名古屋高等教育研究 第 22 号 （2022）

Faculty Perspectives on Professional
Development and Certification for Englishmedium Instruction Programs in JapanBROWN Howard*
BRADFORD Annette**










㸺Abstract㸼
As English-medium instruction (EMI) takes on a more importantrole in higher education in Japan, there are ongoing concerns thatfaculty members lack the support they need to effectively teach inwhat may be their own or their students’ second language. In a
replication and localization of Macaro et al.’s 2020 multi-country
survey of EMI-related professional development (PD), this study
investigated the experience, needs, and preferences of faculty
members teaching in English in Japan. Results from 92 respondents
indicate that while professors acknowledge teaching in an EMI
context requires different competencies than either teaching in a
Japanese-medium setting or using English as a professional academic
language, fewer than half have participated in PD training.
Respondents are open to the idea of EMI-related PD but are only
moderately receptive to a potential scheme to certify theircompetencies. Respondents’ perspectives differed depending on theirexperience teaching in EMI, as well as their linguistic anddisciplinary background.

1．Introduction
English-medium instruction (EMI) is a key aspect of the internationali* Professor, Faculty of International Studies and Regional Development,
University of Niigata Prefecture**Adjunct Fellow, Institute of Contemporary Asian Studies, Temple
University Japan Campus

55

zation strategy of many higher education institutions (HEIs) in Japan. As
HEIs face greater competition from both domestic and international rivals,
EMI is seen as a way to both appeal to international students and as asymbol of academic rigor and internationalization in marketing to thedomestic market. However, the rapid growth of EMI programs has givenrise to concerns that the faculty members teaching in them are overburdened and lack support (Haines 2017, Sánchez-García and Dafouz 2020).
Professors1) teaching in EMI programs may face challenges teaching intheir second language (L2) and may feel linguistically unprepared to teach,
especially with regard to nuanced language (Airey 2011). A greater
challenge often arises when English is the second language of the students.
This may represent an issue for both non-native and native Englishspeaking professors, causing difficulties in using precise technicallanguage and passing on the necessary depth of disciplinary knowledge.
When EMI classes include students from diverse backgrounds, professors
face an additional challenge accommodating differing levels of knowledge
in the field, experiences from different academic traditions, and varying
expectations based on cultural norms (Bradford 2016, Fortanet-Gómez
2020). The pedagogical approaches and communication strategies a
professor could confidently rely on in a primarily first language (L1)context may no longer be sufficient.
The existing EMI research literature often mentions a lack of pre- or inservice professional development (PD) courses available to help professors
cope with the challenges of teaching in L2, whether it be their own or theirstudents’. It finds that universities with EMI programs are increasingly
providing their faculty members with English language support, but stilllackpedagogicaltraining

forinternationalEMI

classrooms(e.g.,

Lasagabaster 2018, Sanchez-Pérez 2020). In a 2018 systematic review of EMI
in higher education (HE), Macaro et al. (2018) even go so far as to say thatteacher preparation programs for EMI “simply do not exist” (p. 56). However,in newer work, the outlook is more positive, with a recent surge in thenumber of studies examining EMI-related PD (e.g., Beaumont 2020, Macaro
and Tian 2020, O’Dowd 2018, Sánchez-Pérez 2020).
In one recent study of EMI-related PD, Macaro, et al. (2020) conducted56

