7.3 Discussion
7.3.2 Research question 2: How do attitudes relate to socio-affective variables
59 rarer EMI is, the more prestigious it is considered, as their participation in EMI distinguishes students. This might explain why Belgian students identify EMI as more prestigious. In contrast, Norwegian students do not perceive EMI as a source of profit in terms of distinction and prestige, as most students are or will have to attend English-taught classes in their studies.
This might result in different situations in the countries: on the one hand, English might be perceived as absolutely necessary in Norway, therefore normalising its use and making university a context of language development for all students; on the other hand, English might still be perceived as more exceptional in French-speaking Belgium, and EMI might therefore be reserved for students who already have high levels of proficiency in English at the beginning of their studies. However, these considerations do not make part of the construct of attitude, leading the Bourdieusian approach to lose part of its interest.
7.3.2 Research question 2: How do attitudes relate to
60
Students’ emotions towards the use of English, namely their level of self-confidence in their linguistic skills and their anxiety levels when using the language actively, are related to both their attitudes towards EMI and their participation in EMI, which are in turn correlated to each other. This observation does not allow for any conclusion as regards a cause-effect relation, however. Two interpretations are indeed available for the aforementioned correlations. The first possible scenario is that the affective variables related to English use would influence their attitudes and, consequently, determine their choice to enrol or not on EMI classes. The second possible scenario is that participation in EMI classes, by increasing the frequency of use of English, leads students to feel less anxious and more self-confident in their abilities, which improves their attitude towards EMI. In both scenarios, the results highlight the importance of affective factors and the necessity of taking them into account and of providing students with linguistic support so as to help them feel more comfortable with the use of English. In the first scenario, such a support would be more effective if taking place before having the opportunity (or obligation) to attend EMI classes. Students would then feel more prepared for these classes and would be able to choose their language of instruction without being influenced by their discomfort using English. In the second scenario, EMI classes themselves would help develop students’ self-confidence, and support would only have to be available for students suffering from EMI class anxiety so as to ensure their well-being in the programme of their choice. The necessity to take socio-affective variables into account in education planning is nuanced by the fact that students display, on average, high self-efficacy beliefs and low anxiety levels. However, these scales show very high individual variability, i.e. students differ widely in the types of affective challenges they meet when using English.
Variables related to the communities with which students identify themselves have to be interpreted in a slightly different way, as they do no not directly impact on students’ well-being, but rather on the relevance of EMI programmes. An overwhelming part of students identify themselves as members of international imagined communities whose language of communication would be English, illustrating a modern trend towards globalisation and cosmopolitanism among university students. This tendency is stable across groups, i.e. it depends on neither country of study, nor EMI participation, and it correlates with students’
attitudes. In other words, students’ cosmopolitan identity, promoted by a society emphasising mobility, multiculturality, and internationalisation (for example, through Erasmus programmes), tends to make them see EMI in a positive light. However, the absence of
61 association between EMI participation and imagined community shows that this cosmopolitan identity might not impact on students’ decisions to actually enrol on EMI classes. Values of cosmopolitanism arguably justify the existence and organisation of EMI programmes and emphasise EMI’s possible benefits to enhance a sense of international imagined community, but, as a matter of fact, this sense of community develops independently from the actual language of instruction of students’ courses. In reality, classes might not be the most determining part of student life, and the sense of cosmopolitanism may be enhanced by the creation of real communities through activities taking place outside of classes (on campus, through extra-curricular activities such as student unions and networks, through student mobility, etc.) or by an acute sense of interconnection with the youth in other countries (through digital media, institutional messages about globalisation, the reading of English-written sources, etc.). The existence of a cosmopolitan identity underlines the necessity for students to be able to claim the right to speak in English and to be considered legitimate users of this foreign language. EMI classes might thus be a place where interactions have an acute value, as students can engage with English and find a way to express this part of their identity.
This is important for the organisation of EMI classes, as teachers in EMI should be aware of their students’ imagined communities and of EMI being one of the possible ways for them to connect with such communities. Denying their legitimacy as English users and stigmatising their use of English might hinder their participation in EMI classes and lead them to reduced well-being at university and disinvestment in classes, whilst EMI classes should offer them a possibility to get more connected with their imagined community and give them the opportunity to develop and gain peripheral to full membership into actual communities of practice, sharing the value of cosmopolitanism, at university. It should, however, be emphasised that EMI does not appear as a means to create such communities of practice, and might not create any sense of community altogether. The correlation between attitudes and imagined community solely indicates that students might consider EMI as a way to facilitate the connection with their imagined community because it arguably familiarises students with the use of English and the terminology used in their field. In this case, EMI would only be a supplementary context to practise the language, and one might argue that approaches such as CLIL would then be more beneficial for students thanks to their stronger focus on language.
Similar remarks can be made for the possible self. Results for possible self and imagined community differ slightly, as students are less widely oriented towards future international communities than they are towards international imagined communities. The correlation
62
between possible self and attitudes indicates that EMI is seen more positively by students who plan on working in international workplaces. This result seems in line with Ammon &
McConnell (2002)’s results, as they show that students consider EMI as an opportunity for their future, and as a way to increase their chances of moving abroad. It is noticeable that, even though students are positive towards EMI, such a context of instruction appears more relevant for students who will use English in their future community of practice than for those who will not. EMI should therefore not be imposed on students from any field of study: fields leading to international workplaces might benefit from EMI, while other fields might not.
These observations on both types of communities and the previous observations on affective variables show that there might be beneficial impacts of offering linguistic support to students, such as making EMI accessible to all students, increasing their well-being in EMI classes, and enhancing potential benefits of EMI, such as a better connection with international imagined communities and access to future English-speaking communities of practice. This optional linguistic support would be helpful, especially for students who suffer from higher anxiety levels, lower self-efficacy, but strive to connect with international communities. Despite being language users rather than language learners, university students would be able to get some more practice and build up their self-confidence in their English language skills, preparing them better for the challenges of EMI and levelling up the differences with students who already have the necessary self-confidence. This necessity of offering linguistic support for students who struggle with using English in their academic lives and students’ tendency to associate EMI with an increase in their English proficiency, based on the items excluded due to their high medians, indicate that a CLIL approach might be more appropriate, as students expect their English-taught classes to improve their level and to prepare them for workplaces in which English is actively used. The question is to know whether students consider purely content-oriented approaches sufficient for them to develop the necessary proficiency or whether a focus on language might be necessary. A quick glimpse at the data provides a first hint of answer to this question. In Belgium, 51% of the students who attended EMI classes for one year or more report that their English skills significantly improved, and 40% report a slight improvement, against only 9% who do not report any improvement. In Norway, 27% of the students report a significant improvement, and 46% a slight improvement, against 27% who do not report any improvement. These results are rather variable, but show that students consider EMI useful to their English proficiency to some extent. The nuanced results for the Norwegian sample nevertheless contrast with the almost unanimous belief that attending English-taught classes would
63 improve students’ proficiency level in the Belgian sample, but they are similar to Ammon &
McConnell’s (2002) findings in Germany. This contrast supports the idea that English proficiency and EMI might be considered more natural in Norway, while they require a greater engagement from Belgian students, as was the case for Austrian students who identified EMI as a supplementary workload in Tatzl (2011). On the whole, improvements do not seem to be extraordinary, and these results call for further research as regards the impact of EMI on students’ language proficiency on the long run.