Content area
With English viewed as the global language of education and research, universities around the world are increasingly adopting English as the medium of instruction (EMI). One context in which EMI has long been adopted is Lebanon. Despite this lengthy history, many Lebanese EMI students and teachers continue to struggle teaching and learning advanced content in an additional language, primarily due to students’ inadequate proficiency in the language of instruction. To overcome this challenge and ensure content is effectively accessed by students, teachers often employ a range of accommodation strategies. To date, very little research has examined how exactly teachers respond to the language needs of their students through their use of accommodation strategies and how students perceive these strategies. The dearth of research into the Lebanese EMI context is in sharp contrast to the popularity of this educational policy. The present study expands this research by investigating which accommodation strategies Lebanese instructors employ in their EMI classrooms and which of these strategies students value most. 63 instructors and 158 students from two Lebanese universities were surveyed about their experiences; a further eight instructors were interviewed to elaborate on these responses. Findings suggest that instructors primarily rely on rephrasing and reformulation, followed by repetition, translanguaging, and slowed speech. Students assessed these strategies as useful but emphasized the importance of instructors’ strategic competence. These perspectives contribute to our understanding of how Lebanese EMI teachers use accommodation strategies to ensure content learning is achieved and students’ perceptions of their teachers’ pedagogical practices to inform future EMI practice and teacher training.
Introduction
In countries where English is taught and used as an additional language, education is increasingly being delivered through the use of English as the medium of instruction (EMI) (Ulla et al., 2022). One such context is Lebanon, characterized by its multilingual and multicultural society. Arabic is the official and native language, yet most Lebanese are bilingual (Arabic1 and French), and over the past 30 years, many have become trilingual with the addition of English (Annous et al., 2017). The three languages are widely used in all sectors of society, and code-switching, or translanguaging, among the three is part of the Lebanese culture and prominent in daily conversation (Bacha & Bahous, 2011).With its diversity in language use, Lebanon represents a “linguistically unique” context (Nicolas & Annous, 2021, p.10).
Alongside the global trend of English dominance in the 1960 s, Lebanon also recognized the essentiality of English in science, business, politics, and technology, as well as for employment purposes (Baladi, 2018). Considered as the language of progress, English soared in popularity for its practical purposes (Ayoun, 2012) and its dominance in the educational sector prevailed with an increasing preference for English-medium schools (Bacha & Bahous, 2011). Since 1997, educational policy has mandated that all education be trilingual. From primary school onwards, Lebanese children are exposed to Arabic, English and French (Bahous et al., 2014). The majority of schools are either French-medium (English is learnt as a language and all instruction is in French) or English-medium instruction (French is learnt as a language and all instruction is in English) with students commonly referred to as French-educated or English-educated (Nicolas & Annous, 2021). In both instances, Arabic is taught and used only as the medium of instruction for social studies (Bahous et al., 2014). 0f the 32 universities in Lebanon, ten are exclusively EMI, and eighteen offer EMI as an option alongside French or Arabic medium instruction (Mministry of Eeducation and Higher Education, 2025). At present, there is no top-down, government-mandated policy promoting or encouraging the implementation of EMI at the university level. Rather, institutions’ adoption of EMI is motivated by outward student mobility, both at an institutional level and from students’ perspectives. Dafouz and Camacho-Miñano (2016) refer to this as “internationalization at home” (p.58), where universities internationalize their curriculums for the local students in the hope of preparing them for the English-dominant world.
Lebanese students have followed this initiative and often choose EMI over Arabic- and French-medium courses as they consider an English degree to increase their potential for work opportunities on an international level (Esseili, 2017). Some studies suggest, however, that Lebanese EMI programs are “not fully preparing its English L2 students for work in an English-speaking world” (Annous et al., 2017, p. 95). A possible explanation for this finding relates to Lebanese students’ lack of English proficiency – a salient challenge of EMI in Lebanon (Annous et al., 2017; Bacha, 2019). All students who wish to enrol in an EMI higher education institution must provide evidence of English proficiency, typically demonstrated by scores on international tests such as TOEFL, IELTS or institution-specific entrance exams (Bacha, 2019). Students who do not meet the English entry requirements are required to complete an Intensive English Program or a Remedial English Program, and sometimes they are required to complete both (AL-Khatib, 2013). These semester-long programs are intended to prepare students for their academic coursework taught in English. Notably, however, even after students have completed these preparatory programs, research has found that most Lebanese EMI students’ English language proficiency remains “at the minimum required level” (Bahous et al., 2014, p. 354), with many teachers expressing concern regarding students’ inadequate level of English (Annous et al., 2017; Bacha & Bahous, 2011).
To respond to students’ limited English proficiency, EMI instructors across the various disciplines and fields often adapt their teaching practices and employ a range of accommodation strategies (Hu & Lei, 2014; Jia et al., 2023; Tsai & Tsou, 2015; Yu & Kaur, 2024). Strategies in themselves arise in response to a problem, a challenge, or a difficulty and are employed as “a mechanism to seek to reach a solution or resolution” (Wilkinson & Gabriels, 2017, p. 343; see also Khan, 2018; Wilkinson & Gabriels, 2017). In the EMI context, students often struggle with the obstacles that arise from studying advanced content through an additional language, and EMI teachers often “have to find ways to resolve them” (Wilkinson & Gabriels, 2017, p. 343). Such resolutions may involve the co-construction or negotiation of meaning by adapting or altering speech and communicative behavior, which Cogo (2009) refers to as “the phenomenon of accommodation” (p. 254). As such, accommodation strategies are those that can resolve and prevent misunderstanding and non-understanding (Khan, 2018; Mauranen, 2006).
The present study seeks to explore the accommodation strategies Lebanese EMI content teachers employ to overcome the linguistic barriers inherent to EMI classrooms, as well as their students’ perspectives and experiences with these different accommodations. In doing so, our hope is that this study could serve to inform university policymakers who design EMI programs, highlighting the value of using these varying accommodation strategies to possibly promote a more enriched learner-centered educational experience (Ismailov et al., 2021). These insights may also serve to raise teachers’ awareness of students’ needs and preferences that may increase EMI students’ satisfaction with the program as well as the achievement of learning outcomes.
Specifically, the present study set out to answer the following research questions:
Which strategies do Lebanese EMI content instructors employ to ensure content learning? What informs these choices?
Which of these strategies do Lebanese EMI students privilege and why?
Literature review
The globalization of English and the dominance of English as a medium of instruction (EMI) has resulted in an exponential increase in the number of EMI programs offered at higher educational institutions around the world (Fang & Liu, 2020). This growth and expansion, however, is not without its challenges. Research is replete with examples of the difficulties institutions encounter in their haste to implement EMI (Ismailov et al., 2021). One of the most discernible challenges of teaching advanced disciplinary content through English is students’ limited English Language Proficiency (Kamasak & Sahan, 2023; Macaro et al., 2018; Pun & Thomas, 2020; Robertson et al., 2020). When engaging with advanced subject matter through an additional language, students’ proficiency in that language plays a central role in the process of legitimising and de-legitimising knowledge (Pecorari & Malmström, 2018). Despite this centrality, research into students’ English language proficiency has not reached a consensus as to the threshold necessary for students to “survive” EMI (Macaro et al., 2018, p. 52; see also Kamasak & Sahan, 2023). This is somewhat concerning given that students’ successful acquisition of content knowledge “hinges upon” their language level and if that level is too low, their learning is impacted (Corrales et al., 2016, p. 335; see also Ulla et al., 2022). With the “potentially determinantal effects of poor language skills on the quality of EMI programs” (Rowland & Murray, 2020, p. 233), students’ inadequate level of English continues to be the most salient concern of both teachers and students (Robertson et al., 2020).
Significantly, Macaro et al.’s (2018) review of EMI literature published between 2000 and 2015 found students’ English language proficiency to be the most expressed concern in virtually all studies across different contexts (see also Doiz et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2018). Students’ limited English proficiency presents a range of issues that impact learning in the EMI classroom. Some argue that it is the greatest barrier to effective content learning and without adequate proficiency in English, students face challenges that are “insurmountable, if not unmanageable” (Soruc et al., 2021, p. 2; see also, Doiz et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2017). Undoubtedly, EMI presents some “thorny problems” (Jiang et al., 2019, p. 108) that impact the quality of teaching and the achievement of course objectives. To overcome these challenges and enhance their students’ comprehension, EMI teachers often draw upon a range of accommodation strategies.