Faculty Perspectives on Professional Development and Certification for EMI

a survey of 463 professors teaching in English around the world toinvestigate the competencies required for EMI teaching and the need for
EMI certification. Professors acknowledged that EMI teaching requires a
greater range of competencies than just language proficiency; however,
only one-third of the participants had undergone PD aimed at developing
such competencies. While the respondents were in favor of PD leading toan internationally recognized certification, they were less enthusiastic
about actually dedicating time to completing PD. They expressed a clear
preference for short intensive PD courses over ongoing training
opportunities. Macro et al. (2020) maintain that this preference may berelated to a lack of support for PD at the institutional level.
This study offers interesting insights into the real-world situation of EMIrelated PD; however, as noted by the researchers themselves, the scope ofthe sample was limited. In fact, the study was heavily skewed towards justtwo countries, Spain and China, with 151 and 133 of the 463 respondents,
respectively, coming from these two nations (other participants came from
Brazil [5], Italy [30], Japan [20], Mexico [34], Turkey [51], and “other” [39]).
Spain and China are both the subject of much EMI research (e.g., Doiz, etal. 2013, Jiang et al. 2019), and the field is in danger of generalization basedon findings from these specific contexts. Consequently Macaro et al. (2020)
invited future research using the same survey instrument. Given the small
number of Japanese participants in this study and considering the important
position of EMI in Japanese universities, we felt that this call for researchpresented an opportunity to investigate the current state of EMI-related
PD in Japan. Although PD programs are now commonplace in Japanese
universities, we believe there is still a lack of pre- or in-service training tosupport faculty members with the unique challenges of EMI and thesituation merits study. And so, the current study is both a replication andlocalization of Macaro et al. (2020).

2．Background
2.1

The EMI Landscape in Japan

Over the past two decades, EMI in Japan has developed as the result57

of both government incentives and market forces (Brown 2016). The
government has encouraged and supported EMI developments, at mainly
upper-tier universities, through a series of large-scale funding initiatives,
including the Global 30 and Top Global University Projects. The initiatives
are part of Japan’s overall drive to respond to globalization and maximize
its competitiveness on the world stage, and universities have beenencouraged to develop fully English-taught degree programs for bothundergraduate and graduate students. These programs, though limited inscale, have important prestige value and aid Japanese universities inrecruiting international and domestic students (Ota and Horiuchi 2018).
These flagship initiatives have also inspired wider development of EMI
courses, largely intended for the domestic student body, at mid- and lowertier universities. In the domestic market, EMI offers marketing benefits
when recruiting local students and is part of the government and HE
sector’s approach to fostering an internationally minded younger
generation. Approximately 40% of universities in Japan now offer at least
some credits taught in English (MEXT 2020), and as of Fall 2021 there are
87 programs at 39 universities in which students can study their entire
undergraduate degree in English.
2.2

Professional Development in Higher Education

Before delving into the issue of PD for EMI, it is worth reminding
ourselvesthat

pre-service

pedagogicaltraining

andcontinuing

professional development (CPD) are generally not required for teaching inhigher education (HE) in any discipline (Greer, et al. 2016, Fahnert 2015).
There is ever-growing policy recognition of the importance of PD for
quality HE and for the competitiveness of individuals and HEIs (see e.g.
European Commission 2017). However, it has been noted that suchinitiatives are often implemented in an “unorganised” and “chaotic”
manner and in some areas of the world are “unusual” and “rare” (Landand Gordon 2015: 3). Some nations do mandate PD and may even promotecertified qualifications that junior professors must complete before
promotion to a higher rank. The UK, Australia, and the Nordic countries
are often singled out as such examples (Fink 2013, Oki 2019). Yet, in an58

Faculty Perspectives on Professional Development and Certification for EMI

international review of PD programs, Fink (2013: 3) remarks that CPD for
university professors “remains nothing more than an ideal” in almost all
countries. Likewise, in their recent literature review about the PD of
academics in Europe, Inamorato dos Santos et al. (2019) found that evenwhen academics are expected to participate in PD to ensure theirprofessional success, they rarely do so, or if so, participate unsystematically,favoring passive unintentional workplace learning. They identified four main
obstacles to PD participation: 1) a strong preference for and commitment totraditional teaching approaches, 2) a lack of formal requirements or
incentives for developing teaching skills, 3) a lack of time for PD among
faculty members, and 4) a lack of financial, organizational, and institutional
capacity for creating and implementing effective PD programs (p.13). These
themes are likely to resurface in discussions of EMI-related PD.
In Japan, as interest in the quality of university education grew, theMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT)
mandated in 2008 that all universities offer PD. Almost 80% of all
universities have now established university-wide organizations topromote PD, and faculty participation appears high (MEXT 2020). MEXT
(2020) reports that 18.3% of Japan’s universities had a 100% full-time
faculty member PD participation rate in 2018 and over half (53.4%)
achieved participation rates of 75-99%. However, PD often does not havea good reputation among faculty members in Japan, and in discussions on
the topic many report that they do not attend the sessions offered by their
institutions, or if they attend, they do so out of a sense of duty rather thaninterest. In a paper about the current status of PD in Japan, Oki (2019)
remarks that the movements towards learner-centered teaching andincreased quality based on learning outcomes seem to have diminished since
PD implementation became mandatory. It appears that the pressures toimplement PD and report activities to MEXT may have reduced PD to justanother thing faculty members are supposed to check off their to-do list.
There are other indications that PD, particularly pedagogical training,might not be as embedded in Japanese HEIs as MEXT would like. Faculty
development (FD, as PD is usually termed in Japan) is often understoodto embrace more than the development of teaching ability (Sato 2013).

