English flexibly and effectively for social, academic and professional purposes.<\/p>\n None of the participants had English as their mother tongue and they were therefore \u201cnon-native\u201d speaker teachers. Although some authors (e.g., Dewaele, 2018) have proposed to replace the term \u201cnon-native\u201d by alternative terms, in this article we have decided to use this label between inverted commas because it facilitates the understanding to both the general readership and EMI professionals. In fact, \u201cnon-native\u201d is a term that is easily associated with an already-existing concept in everybody\u2019s mind, although we do acknowledge that it is built around ideological and discriminatory ideas about language, as pointed out by Holliday (2005), Colmenero and Lasagabaster (2024), and Llurda and Calvet-Terr\u00e9 (2024), among others.<\/p>\n Table 1. Interviewees<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nUniversity of the Basque Country UPV\/EHU, Spain
\n<aintzane.doiz![\"atmark\"](\"http:\/\/www.tesl-ej.org\/atmark.png\")
ehu.eus><\/p>\n
\nUniversity of the Basque Country UPV\/EHU, Spain
\n<david.lasagabasterehu.eus><\/p>\nAbstract<\/h3>\n
Language matters and reflection on classroom practices neglected in EMI <\/strong><\/h3>\n
Clinical Supervision on EMI Teachers\u2019 Questioning Practices<\/h3>\n
A Reflective Practice Approach<\/h3>\n
The Study<\/h3>\n
The Context<\/h4>\n
The Participants<\/h4>\n