The use of accommodation strategies in EMI classrooms has variably been explored, with many studies highlighting their pedagogical usefulness (Gotti, 2014; Hahl et al., 2016; Jiang et al., 2019; Yu & Kaur, 2024). For example, repetition can be used to ensure students’ understanding (Mauranen, 2006; Sánchez-García, 2019) and to emphasize the importance of the concept (Björkman, 2014; Hahl et al., 2016). Similarly, instructors may simplify or reformulate their explanations to adapt their language to the interlocutor’s assumed linguistic level and to communicate the subject matter more clearly (Ege et al., 2022). Gotti (2014) notes that such a strategy also serves an important interpersonal purpose as it enables the speaker to “establish a friendlier relationship with his interlocutor” (p. 348; see also Mauranen, 2010). Some researchers, however, argue that simplification should be avoided as it may dilute the concepts being taught, undermining “the rigor of learning a non-linguistic discipline” (Garotti, 2021, p.255; see also Alhassan, 2021). As Hahl et al. (2016) argue, although such a strategy may be pedagogically useful, “if it impoverishes content and thus leads to imperfect learning, it is a hazardous strategy” (p. 307; see also Alhassan, 2021; Hu & Lei, 2014).
Notably, across the EMI literature, accommodation strategies have been “surprisingly under-researched” (Pun & Thomas, 2020, p. 2). One strategy, however, that has received considerable attention in the EMI literature is that of translanguaging, a gradually evolving concept “inclusive of what linguists have generally described as code-switching (Balam, 2021, p. 82).” Translanguaging allows speakers to deploy their linguistic repertoire more fully, reducing the need to strictly adhere “to the socially and politically defined boundaries of named languages (Otheguy et al., 2015, p. 281).” In recent years, the alternate use of two or more languages is viewed as an integrated process such that linguistic systems are considered as “dynamic and ongoing entities” rather than separate and distinct (Sánchez-García, 2018, p. 107). Thus, translanguaging has extended the scope of code-switching going “well beyond the simple usage of two (or more) languages to also incorporate meaning making and accommodate speakers’ personal history, experiences, attitudes and beliefs” (Sánchez-García, 2018, p. 108). Translanguaging is frequently employed to overcome challenge related to limited English proficiency in contexts where instructors and students share a first language (L1) (Hu & Lei, 2014; Wyngaerd, 2020; Yu & Kaur, 2024). In the EMI context, the use of students’ L1 has been shown to be “a meaningful and creative pedagogical approach” (Kim et al., 2018, p. 121), with some researchers finding it to improve students’ critical engagement with content, mediate understanding, and encourage teacher-student interactions (Dearden, 2015; Sahan et al., 2022; Wyngaerd, 2020).
In the multilingual landscape of Lebanon, translanguaging,2 is a “natural language phenomenon” that occurs regularly in everyday communications (Bahous et al., 2014, p. 354, see also Baladi, 2018). Thus, it is unsurprising that the use of Arabic and French in the Lebanese EMI classroom “comes naturally” and is often done “unconsciously” (Bahous et al., 2014, p. 361). Notably, translanguaging is the only accommodation strategy that has been investigated in the Lebanese EMI context. Bahous et al. (2014) explored Lebanese EMI instructors’ motivations for alternating between different languages and found that academics were often unaware that they engage in translanguaging but argued that it was a useful strategy to overcome their students’ limited English proficiency, clarify instructions, manage classroom interactions, and ensure that the necessary content is covered.
Despite the largely positive assessments of translanguaging as an accommodation strategy, the use of students’ L1 in English language teaching (ELT) contexts has long been debated against a backdrop of monolingual “English-only” mandates (Cummins, 2007; Macaro et al., 2020) and many EMI instructors have been found to avoid translanguaging, believing that it impacts their professional credibility (Hahl et al., 2016) or hinders students’ English language development. In the Saudi context, for example, Almayez (2022) found that instructors’ self-reported use of translanguaging practices was contrary to their perceived importance of using the shared L1 in the classroom due to ‘English-only’ language policies and the belief that exclusive use of English promotes better language-learning outcomes. In recent years, researchers have challenged monolingual mandates and largely agree that the L1 is a useful resource for schema building (Fang & Liu, 2020; Sahan et al., 2022; Sánchez-García, 2018) as switching between two (or more) languages in the classroom creates opportunities for flexible learning (Sahan et al., 2022) and allows for the full use of linguistic resources in meaning making (Jia et al., 2023).
When exploring accommodation strategies in the EMI classroom, several studies have also examined the reasons students and teachers privilege some strategies over others. For example, in a Taiwanese study, EMI teachers preferred the strategies of repetition, simplification and slower speech rate over that of translanguaging (Tsai & Tsou, 2015). In the Chinese EMI context, Hu and Lei (2014) observed how instructors commonly resort to reformulation through simplification. By simplifying their language, though, teachers estimated that they may only cover “the most basic content” (Hu & Lei, 2014, p. 561), reflecting the concerns raised by Hahl et al. (2016) and Garotti (2021). A more recent study in the Chinese context found repetition to be the most frequently used strategy to increase the clarity of instruction and facilitate student comprehension (Yu & Kaur, 2024). Interestingly, EMI teachers in the Omani context were also found to simplify their language and the subject matter content, but not for the purposes of ensuring their students’ comprehension. Instead, it was in response to their own language-related challenges (Alhassan, 2021). In Italy, Gotti (2014) found that EMI teachers simplify their lectures, rephrasing, reformulating, and introduce the shared L1, through which “the lecturer exploits his linguistic competence as a multilingual speaker by drawing on the range of languages in his repertoire in a skillful way” (p. 346). The Chinese EMI instructors in Hu and Lei’s (2014) study also relied on translanguaging to ensure disciplinary knowledge is communicated effectively. They further argued that any reliance on monolingual policies restricting their use of the L1 would jeopardize communicative interactions in their classrooms (Hu & Lei, 2014; see also Pun & Thomas, 2020). In another study of Chinese EMI teachers, Jiang et al. (2019) found that teachers valued the strategies of repetition and rephrasing, but preferred translanguaging practices because it saves time, is “safer” and “the best way to prevent potential disturbance of non-understanding, and more importantly, to ensure effective and accurate instruction” (p. 112). Similarly, Vietnamese and Thai content teachers incorporate translanguaging as an accommodation teaching strategy to bridge language gaps and facilitate deeper understanding of content knowledge (Sahan et al., 2022).
The value of translanguaging is also found in the European EMI context with teachers in Spain and Denmark highlighting the usefulness of sharing an L1 with their students, a resource that could readily be exploited to “foster and increase students’ understanding of the academic field” (Sánchez-García, 2018, p. 117). Notably, while many studies highlight EMI instructors’ growing acceptance of introducing another shared language, other studies observe instructors remaining adherent to “English-only” policies. For example, one of the reasons Thai and Vietnamese content instructors cited for avoiding translanguaging practices is to comply with official university policy and a “promise” made by policymakers to students that discourages their recourse to another shared language (Sahan et al., 2022, p. 11). One consistent finding from these studies is the emphasis placed on teachers’ strategic competence, or their ability to adapt and vary their use of accommodation strategies. The pedagogical choices teachers make in the classroom are “essential for the success of the [EMI] experience” (Corrales et al., 2016, p. 331) and some researchers argue that EMI teachers’ strategic competence is equally, if not more, important than their linguistic competence (Khan, 2018; Ulla et al., 2022).
Amidst the growing body of research exploring teachers’ experiences employing various accommodation strategies, there are some studies that have also investigated students’ perceptions of these practices (Macaro et al., 2020; Sánchez-García, 2018). For example, in Turkey, researchers observed how EMI students preferred content teachers who themselves use English as an additional language because, they argued, these teachers tended to deliver course content with a slower rate of speech (Karakas, 2017; see also, Macaro & Akincioglu, 2017). In the Spanish EMI context, students often ask their teachers to translate lexical terminology in their L1 (Sánchez-García, 2018) and in the Chinese EMI context, students value the use of Chinese for its efficiency, reasoning that “given the same amount of time, the professor can go deeper into the content if he or she teaches in Chinese” (Hu & Lei, 2014, p. 560). Translanguaging was also viewed favorably by the students in Zhou and Mann’s (2021) study who prefer a classroom environment in which the L1 was permitted; they further argued that the L1 was a facilitator for both content and language learning. The Chinese and Japanese students in Galloway et al.’s (2020) study, however, viewed their teachers’ use of the L1 “as a sign of an instructor’s limited English competence” (p.398), a sentiment reinforced by the Chinese student participants in Macaro’s (2020) study who also argued that EMI teachers “should attempt to use English at all times” (p. 394). Vietnamese and Thai students have voiced similar perspectives: with a strong motivation to improve their English language proficiency and a belief that the use of the L1 hinders this development, students prefer their teachers to adhere to an English-only language policy “even when concepts are difficult” (Sahan et al., 2022, p. 15). Notably, even those students who acknowledged the pedagogical usefulness of the L1 to facilitate content comprehension qualified their support, noting that it should be only used “in moderation and when necessary” (Sahan et al., 2022, p. 11).