59

Therefore, the PD activities undertaken in Japan range from micro-level
workshops, lectures, and study groups (including pedagogical training); tomeso-level curriculum and program planning; and to macro-level education
organizational training (Oki 2019). Current MEXT data shows that although
three of the top five most implemented PD activities may have some sortof pedagogical content (MEXT 2020), the most common activity, undertaken
by 64.5% of universities in Japan, is listed by MEXT as “lectures andsymposia that exclude [educational methods, active learning training, classevaluation, and classroom visits by other faculty members]” (p. 44).
Furthermore, PD activities are usually carried out internally without theguidance of outside experts, a practice which puts Japanese HEIs at risk of
missing out on new innovation (Roloff Rothman 2020). The usual Japanesepractice of rotating committee member positions for things such as FD adds
to this issue as those temporarily in charge of training may be less likely toengage with the wider community of PD practitioners in Japan orinternationally (Sato 2013). As the current study also examines pre-service
PD, it is important to note that in 2019 MEXT announced that doctoral
programs in Japan should establish training programs in university teaching(Kurita 2020). However, the fruits of this mandate have yet to be seen and‘pre-FD for graduate students’ (pre-service training) is presently the least
implemented activity on MEXT’s PD list, carried out by only 3.9% of
institutions. National certification for teaching in HE in Japan is not offered.
2.3

Teacher Preparation and Certification for EMI

An enduring theme throughout much of the research about EMI-related
PD is the problematizing of the linguistic abilities of EMI professors. EMI
professors might comment that they are not bilingual (Dafouz 2018), orthat they cannot improvise and clearly express their subject matter inEnglish (Airey 2011). In addition, when seeking out or talking about PD,
those teaching in English tend to narrow their focus to language
proficiency at the expense of pedagogical skills, with many EMI professors
unsure of which aspects other than language might constitute training for
EMI (Bradford 2019, Chen, et al. 2020). Research shows that PD for EMI
is often not made use of by many professors as they assume it to be60Faculty Perspectives on Professional Development and Certification for EMI

centered on English language training, and this is not attractive to faculty
members who believe they already possess sufficient language ability toteach in English (Bradford 2015). Indeed, EMI training programs often do
focus on language proficiency. In a study examining the training andaccreditation of EMI lecturers at 70 European universities, O’Dowd (2018)
found that the majority of PD programs surveyed (77%) contained
language skill instruction. Only about half (54%) provided supervised
feedback on teaching practice. O’Dowd comments that these findings“appear to confirm a commonly held belief in university education that
language proficiency in itself is sufficient for teachers to teach subjects
through another language” (2018: 7).
Despite this focus on linguistic issues, the EMI research community andmany PD program developers recognize the importance of pedagogy andcultural awareness in facilitating learning in the EMI classroom (e.g.,Bradford 2019, Fortanet-Gómez 2020, Sánchez-García and Dafouz 2020) andtraining programs that include such elements do exist. Costa (2015)
surveyed training courses for EMI in Europe and found that despite ascarcity of PD courses overall, over half in her study (n=11) were aimed atdeveloping methodological and pedagogical approaches in addition to
linguistic competencies. These courses focused on such things ascomprehensible input for EMI, presentation skills, facilitating student notetaking, teacher talk, writing skills for teaching in English, and practiceteaching. In both Costa’s survey and the more recent volume on teacher
training for EMI in HE edited by Sánchez-Pérez (2020), Spain stands out asa leader in research and practice in PD for EMI. Spain’s strong secondary
school CLIL programs have led to the development of a number of EMI PD
programs that accommodate both secondary school and university teachers.
Research carried out in Europe shows that most PD for EMI is offered
by individual institutions (Costa 2015). Some of these institutions provide
certification for their professors; however many rely on professors’
linguistic and teaching competences to be verified by their previous work
rather than through formal assessment (O’Dowd 2018). The majority ofparticipants (85%) in O’Dowd’s (2018) study reported having to reach acertain benchmark for English proficiency (ranging from Common