Overall, the literature exploring students’ perspectives of their instructors’ use of accommodation strategies, such as translanguaging, reveals little uniformity in beliefs. As Macaro et al. (2020) argue, there remains a need for more research to “ask students whether their teachers should be using the L1, how much should be used and for what purposes” (p. 385). Such an exploration might provide a more comprehensive picture of EMI students’ learning needs and preferences and help inform EMI teaching practices (Macaro et al., 2020; Sánchez-García, 2018).
Data and method
This study adopted a mixed-methods approach to examine two primary groups of participants: Lebanese EMI teachers and students. Both participant groups were surveyed about their experiences engaging with various accommodation strategies and their perceptions towards the value of certain strategies over others. Both the teacher and student questionnaires were designed to uncover trends, perceptions and behaviors (Kelly-Quon, 2018) concerning instructors’ and students’ expectations and attitudes toward the use of various accommodation strategies in the EMI classroom. To elaborate on these responses, an additional eight EMI teachers engaged in semi-structured interviews.
Teacher and student participants were recruited from two renowned private EMI universities in Lebanon (referred to as University A and University B). Both institutions have offered EMI since their inception and are ranked among the top 4 EMI universities in Lebanon (Quacquarelli Semends World University Rankings, 2021). All participants for this study were recruited by broadcast email; the invitation provided a brief description of the survey and interview, outlined the objective of the study, and provided assurance of anonymity. Appropriate consent forms were also administered to all participants. 63 EMI content instructors (male 51%; female 49%) responded to the online survey. The 33 instructors from University A represented 19 of the university’s 22 departments and all five faculties; the 30 instructors from University B represented 18 of the university’s 23 departments and all five faculties (see Table 1).
Table 1. Teacher survey participants by faculty and university
Faculty | University A | University B | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
Architecture & design | 5 | 4 | 14.3 |
Engineering | 4 | 7 | 17.5 |
Business | 4 | 5 | 14.3 |
Humanities | 8 | 5 | 20.6 |
Natural & applied sciences | 12 | 9 | 33.3 |
Total | 33 | 30 | 100 |
Overall, 89% identified Arabic as their L1 with English and French used as second and third languages; 5% identified English; 5% identified French, and 1% indicated “other”. 43 of these instructors hold a PhD and of those 81.4% completed their PhD in English. For the 20 instructors whose highest degree is a Masters, 85% completed their degree in English. Instructor participants’ EMI teaching experience ranges from 3–30 + years. Only 19% of respondents had received any formal teacher training, and none of those teacher training programs involved teaching in EMI settings (see Table 2 for summary). The questionnaire included 22 questions using a range of question types including ranking scales, yes/no, multiple choice, likert scales and open-ended qualitative responses. The questions addressed personal and demographic information, EMI and teaching background, challenges and experiences, confidence teaching through English, perceptions of EMI teaching, role perceptions, beliefs about the role of languages in the EMI classroom and their students’ perceived expectations. Data was collected as part of a larger study into EMI practices and perceptions in Lebanon, but for purposes of this study, only those questions specific to the aims of this study were reported.
Table 2. Teacher survey participants’ L1, years of EMI teaching experience, highest degree earned, teacher training qualifications
First Language | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
Arabic | 89% | |
English | 5% | |
French | 5% | |
Other | 1% | |
Years of EMI Teaching Experience | 0–5 | 20.7% |
5–10 | 22% | |
10–15 | 24% | |
15–20 | 9.5% | |
20–30 | 9.6% | |
30–40 | 14.2% | |
Highest degree | PhD | 68.3% (81.4% completed in English) |
Master | 31.7% (85% completed in English) | |
Formal Teacher training | 19% | |
Formal EMI training | 0% |
Apart from the 63 surveyed EMI instructors, eight additional instructors participated in semi-structured interviews that were audio recorded for transcription purposes. Of the eight interviewees, two identified English as their L1 and six use English as an Additional Language. All eight instructors had a PhD (6 of which were studied in EMI contexts; See Table 3) and had taught EMI from 3–28 years. None of these instructors had received any EMI-specific training programs.
Table 3. Interview participant information
L1 | Years teaching EMI | MoI for PHD | |
|---|---|---|---|
Rosiea | English | 10 | English |
Pam | French | 3 | French |
Sam | Arabic | 28 | French |
James | English | 22 | English |
Suzy | Spanish | 10 | English |
Mary | Arabic | 8 | English |
Tom | Arabic | 12 | English |
Lena | Arabic | 22 | English |
aTo protect the participants’ anonymity, pseudonyms are used
This sample size is suitable to achieve the objective of obtaining an in-depth understanding of the perspectives as revealed in the questionnaire (Punch, 2013). In general, qualitative research does not attempt to generalize findings to a larger population, but rather to gain an in-depth understanding of the how and why of a particular issue and is thus more inductive and emergent in its process (Sutton & Austin, 2015).
In addition to the EMI teacher participants, 158 students from the same two EMI universities responded to the student survey. As outlined in Table 4, the 77 students from University A represent 19 of the university’s 22 departments and all five faculties and the 81 students from University B represent 20 of the university’s 23 departments and all five faculties. In total, 85.6% of the students share the same mother tongue, Arabic; 7.5% identified English as their L1 and 6.9% indicated French as their L1.
Table 4. Student participant information
University A | University B | Percentage (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
Architecture & design | 8 | 12 | 12.7 |
Business | 14 | 11 | 15.8 |
Engineering | 19 | 14 | 20.9 |
Humanities | 18 | 16 | 21.5 |
Natural & applied sciences | 18 | 28 | 29.1 |
Total | 77 | 81 | 100 |
This mixed-methods approach allows for triangulation of the data to improve the validity and reliability of research findings (Creswell & Clarke, 2018). Data from both the teacher and student surveys were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. Discrete survey responses are reported using descriptive measures and simple percentages. Interview data and the open-ended survey responses from the student survey are analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase approach to Thematic Analysis. The first phase of this approach involves familiarization with the data, which was accomplished through transcribing the interviews and reviewing the open-text responses. In phase two, the entire data set was systematically reviewed to generate initial codes that summarized and captured the essence of ideas or concepts relevant to the research questions (Braun et al., 2014). Next, the interpretative analysis of the data involved analyzing the codes and collating them into potential themes. These themes were then revised in phase four to ensure all coded data collated within a given theme demonstrated a meaningful relationship, while the data of different themes exhibited identifiable distinctions. In phase five, the themes were further refined through identifying the essence of each theme and what aspect of the data it captured. The sixth and final phase involved synthesizing data extracts into analytic narratives that describe the dominance of different themes and to illustrate the analytic points made about the data (Sutton & Austin, 2015).
Findings
In the following section, the findings from the instructor surveys and interviews are presented first, followed by the quantitative findings from the student surveys along with their qualitative open-ended responses.
Teachers’ use of accommodation strategies in the Lebanese EMI classroom
To respond to the first research question, the 63 surveyed EMI instructors were asked to indicate which accommodation strategies they use in the classroom to overcome the challenges related to their students’ limited English proficiency. Instructors were able to respond with multiple answers, indicating various strategies employed. As illustrated in Table 5, the most commonly selected strategy was that of rephrasing and reformulation (95%). Sixty-two percent of the respondents indicated they used repetition in their classrooms, and 28% use another shared language. The least-cited strategy was that of speaking at a slower rate, a practice that only 19% of the surveyed teacher participants acknowledged using. Instructors were further asked to note any other accommodation strategies they may employ; 12% offered other strategies, such as short follow-up exercises, graded coursework with required technical knowledge, making summaries and outlines, asking questions about the content, giving examples, and asking students to discuss the concepts in their native tongue.