61European Framework of Reference [CEFR] B2 to C2), but far fewer
reported having to certify their methodological skills (40%). Here
professors reported divergent practices ranging from extensive evaluationof previous experiences to simple attendance at PD courses.
In addition to institutional programs, there are PD programs that aredesigned to be taught by external trainers either online or in-situ forprofessors from various HEIs and these offer certificates of completion,for example, Cambridge Assessment’s 40-hour course and Oxford EMI’s
tailored 2-day to 2-week courses. There are also a growing number of
MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) focusing on EMI, for example,
those offered by the University of Southampton, the University ofBarcelona, and the University of Tokyo. Macaro et al. (2020) draw
attention to potential issues with EMI certification from these types ofprograms, stating they often provide only a baseline introduction to EMI
competencies, and are offered “with (presumably) little awareness of local
factors” (p. 147). However, we argue that in the face-to-face and online
synchronous programs at least, there is much room for customization andlocalization. We acknowledge that if cross-national or international
certification for EMI is to be a goal, the field of EMI still has a way to go
in reaching consensus as to what the standards should be. At the sametime, as Sánchez-García and Dafouz (2020) point out, it is crucial to take
into account local ways of teaching and learning when implementing andcertifying teacher education programs.
In Japan, Kuwamura (2019) identified a lack of pedagogical knowledge
and a need for PD opportunities as one of the main concerns among faculty
members teaching EMI classes. He found that a majority of faculty
members, more than two-thirds of his sample, had not taken part in EMIrelated PD activities. However, PD for EMI is slowly becoming morewidespread, and despite studies showing that faculty members perceive
it to be about English language training (e.g., Bradford 2019), there is asmall body of literature reporting on PD programs that encompass
pedagogical and cultural issues. For example, Horie (2018) describes thedevelopment of a faculty support handbook that occurred in 2007, justbefore the first of the large-scale government initiatives to promote EMI

62

Faculty Perspectives on Professional Development and Certification for EMI

in Japan was implemented. The project team found that Japanese
professors were confident in their own English proficiency but felt
uncertain about ensuring their students’ uptake of the academic content.
Thus, the subsequent handbook (Nakai 2008) focused on pedagogicalapproaches for effective teaching. Another such handbook was compiledby the University of Osaka for use among its faculty members as theyembarked upon a fully English-taught degree program. It addresses suchpractices as scaffolding, instructional methods, and assessment and was
subsequently expanded to include reflections from EMI professors
teaching in the program and published as a guide for those outside of theuniversity (Yamamoto and Bysouth 2015).
As in Europe, most EMI-related PD in Japan is done in-house by
universities for their own professors. One such program that has received
a lot of research attention is the Global Faculty Development training
offeredbyKansaiUniversity(Belarga

2019,

McCarty2020,

Rakhshandehroo 2020). This program consists of workshops and one-toone sessions which cover such topics as presenting in English, English
skills development, and collaborative online international learning (COIL).
While the participants generally report finding these PD activities
engaging, the program suffers from a lack of clear goals with regards to
its content and target audience (Rakhshandehroo 2020). English language
professors have commented that they are unsure if the program is theright place for them even though they feel part of the university’s EMI
effort. This finding finds agreement in Roloff Rothman’s (2020) study ofprograms conducted in English. She points out that it appears most such
PD is targeted towards Japanese faculty members with little confidence
in using English, and not towards multilinguals fluent in English or thosefor whom English is their first language.
Japan’s leading university, the University of Tokyo, has targeted abroader audience for its EMI PD. It established the Professional and Global
Educators’ Community which provides workshops and online courses(including MOOCs about the use of English in academic settings) and it
started the Global Faculty Development Initiative to provide training for
its instructors who offer courses in non-Japanese languages. Both63