Table 5. Instructors preferred accommodation strategies
Accommodation strategy | % instructors who employ this strategy |
|---|---|
Rephrasing/reformulation (summarizing in simpler language) | 95% |
Repetition | 62% |
Translanguaging (the use of another shared language) | 28% |
Slower speech rate | 19% |
Other | 12% |
To better understand the teachers’ use of accommodation strategies, eight additional EMI instructors were interviewed about the choices they make around using accommodation strategies in the EMI context and, specifically, their motivations for choosing some strategies over others. When the interviewed teachers were asked which strategies they tended to employ, their responses were somewhat similar to the survey results in that five of the eight interviewed instructors indicated that they reformulate and rephrase their speech. For example, Rosie noted that when she feels her students “don’t understand what I am saying” she “tailors the words to [her students’] comprehension.” She further explained: “The accommodations that I make are in terms of the vocabulary I use…I tone down the kind of overall approach. I use easier language, more simple, basic vocabulary.” Notably, however, Rosie felt that simplifying her language during instruction limits how deeply she can explore a concept:
[My students’] English does limit the depth of the concepts…If I were teaching native speakers of English, it would be easier and we’d be able to go into more detail and give more examples and expand on it much more. (Rosie)
Another of the interviewed instructors, Sam, described the greatest challenge he faces teaching through English is that “some students are exceptionally [proficient] in English and some are a little weak in English.” To overcome his students’ varied abilities, Sam simplifies his English: “I have to level my class so that both of them understand.” To achieve this “toned down” or simplified language, a few teachers reported how they carefully select their vocabulary and pay close attention to the ways they explain concepts. For example, Lena explains her concepts using “synonyms or whatever else is needed” for students to understand a word or concept. Similarly, Suzy noted how she is “very aware of the words [she] use(s)”; she further commented: “I try to use somehow plain English and when there is a term I want [students] to understand, I put it on the board.” When explaining her rationale, Suzy argued:
As an educator, you need to be aware of [your students’] level of English…you can’t bring in jargon they’re not going to understand or words that you know for sure are going to be difficult for them to understand. (Suzy)
Notably, while four of the five interviewed participants who reported using this strategy were motivated by a need to accommodate to their students, Pam’s reason for simplifying her language was her own limited English proficiency. She explained:
It is a bit more difficult for me to express myself in English than in French and I know that sometimes I am unsure of the words I use or sometimes I use simple terms instead of using specific terms. (Pam)
The second most cited accommodation strategy in the survey data was repetition (62%). However, in the interview data, this strategy was only mentioned once and that instance was in conjunction with the use of another strategy. Similarly, 19% of respondents indicated that they use a slower speech rate, but none of the interviewed teachers made mention of speaking at a slower rate to accommodate their students’ limited linguistic proficiency.
Notably, in the interview data, translanguaging practices were the most commonly mentioned strategy, with seven of the eight instructors describing different scenarios in which they use their shared L1. This contrasted somewhat with the survey data wherein only 28% of the survey participants indicated that they engage in translanguaging in their classrooms. The interviewed instructors’ reasons for employing this strategy varied. For example, Mary recounted how she “allows” her students to communicate through Arabic during group work because it helps them “find their comfort zone.” Mary also resorts to Arabic in class to ensure comprehension and engage her students, making them feel more comfortable:
When I sense that [my students] cannot keep up with the language, I give examples using Arabic slang terminology…because I can do that, I involve them more…lots of sayings in Arabic are directly relevant to our content so I do incorporate them. (Mary)
Pam similarly highlighted the usefulness of translanguaging to ensure comprehension, especially for newly introduced discipline-specific terminology:
Sometimes for [the students] to really understand contextually what the word means, I have to ask them to switch to another language and translate the word in French or Arabic, whichever language they are comfortable with. (Pam)
Later, when asked about her students’ perceptions regarding her use of the L1, Pam explained that her students appreciate it, simply noting: “students like that.”
In a similar vein, Rosie described how she uses Arabic as a tool to check her students’ comprehension. Although she does not use Arabic herself, she invites her students to repeat a concept in a shared language:
Students may use Arabic to explain that they have understood…I ask students to translate it into French or Arabic…When they grasp the concept and the knowledge and they translate it into their own language and they say it in Arabic or French and they confirm that they understood it’s like ‘Yes. You got it. Finally!’ (Rosie)
Tom similarly described how his students “really don’t understand when I speak in English…I am repeating the material twice in class; once in English and then again in Arabic.” By discussing the application of a theory in Arabic, for example, presenting case studies, he finds his students are more engaged:
In all my sessions, to make the course interactive, I present different real-life cases and I say them in Arabic…I explain the theory in English and then repeat it and explain it in Arabic. (Tom)
In a sense, Tom is employing the strategies of translanguaging and repetition simultaneously as a pedagogical practice that helps him “make sure the student understands.”
Other teachers reasoned that they introduce another language to not only ensure students’ comprehension but also to provide a cultural context. For example, Pam recounted how “when there is a saying or an idiom, I would say it in Arabic or French to see if there is a similar saying then ask [the students] what that means in English.” Another of the interviewed teachers, James, explained that his use of translanguaging is intentional and involves some level of planning. At the beginning of every semester, he “makes[s] it a point to ask students what their L1 is and if they went to a French or English school so I know what I can resort to if I have a problem.” Then, throughout the semester, he engages in translanguaging if, for example, he “feel(s) that some students are not understanding.” He also often asks his students what an English word is in French to “check their understanding” and reasons: “I want [the students] to make an association between English and their language because it can help students a lot.” Notably James connected his classroom practices to the broader multilingual Lebanese context: “If [students] have something to say, they might use a French word, but I know French so it doesn’t block communication. It’s a trilingual country and I never had a problem with their language.”
Despite this seeming confidence in the value of translanguaging, James made a point to clarify: “I never explain a concept in French or Arabic, only words and definitions.” Sam similarly made a point to clarify that the only reason he would use Arabic is to provide a cultural context for the content: “I use Arabic to discuss how [the students] would ask an Arabic audience some questions of a certain study written in English.” This restricted use of language choice seems to reinforce the hesitation Lena expressed in her interview. Although Lena uses Arabic “to crack a joke or to emphasize an expression that is better understood in Arabic,” she explained how she intentionally avoids “chang(ing) (her) language to accommodate non-proficient students.” Another of the interviewed instructors, Pam, similarly clarified the narrow parameters within which she uses all her linguistic resources:
I never give an instruction in French or Arabic or explain a concept. I tell [students] to let me know if they haven’t understood…I never translate an idea into another language, only a word…to make sure they have understood. I would never say anything else in Arabic. (Pam)
That said, the value Pam sees in engaging her students’ L1 is further evidenced in her encouragement of students L1 use in the classroom: “I allow them to use their phones in class if they want to use Google Translate.” Effectively, Pam concedes that using another language as an accommodation strategy is valuable, but refrains from using it herself. Instead, she introduces a ‘third party’ (i.e., Google Translate).
In short, when questioned about their use of accommodation strategies to overcome their students’ limited English proficiency, seven out of the eight interviewed instructors readily gave examples of how engage in translanguaging and a range of reasons for why they employ this strategy. Somewhat unsurprisingly, the only interviewed instructor who did not use another language in the classroom was the interview participant who does not speak Arabic or French: Suzy. Despite the instructors’ widespread use and support for the practices of translanguaging, five of the participants (i.e., Lena, James, Pam, Tom and Sam) also cautioned that this accommodation strategy should be limited to specific purposes or situations.
Apart from their use of reformulation, rephrasing and translanguaging, the interview participants offered a range of additional strategies they employed such as summarizing and outlining, asking additional questions, engaging in problem solving activities, providing further examples, and teaching through inquiry-based learning. For example, Myriam explained how when she senses that her students are “not able to keep up with the language,” she uses direct questions to check their understanding and tries to involve her students more. Myriam also recounted how she spends more time with her weaker students during group work, dedicating her office hours to answering “weaker students’” questions, a practice Lena also follows: “I help students who ask for help” and I “pay more attention to the weaker students by counselling them individually.”
Students’ perceptions regarding their teachers’ use of accommodation strategies
To respond to the second research question, the 158 surveyed EMI students were asked how useful they found these accommodation strategies to be and what aspects of these strategies they most valued. As illustrated in Fig. 1, rephrasing (i.e., reformulation and simplification) and repetition are the two accommodation strategies students find most useful. Specifically, 75% of students regard reformulation and simplification to be “very useful” with another 24% finding it “somewhat useful.” That is, almost all students consider this accommodation strategy as “useful”, with only 1% of respondents indicating it is “not useful at all.” The students similarly value the strategy of repetition, with 74% finding it “very useful,” 24.9% “somewhat useful” (i.e., 98.9% consider it “useful”) and only 1.1% indicating it is “not useful at all.”
[See PDF for image]
Fig. 1
Strategies students find useful in learning content in the EMI Context
Although a larger percentage of students consider translanguaging to be “not useful at all” (25.7%) relative to rephrasing and repetition, the majority of students (74.3%) still consider this accommodation strategy as “useful”, with 23.3% noting it as “very useful” and an additional 51% considering it as “somewhat useful.” Similarly, 14.2% of students regard the strategy of slowed speech to be “not useful at all”, but the majority of respondents (85.7%) described it as either “very useful” (21.7%) or “somewhat useful” (64%).
Thus, students consider rephrasing (99%) to be the most useful accommodation strategy, followed closely by repetition (98.9%), slowed speech (85.7%), and finally, translanguaging (74.3%).
To better understand these perspectives, we further analyzed students’ open-text responses to the question eliciting their perceptions towards their instructors’ use of strategies. In total, the 158 students offered 45 open-text responses which were further coded thematically. Of these, 17 mentioned another shared language, six reformulation and simplification, two repetition, and two ‘other’. The remaining 19 excerpts refer to the students’ more general expectations of their teachers’ strategy use (e.g., strategic competence).
Notably, all 17 of the open field responses that mentioned translanguaging practices described this strategy positively. One student simply explained: “Sometimes using Arabic is a good way to make an idea clear to students” (SR73). Others highlighted the practicality of using a shared L1 to support learning: “Chances are they speak Arabic, which I can understand” (SR51) and “Teachers should explain the material, no matter if in English or any other language” (SR48). Overall, the students appear to welcome the use of another shared language and often praised a teacher’s disciplinary expertise regardless of the language used, arguing:
I would rather have a teacher that mash-up their English and Arabic than one not very good at the discipline he is teaching. (SR12)
It is better to know what you are explaining than to speak using only one language. (SR44)
The language used during teaching is simply a medium. The priority is for the instructor’s expertise in the discipline. (SR37)
The next most cited strategy in students’ open-text response is reformulation and simplification (n = 6). In these responses, students argued that “teachers who are experts in their field will find a simpler way to explain the context of the course” (SR18) and “when [teachers] have a wide knowledge, they are capable of simplifying the information…to make the students understand” (SR80). The following excerpt best expresses this perception:
As long as the content is received in a clear and simplified way…as Albert Einstein said ‘If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough’ and I do believe that teachers with the required expertise will deliver. (SR64)
Further strategies mentioned in the open-text responses include repetition (n = 2) and the use of audio-visual resources (n = 2):
As long as the teacher can communicate well with the students, he/she can repeat the idea multiple times until everyone understands it. (SR103)
They could use many other ways to explain things other than talking like displaying videos, guidelines, switch languages, maybe even repeat the explanation. (SR45)
The remaining 19 open-text responses highlighted the value students placed on teachers “who know what they’re doing” (SR63) and who have “expertise in how students understand the lesson” (SR128). In other words, rather than privileging one particular accommodation strategy, such comments highlight the importance students attach to their teachers’ ability to employ a range of strategies. In this regard, the students generally valued their teacher’s ability to carefully select which strategy is most appropriate for the given circumstance:
Teachers should be excellent in their field, not only by having a deep understanding of the course, but to also be able to use different teaching tools making the classroom interactive and making sure the points of each session were well covered and understood. (SR52)
I’d rather have a professor that can deliver the message and lesson through examples, experience and passion even if with little English. (SR93)
In summary, both through their quantitative assessments of the usefulness of accommodation strategies and through their open text responses regarding these evaluations, the surveyed students supported a range of accommodation strategies, but most frequently argued that “what matters is if [the teacher] is able to deliver the material that I need to know in a way that I can understand what she/he is saying” (SR13).
Discussion
The present study has sought to investigate which accommodation strategies EMI instructors employ in their Lebanese classrooms and which of these strategies their students find most useful. The study further sought to explore the reasons teachers cited for relying on certain strategies over others and the students’ rationale for privileging specific strategies.
Among the surveyed EMI content teachers, there was a clear preference for rephrasing and reformulating in simpler language (95%), followed closely by repetition (62%). Five out of the eight interviewed teachers similarly noted their use of rephrasing and reformulation, but also provided insight into their reasons for avoiding these particular strategies or minimizing their reliance on them. When describing their practice of simplification, several instructors noted that they were in effect “toning down” or “levelling down” their instruction, essentially limiting the depth with which they could engage with the concepts being taught. Such concerns have been raised in previous EMI studies, with some researchers cautioning that effective implementation of accommodation strategies must “strike the balance between simplifying the content for comprehension and maintaining the quality of the delivered subject content” (Alhassan, 2021, p.5, see also Macaro et al., 2018).
Surveyed teachers also acknowledged using other strategies including translanguaging practices and slower speech rate, but to lesser degrees. Interviewed instructors similarly indicated their use of repetition, but to lesser degrees than reformulation and rephrasing (n = 1); none of the instructors indicated the use of slower speech rate as an accommodation strategy. However, seven of the interviewed instructors (nb: one cannot speak Arabic) offered examples of introducing another shared language (i.e., Arabic and French), echoing the findings of Pun and Thomas’ (2020) study in which the use of the L1 was found to be the most prevalent accommodation strategy employed by Chinese EMI teachers to mitigate their students’ language challenges (see also, Sánchez-García, 2019).
This discrepancy in reported reliance on translanguaging between the instructors’ questionnaire responses and interview responses might be explained by a possible tension that exists between teachers’ perceived practices and their actual pedagogical choices. Numerous other studies have shown that EMI teachers’ beliefs about their instructional strategies and their actual classroom practices often diverge, specifically in the areas of language use, student engagement, and linguistic support (Bradford, 2016; Dearden & Macaro, 2016; Galloway et al., 2020; Jia et al., 2023; Macaro et al., 2018). In Macaro et al.’s (2018) study, Chinese EMI teachers often claimed to use English exclusively, but empirical classroom data showed frequent use of the L1. This gap between teachers’ stated beliefs and actual practices was also observed in Turkey and Italy (Macaro et al., 2018), as well as Spain (Mancho-Barés & Aguilar-Pérez, 2020). Jia et al.’s (2023) study found the Chinese EMI engineering lecturers’ translanguaging beliefs “were not necessarily a direct transition from perceptions to practices” (p. 18) with a contradiction between their thinking and doing. Martinez et al. (2015) similarly found Spanish teachers translanguaging perceptions and practices to be “complex, nuanced, and sometimes contradictory” (p.38).
The findings of this study hint at a similar pedagogical disconnect between perceptions and practices. In the survey, only 28% of teachers reported their perceived practice of resorting to another language as an accommodation strategy, leaving 72% of teachers with the perception of adhering to a monolingual language policy and a heavier reliance on other strategies. Although there was no classroom observation in this study, the semi-structured interviews did offer the opportunity to delve deeper into teachers’ perspectives and practices to obtain a more qualitative and in-depth understanding of those perspectives revealed in the questionnaire (Punch, 2013). All instructors who speak Arabic described actual classroom practices of translanguaging and offered numerous examples of their use of the L1. They also described the pedagogical purposes for which they employ this strategy, further re-enforcing the perspective of the value of a shared language in promoting mutually enriching communicative exchanges.