programs are designed primarily for those at the university of Tokyo but
create opportunities for engagement with those outside of the university.
Sadly, as project funding came to an end, certificates of completion are nolonger available for the MOOCs.
Some universities in Japan take a different approach to EMI-related PD.
Rather than developing programs in-house, they provide opportunities for
professors to travel abroad to take part in intensive PD courses or invite
experts from overseas institutions and training companies to offer PD on
campus. In some cases, faculty members join commercially available
programs using their own funds. However, reporting is scant as to how
widespread these PD activities are.

3．Definitions
Exact definitions of EMI are disputed and the boundaries between EMI
and related approaches, such as content-based instruction (CBI) or content
and language integrated learning (CLIL), are somewhat fluid (Dafouz andSmit 2020, Richards and Pun 2021). While an inclusive definition of EMI
could conceivably include both of these, this study is focused on the needs
and attitudes of university faculty teaching their content specialist courses
in English. Therefore, we used a rather narrow definition to bound ourdata. For this paper, EMI is defined as the use of the English language toteach academic subjects (other than English itself) in countries where themajority of the population does not have English as their first language(Brown and Bradford 2017).
Despite plenty of research about effective HE teaching methods (seeDevlin and Samarawickrema 2010), the definition of PD in HE is also
unclear (Inamorato dos Santos et al. 2019). However, many believe thatpedagogical training has a positive effect, especially for those new toteaching (Ödalen, et al. 2019) and internationally, many PD programs for
HE tend to focus on college teaching and student learning, promoting
student-centered, active learning approaches (Fink 2013). That said, PD
can cover different skills and may be intended to achieve various results.
In addition to pedagogy, it could also target, for example, a professor’s

64

Faculty Perspectives on Professional Development and Certification for EMI

subject content expertise or their approaches to knowledge acquisition.
PD could be structured in an organized training program or gained
informally through conversations with colleagues. Furthermore, it could bedirected not only at individual teachers but at departments or institutions
to encourage organizational change (Inamorato, et al. 2019, Oki 2019).
With a fluid definition of EMI and numerous activities that can comprise
PD in HE, it is perhaps inevitable that there is little consensus over themost effective ways to provide PD for EMI. Macaro et al. (2020) state that
this consensus can only be achieved if the competencies that professors
need to effectively teach their classes in English are defined. However, as
the make-up of EMI classrooms can vary so greatly, defining thesecompetencies is extremely context dependent. Hence, in our study, wesought to elicit the respondents’ own ideas as to what should compromise
PD for EMI and did not provide a definition of PD or of the competencies
needed to effectively teach in EMI classrooms.
The lack of clarity surrounding the competencies required to teacheffectively in EMI contexts naturally raises questions as to the content ofany potential certification scheme for EMI professors, not least because
both classroom language and teaching traditions vary by discipline(Dimova and Kling 2018). In our study, we provided respondents with abroad definition of certification to elicit their perspectives on the topic,
but we did not provide examples of the type of assessment thatcertification might entail. We defined certification as an official
qualification given to an individual which provides evidence of acompetence to teach a particular subject and in a particular way.

4．Research Questions
With this background in mind, we adapted the research questions
investigated by Macaro et. al. (2020):
1. What evidence is there that professors in HE have taken part in PD
courses in EMI?
2. Do EMI professors consider that teaching through English involves
different competences to teaching via other L1 languages?

65

3. To what extent do professors consider potential teacher certification
important, and at what level (personal, institutional, national, international)?
4. What form do professors want PD or certification to take?