The potential for this contradiction in perceptions and practices is only exacerbated in this multilingual context where Arabic, French and English coexist, and alternating between these three languages is a natural linguistic phenomenon (Bahous et al., 2014). Furthermore, similar to the findings of other EMI contexts (Dearden, 2015; Lasagabaster, 2022), none of the teacher participants in this study have received any specific EMI training (see Table 2). This is not surprising in light of Annous et al.’s (2017) study which found that Lebanese EMI instructors have little or no access to teacher training and development programs to guide and equip them for the EMI classroom. As a result, Lebanese EMI instructors do not necessarily have the required pedagogical skills or expertise to guide them in making key pedagogical choices when it comes to navigating the linguistic complexities of an EMI classroom, addressing language barriers, and overcoming the linguistic challenges their students may face (Dang & Vu, 2020; Khan, 2018). In such contexts where there is lack of pedagogical support and the provision of EMI specific training, teachers are left to “work out the skills of teaching through English intuitively” (O’Dowd, 2018, p. 561) based on their own perceptions of what constitutes ‘best practices’ (Dearden & Macaro, 2016; Fenton-Smith et al., 2017). That is, for these Lebanese EMI teachers, deciding which accommodation strategies to introduce in the classroom and their motivations for employing one strategy over another is not informed by their teaching qualifications or based on their EMI-specific teacher training programs, but rather, on their perceptions and beliefs.
An obvious implication of this finding is the need to offer EMI instructors training programs that focus on the development of teachers’ strategies for coping with the language-related challenges their students encounter in the classroom (Pun & Thomas, 2020; Macaro, 2018). Specifically, these training programs should provide teachers with a more enhanced understanding of the value of their students’ linguistic repertoires in this multilingual and multicultural context. Recognizing the benefits of translanguaging may empower EMI teachers in the Lebanese context to challenge their own monolingual beliefs and perceived institutional constraints, celebrating the linguistic diversity of their classrooms (Lima Becker et al., 2022; see also, Serra & Feijoo, 2022). In the absence of such training programs, the benefits of drawing on their students’ full linguistic repertoire may remain invisible to EMI instructors. As cautioned by Hu and Lei’s (2014), teacher-adopted and implemented accommodation strategies are not necessarily conducive to content learning or language learning. Serra and Feijoo (2022), for example, found that instructors believed using the L1 would hinder students’ acquisition of English, a perception that led them to avoid any translanguaging practices in the classroom.
When teachers are better equipped to handle challenges of EMI with a heightened awareness of the risks and benefits inherent in the use of the different accommodation strategies, not only are students more likely to succeed in EMI, but they themselves are also more likely to have a positive attitude to their EMI experiences and feel more comfortable and confident teaching (Pun & Thomas, 2020). In short, when instructors have access to training programs that introduce them to specific practices of translanguaging and the functions of language in achieving disciplinary learning objectives, they can make research-informed pedagogical choices that are more conducive to maximizing the learning process and fostering the effective implementation of EMI policy (Jia et al., 2023).
The findings from the instructor interviews also raised another important point. Although it is clear that the primary reason for using any accommodation strategy is to deliver content in an accessible manner, comprehension was the only reason the teachers offered for reformulating and simplifying their language. However, they offered a range of other reasons for choosing to engage in translanguaging. For example, to connect with their students, to provide a cultural context, and to encourage student engagement and participation. By allowing students to use their L1, teachers felt they were increasing students’ level of comfort. These varied motivations for engaging in translanguaging as an accommodation strategy echo the experiences of other instructors in different EMI contexts. For example, Tien (2009) found that while teachers in Taiwan generally revert to the shared L1 to ensure students’ comprehension, they also reasoned that using their students’ L1 allowed them to connect to their students in a meaningful way. Similarly, Kim et al. (2017) observed how Korean EMI teachers introduce the L1 when they sought to increase their students’ comfort level (see also Macaro et al., 2020). Notably though, despite the interviewed instructors conceding the resourcefulness of another language, most felt the need to defend their use of it, or explicitly state that they refrain from using it. Specifically, five of the teachers spoke of their hesitation to utilize translanguaging and clarified that while they recognize the communicative and pedagogic value of another shared language, they also restricted their use to specific situations and cautioned against over-reliance. The extent to which the interviewed teachers noted their need to limit their reliance on translanguaging suggests that they do not fully embrace this practice or use it without reservations, as freely as they might other strategies. These findings corroborate the conclusions of Jia et al. (2023) who reported that the active use of translanguaging practices in the EMI classroom does not necessarily imply or correspond to a positive perception of this strategy.
Distancing themselves from this strategy might be attributable to a certain stigma associated with practicing translanguaging. EMI instructors in Hahl et al.’s (2016) study, for example, avoid use of the L1, believing it negatively impacts their professional credibility as an EMI instructor (see also Yuan & Yang, 2020). Similarly, Qatari EMI instructors noted that they are “hesitant” to use the L1 in the classroom for similar reasons. (Eslami et al., 2020). Other studies have also found that EMI teachers “tolerated rather than celebrated” the use of the L1, while others believe that L1 use altogether is unacceptable and inappropriate in an EMI classroom (Breeze & Roothooft, 2021, p. 211; Sahan et al., 2022). For some EMI lecturers, a sense of guilt or failure associated with deviating from the monolingual ideology influences their English-only pedagogical practices (Gallagher, 2020; Jia et al., 2023). With teachers’ beliefs significantly influencing their teaching practices (Macaro et al., 2018; Pun & Thomas, 2020), future research would benefit from exploring teachers’ perceptions of the impact of adopting translanguaging practices on their credibility as an EMI teacher.
In light of this finding, any EMI-specific training programs offered to Lebanese EMI instructors should offer a “more flexible approach to language use” (Pun & Thomas, 2020, p. 8) and embody the multilingual approach to EMI evolving in other contexts as language boundaries continue to soften (Galloway et al., 2020). The use of multiple languages is increasingly viewed as a viable accommodation strategy with instructors from different EMI contexts introducing another shared language to assist them in fulfilling their communicative and pedagogical objectives (Aizawa & Rose, 2019; Corrales et al., 2016; Doiz et al., 2014). Among others, teachers from China (Hu & Lei, 2014; Jia et al., 2023), Spain (Sánchez-García, 2018), Denmark (Bolton & Kuteeva, 2012), Saudi Arabia (Alhamami, 2015), and the Ukraine (Tarnopolsky & Goodman, 2014) have all reported incorporating translanguaging practices to ensure disciplinary knowledge is conveyed effectively.
Providing such training is all the more crucial in light of the findings from the student data. When asked to evaluate which strategies they found most useful, three quarters of the surveyed students in this study found reformulation through simplification and repetition to be “very useful”. However, the open-text responses rarely focused on reformulation through simplification (n = 6; 13.6% of all open-text comments). Instead, when provided the opportunity to explain which strategies they most valued and why, the students tended to focus on translanguaging (n = 17; 39%). When describing their reasoning, most of these responses emphasized a focus on learning the content and a concurrent disinterest or lack of concern for the medium through which instruction is delivered. Additionally, their quantitative responses showed that almost three-fourths of students (74.3%) found the introduction of another shared language useful (i.e., 23.3% “very useful”; 51% “somewhat useful”), reinforcing their desire to learn the content without any regard for the medium through which that content is delivered. Students in other EMI contexts have similarly expressed the desire for academic achievement to be privileged above the goal of acquiring English skills (Kim et al., 2017; Rowland & Murray, 2020) and argued that improved English language proficiency in an EMI setting should not be sought at the expense of understanding the lesson’s disciplinary content (e.g., Hu & Lei, 2014; Qui & Fang, 2022). This triangulation of findings reveals that teachers’ pedagogical approaches and choice of accommodation strategy “should be expanded to encompass more than English language use” (Kamasak & Sahan, 2023). Given that students did not express disfavor or disapproval of their teachers’ L1 use in the teaching of content material, moving away from the monolingual, English-only mindset toward multilingual models of teaching may enable students to “make use of their valuable multilingual resources” (Sahan et al., 2022, p. 4).
Also notable from the students’ open-text responses was the value they placed on their teachers’ strategic competence, or the ability to vary their use of strategy according to the situation. In short, students were largely unconcerned with which strategies their teachers chose to employ. They were, however, interested in their teachers’ ability to discern which strategy or pedagogical approach optimized instruction, an area of expertise that can be honed through teacher training programs.
Such insight into students’ expectations and attitudes should serve to inform EMI-specific teacher training programs to reframe instructors’ own perceptions and language ideologies such that they are more reflective of the multilingual resources in Lebanese EMI classrooms and more aligned with students’ perceptions and expectations. As Arnó-Macià et al. (2019) note, these students’ voices inform instructors about objectives and expectations that would have otherwise remained silent. With the adoption of new perspectives towards the value and role of the L1 in the EMI classroom, instructors’ pedagogical approaches and translanguaging practices may be reappraised and made more valuable to students. Specifically, dispelling any stigma teachers may associate with the use of the L1 may allow for this accommodation strategy to be used more efficiently and effectively in the classroom (Pun & Thomas, 2020).
Conclusion
This study makes several significant contributions to the field of EMI, specifically, how EMI is implemented at the classroom level. Triangulation of the qualitative data from instructor interviews and the open-text survey responses from both instructors and students with the quantitative data of closed-end survey questions has allowed for a comprehensive understanding of the complexity and richness of this EMI context (Creswell & Clarke, 2018). In doing so, this study has brought to light the potential tension between EMI instructors’ self-reported reliance on various accommodation strategies and their actual practices as described in the interviews. This finding underscores classroom observation as a valuable area of future research to ascertain whether there is contradiction between what teachers report they do and what they actually practice.
The findings from this study also highlight the possibility of a perceived professional stigma among teachers regarding the use of the L1 to mitigate students’ language difficulties in the classroom. The significance of this finding is further amplified when considered alongside the student data, which unveiled their support for using a shared L1 as a strategic resource. Students largely argued that their teachers’ disciplinary expertise and strategic competence was more important than restricting instruction to the medium of English. The dominant theme of translanguaging in the student data is worth further exploration to better understand the fuller impacts of using this strategy in the Lebanese EMI classroom. There is a clear need to raise teachers’ awareness of students’ preferred strategies, their perceptions of translanguaging practices, and their general expectation of EMI teachers. Such training programs would also enhance teachers’ awareness of how to critically evaluate different strategies, capitalize on their benefits, align them with students'perceived value, and ensure their suitability for overcoming challenges related to students’ low English proficiency.
While this sample of participants is not representative of the larger Lebanese EMI context and no claims of generalization can be made from such a limited data set, it is our hope that this investigation will motivate EMI policymakers to implement training programs that equip teachers with a deeper understanding of both their own and students’ beliefs and practices, as well as the contributions and limitations of different accommodation strategies. This institutional support is crucial in enabling teachers address challenges related to students’ limited English proficiency and supporting the successful implementation of EMI in Lebanon.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Author contributions
All authors contributed to reviewing and revising the manuscript RA and CL made substantial contributions to the the conception and design of the research RA drafted the work and CL and VK revised it critically for important intellectual content VK made substantial contributions to the analysis and interpretation of the raw data.
Funding
No funding was received for this study.
Availability of data and materials
No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Written informed consent from all participants was obtained for this study. Ethical approval was obtained from the Macquarie University Human Research Ethics Committee (reference number 52020914321913) in accordance with the requirements set out in the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research, and by the Lebanese American University Institutional Review Board (reference LAU.SAS.VK1.2).
Consent for publication
All participants consented to having the results of this study published anonymously, as outlined in the participant consent form signed by participants.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Arabic is diglossic in nature and in this study “Arabic” is used as an umbrella term to refer to all varieties of spoken and written Arabic (Esseili, 2017).
2In this study, the term translanguaging rather than code-switching is used to describe instances of multilingual speakers dynamically and fluidly using their entire linguistic repertoire to enhance communication and understanding, thus moving beyond the traditional concept of code-switching.
3Given the survey responses were anonymous, open-text responses are simply coded as “SR” for “survey response” and assigned a distinct number to distinguish responses submitted by different individuals.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
Alhassan, A. Challenges and professional development needs of EMI lecturers in Omani higher education. SAGE Open.; 2021; 10, pp. 1-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/21582440211061527]
Al-Khatib, H. (2013). Can universal linguistic fundamentals contribute to the interpretation of EFL learning? European Scientific Journal, 9(35), 28–47
Annous, S., Nicolas, M. & Townsend, M. A. (2017). Territorial borders and the teaching of writing in English: Lessons from research at the University of Balamand, in L. Arnold, A. Nebel & L. Ronesi (Eds.), Emerging writing research from the Middle East-North Africa region (pp. 85–114). WAC Clearinghouse and University Press of Colorado. https://scholarhub.balamand.edu.lb/handle/uob/183
Arnó-Macià, E., Aguilar-Pérez, M., & Tatzl, D. (2019). Engineering students’ perceptions of the role of ESP courses in internationalized universities. English for Specific Purposes, 58, 58-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2019.12.001
Bacha, B; Bahous, R. Foreign language education in Lebanon: A context of cultural and curricular complexities. Journal of Language Teaching and Research; 2011; 2,
Bacha, N. Bilingualism as the MoI: An exploratory study of student and teachers’ views in Lebanon. International Journal of English Linguistics; 2019; 9,
Bahous, R; Nabhani, M; Bacha, N. Codeswitching in higher education in a multilingual environment: A Lebanese exploratory study. Language Awareness; 2014; 23,
Baladi, S. (2018). Polyglotism and identity in modern-day Lebanon. Lingua Frankly, 4. https://doi.org/10.6017/lf.v4i0.9611
Balam, O. (2021). Beyond differences and similarities in code-switching and translanguaging research. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 35(1). https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00065.bal
Björkman, B. An analysis of polyadic English as a lingua franca (ELF) speech: A communicative strategies framework. Journal of Pragmatics; 2014; 66, pp. 122-138. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.03.001]
Bolton, K., & Kuteeva, M. (2012). English as an academic language at a Swedish university: parallel language use and the threat of English. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33(5), 429–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2012.670241
Bradford, A. (2016). Toward a typology of implementation challenges facing English- medium instruction in higher education: Evidence from Japan. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20(4), 339–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315316647165
Braun, V; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology; 2006; 3,
Braun, V; Clarke, V; Rance, N. Vosser, A; Moller, N. How to use thematic analysis with interview data. The counselling and psychotherapy research handbook; 2014; Sage: pp. 183-197.
Breeze, R., & Roothooft, H. (2021). Using the L1 in university-level EMI: Attitudes among lecturers in Spain. Language Awareness, 30(2), 195–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2021.1903911
Cogo, A. Mauranen, A; Ranta, E. Accommodating difference in ELF conversations: A study of pragmatic strategies. English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings; 2009; Cambridge Scholars Publishing: pp. 254-273.
Corrales, K; Paba Rey, L; Santiagao Escamilla, N. Is EMI enough? Perceptions from university professors and students. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning; 2016; 9,
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd edition). SAGE
Cummins, J. Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics; 2007; 10,
Dafouz, E., Camacho-Miñano, M.M. (2016). Exploring the impact of English-medium instruction on university student academic achievement: the case of accounting. English for Specific Purposes, 44, 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.06.001
Dang, T., & Vu, T. (2020). English-medium instruction in the Australian higher education: Untold stories of academics from non-native English-speaking Backgrounds. Current Issues in Language Planning, 21(3), 279–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2019.1641350
Dearden, J. (2015). English as a medium of instruction - a growing global phenomenon (Interim Report). London, England. The British Council.
Dearden, J; Macaro, E. Higher education teachers’ attitudes towards English medium instruction: A three-country comparison. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching; 2016; 6,
Doiz, A; Lasagabaster, D; Sierra, JM. Language friction and multilingual policies in higher education: The stakeholders’ view. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development; 2014; 35,
Ege, F; Yuksel, D; Curle, S. A corpus-based analysis of discourse strategy use by English-medium instruction university lecturers in Turkey. Journal of English for Academic Purposes; 2022; 58,
Eslami, Z., Graham, K. & Bashir, H. (2020) English medium instruction in higher education in Qatar: a multi-dimensional analysis using the road-mapping framework. In S. Dimova & J. Kling (Eds.), Integrating content and language in multilingual universities (pp. 115–130). Springer.
Esseili, F. A sociolinguistic profile of English in Lebanon. World Englishes; 2017; 36,
Fang, F; Liu, Y. Using English is not always meaningful: Stakeholders’ perspectives on the use of and attitudes towards translanguaging at a Chinese university. Lingua; 2020; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102959]
Fenton-Smith, B., Stillwell, C., & Dupuy, R. (2017). Professional development for EMI: exploring Taiwanese lecturers’ needs. In B. Fenton-Smith et al. (Eds.), English medium instruction in higher education in Asia-Pacific (pp.194–217). Multilingual Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51976-0_11
Gallagher, J. (2020). There’s levels to this: code-meshing in a community college classroom. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 50(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2019.1693938
Galloway, N; Numajiri, T; Rees, N. The internationalization or Englishization of higher education in East Asia. Higher Education; 2020; 80, pp. 395-414. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00486-1]
Garotti, F. (2021). CLIL: Internationalization or pedagogical innovation? In: L. Mastellotto & R. Zanin (Eds), EMI and beyond: Internationalizing higher education curricula in Italy (pp. 241- 259). https://doi.org/10.13124/9788860461827.
Gotti, M. Explanatory strategies in university courses taught in ELF. JELF; 2014; 3,
Hahl, K; Jarvinen, H; Juuti, K. Accommodating to English-medium instruction in teacher education in Finland. International Journal of Applied Linguistics; 2016; 26,
Hu, G; Lei, J. English-medium instruction in China higher education: A case study. Higher Education; 2014; 67, pp. 551-567. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9661-5]
Ismailov, M; Chiu, T; Dearden, J; Yamamoto, Y; Djalilova, N. Challenges to internationalization of university programs: A systematic thematic synthesis of qualitative research on learner-centered EMI pedagogy. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 12642. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su132212642]
Jia, W; Fu, X; Pun, J. How do EMI lecturers’ translanguaging perceptions translate into their practice? A multi-case study of three Chinese tertiary EMI classes. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 4895. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su15064895]
Jiang, L; Zhang, L; May, S. Implementing English-medium instruction in China: Teachers’ practices and perceptions, and students’ learning motivation and needs. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism; 2019; 22,
Kamasak, R; Sahan, K. Academic success in English medium courses: Exploring students’ opinions, language proficiency and L2 use. RELC; 2023; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00336882231167611]
Karakas, A. Teacher preferences in content and language-focused courses in higher education: The case of Turkish EMI students. The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning; 2017; 7,
Kelly-Quon, L. (2018). Surveys: Merging qualitative and quantitative research methods. Seminars in Paediatric Surgery, 27(6), 361–366. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sempedsurg.2018.10.007
Khan, S. Lecturing strategies of non-native EMI lecturers on an international business program. Bulletin VALS-ASLA, Swiss Association of Applied Linguistics; 2018; 107, pp. 65-82.
Kim, E; Kweon, S; Kim, J. Korean engineering students’ perceptions of English-medium instruction and L1 use in EMI classes. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development; 2017; 38,
Kim, J; Kim, E; Kweon, S. Challenges in implementing English-medium instruction: Perspectives of Humanities and Social Sciences professors teaching engineering students. English for Specific Purposes; 2018; 51, pp. 111-123. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.03.005]
Lasagabaster, D. (2022). Teacher preparedness for EMI. Journal of English Medium Instruction, 1(1), 48–64. https://doi.org/10.1075/jemi.21011.las
Lima Becker, M., Chang-Bacon, C.K., Oliveira, G. (2022). Unilateral translanguaging: Teachers’ language use, perceptions, and experience in a Portuguese-English two-way immersion program. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25, 3068–3083. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2021.2004085
Ministry of Education and Higher Education (MEHE) (2025). https://www.mehe.gov.lb/ar/Pages/Structure/Higher%20EDU/ListUniv.aspx
Macaro, E. (2018). English medium instruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Macaro, E. Exploring the role of language in English medium instruction. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism; 2020; 23,
Macaro, E; Akincioglu, M. Turkish university students’ perceptions about EMI: Exploring year, group, gender and university type as variable. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development; 2017; 39,
Macaro, E; Curle, S; Pun, J; An, J; Dearden, J. A systematic review of English medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching; 2018; 51,
Macaro, E; Tian, L; Chu, L. First and second language use in English medium instruction contexts. Language Teaching Research; 2020; 24,
Mancho-Barés, G., & Aguilar-Pérez, M. (2020). EMI lecturers' practices in correcting English: Resources for language teaching? Journal of Immersion and Content-Based.
Martínez, R., Hikida, M., Durán, L. (2015). Unpacking ideologies of linguistic purism: How dual language teachers make sense of everyday translanguaging. International Multilingual Research Journal, 9, 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2014.977712
Mauranen, A. Signalling and preventing misunderstanding in English as lingua franca communication. International Journal of the Sociology of Language; 2006; 177, pp. 123-150. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/IJSL.2006.008]
Mauranen, A. Features of English as a lingua franca in academia. Helsinki English Studies; 2010; 6, pp. 6-28.
Nicolas, M., & Annous, S. (2021). The realities of English-medium instruction in Lebanon: Teachers’ and students’ perceptions of the place of English communication skills in a cultural studies program. The Journal of English as an International Language, 16(1), 10–24. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355903406_The_Realities_of_English_Medium_Instruction_in_Lebanon_Teachers%27_and_Students%27_Perceptions_of_the_Place_of_English
O’Dowd, R. (2018). The training and accreditation of teachers for English medium instruction: an overview of practice in European universities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(5), 553–563. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1491945
Otheguy, R., Garcia, O., & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: a perspective from linguists. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(3), 281–307. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2015-0014
Pecorari, D., & Malmström, H. (2018). At the crossroads of TESOL and English medium instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 52(3), 497–516. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.470
Pun, J; Thomas, N. English medium instruction: Teachers’ challenges and coping strategies. ELT Journal; 2020; 74,
Punch, KF. Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches; 2013; Sage:
Qui, X., & Fang, C. (2022). Creating an effective English-medium instruction classroom: Chinese undergraduate students’ perceptions of native and non-native English-speaking content teachers and their experiences. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25(2), 641–655. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2019.1707769
Robertson, M; Line, M; Jones, S; Thomas, S. International students, learning environments and perceptions: A case study using the Delphi technique. Higher Education Research & Development; 2020; 19, pp. 89-102. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360050020499]
Rowland, L; Murray, N. Finding their feet: Lecturers’ and students’ perceptions of English as a medium of instruction in a recently-implemented master’s programme at an Italian university. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development; 2020; 41,
Sahan, K; Galloway, N; McKinley, J. ‘English-only’ English medium instruction: Mixed views in Thai and Vietnamese higher education. Language Teaching Research; 2022; 12, pp. 1-20. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/13621688211072632]
Sánchez-García, D. Codeswitching practices in the discourse of two lecturers in English-medium instruction at university. ELIA; 2018; 18, pp. 105-135. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.2018.i18.05]
Sánchez-García, D. ‘I can’t find the words now: Teacher discourse strategies and their communicative potential in Spanish- and English-medium Instruction in higher education. CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education; 2019; 2,
Serra, J; Feijoo, S. Teacher translanguaging in CLIL primary education: Do teachers’ perceptions match their real practices?. Journal for the Study of Education and Development: Infancia y Aprendizaje; 2022; 45,
Soruc, A., Altay, M., Curle, S., & Yuksel, D. (2021). Students’ academic language-related challenges in English medium instruction: The role of English proficiency and language gains. System, 103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102651
Sutton, J; Austin, Z. Qualitative research: Data collection, analysis, and management. The Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy; 2015; 68,
Tarnopolsky, O. B., & Goodman, B. A. (2014). The ecology of language in classrooms at a university in eastern Ukraine. Language and Education, 28, 383–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2014.890215
Tien, C. Conflict and accommodation in classroom code switching in Taiwan. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism; 2009; 12,
Tsai, Y; Tsou, W. Accommodation strategies employed by non-native English-mediated instruction teachers. Asia-Pacific Educational Research; 2015; 24,
Ulla, M; Bucol, J; Na Ayuthaya, P. English language curriculum reform strategies: The impact of EMI on students’ language proficiency. Ampersand; 2022; 9, pp. 1-9. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2022.100101]
Wilkinson, R., & Gabriels, R. (2017). Adapting to EMI in higher education: students’ perceived learning strategies, in J. Valcke, A. Murphy & F. Costa (Eds.), Critical issues in English-Medium instruction at university (pp. 341–360).
Wyngaerd, EV. C0 and Dutch-English code-switching. Ampersand; 2020; 7, pp. 1-11. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2020.100060]
Yu, SH; Kaur, J. Increasing student comprehension in the EMI context: Lecturers’ use of explicitness strategies. International Journal of Educational Research Open; 2024; 7, 100334. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2024.100334]
Yuan, R., Yang, M. (2020) Towards an understanding of translanguaging in EMI teacher education classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 27(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820964123
Zhou, E; Mann, S. Translanguaging in a Chinese university CLIL classroom: Teacher strategies and student attitudes. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching; 2021; 11,
© The Author(s) 2025. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.