5．Methodology and Participants
As this study is a replication and localization of Macaro et al. (2020), we
followed the same quantitative research design, with certain adaptations
to suit our context in Japan and with the addition of qualitative interviews
to add depth to our findings. With permission from the researchers, wetailored the original survey instrument based on knowledge of the HE
system and PD practices in Japan and piloted it with colleagues. The final
survey consisted of 25 multiple choice, five-point likert-scale, and openended items. Information about the purpose and aims of the survey wasprovided in English and Japanese so that potential respondents were fully
informed and to minimize chance participation by non-eligible subjects. 2)
The survey was distributed via direct appeal to our personal professional
networks, via email and social media, and through snowball sampling.
Professors working in EMI degree programs who could be identified via
their HEI faculty profiles were also contacted directly. The resultant
sample therefore includes those teaching in degree programs fully taught
in English and those working in EMI programs that form only a part of a
student’s otherwise largely Japanese-medium bachelor’s degree.

However,

it is likely that only those with a high level of interest in EMI chose to
take part in the project. Participants are employed across the three typesof university in Japan (prefectural / municipal 12%, private 44.6%, andnational 43.5%) and data from the open-ended questions show that they hailfrom at least 19 different HEIs.
Interviews were conducted via the Zoom platform with five participantschosen from among those who volunteered to take part in follow-up
discussions.

The

interview

participants

represent

linguistic

anddisciplinary diversity (see Table 1 for interviewee profiles). The interviews
were semi-structured. An interview guide was created based on items ofinterest from the survey and then individually tailored to each participant66

Faculty Perspectives on Professional Development and Certification for EMI

based on their comments from the open-ended items.
Table 1Name

L1Professor A

OtherInterview Participant Profiles

EMI
Length of time Received
discipline teaching via EMI EMI PD

Confidence
level in EMI

SocSci5-10 years

Yes

Professor B Japanese

LangFoc

10 < years

Yes

Professor C

EnglishHums

10 < years

Yes

Professor D Japanese

SocSci10 < years

Yes

Confident
Somewhatconfident

Professor E

Hums

5-10 years

Yes

Confident

Other

Confident
Somewhatconfident

Source: authors

Macaro et al. (2020: 148) noted the “still fuzzy nature of EMI as aconcept”, when revealing that they had to eliminate 141 English language
teacher respondents from their study. With this in mind, we attempted totarget only EMI professors, and not those who teach English language
courses, by giving information about the study, providing our definition ofEMI, and furnishing examples to illustrate our interpretation of what
constitutes an EMI professor in the preamble of the survey in both English
and Japanese. Of a total of 97 responses, we eliminated one respondentthat stated they taught entirely English language classes, and a further
four who demonstrated the “fuzziness” of EMI understandings by listing
only English as a foreign language (EFL) and English for Academic
Purposes (EAP) classes when describing the classes they teach. This lefta total of 92 valid responses.
We categorized the subjects taught by respondents into the broad
disciplines of social sciences (SocSci), humanities (Hums), natural sciences(NatSci), and engineering (Eng) according to the guidance of the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences (2020).Following Macaro et al. (2020), we
created a language focus (LangFoc) category for subjects such as applied
linguistics, translation studies and intercultural communication as
although the primary objective of these classes is not to teach language,
the course instructors may have language-focused training which would
affect their perceptions of EMI. Some respondents taught subjects in more67

than one discipline and were therefore counted in each category. Most of
the respondents taught subjects in the social sciences (49) and humanities(32), with fewer teaching language-focused courses (15). Engineering (9)and natural sciences (5) were not well represented. This likely reflects theresearchers’ personal networks but is also indicative of the fact that nondegree EMI programs most often focus on social sciences and thehumanities (Brown, 2016). Also, there has been a recent growth in social
science and humanities undergraduate EMI degree programs in Japan.
As EMI programs in Japan are often predominantly taught by Japanesenationals in some university departments and international faculty
members in others (Brown 2016), we want to draw attention to theperspectives of professors with different language backgrounds. Thirty
seven respondents have Japanese as an L1, 29 have English L1 and 26 arefrom other L1 backgrounds including native speakers of the following
languages: Romanian (3), Indonesian (2), Dutch (2), Spanish (2), French (2),Greek (1), Afrikaans (1), Portuguese (1), German (1), Bengali (1), Swedish(1), Chinese (1), Kazakh (1), Filipino (1), Turkish (1), Asante Twi (1), Italian(1), Ukrainian (1), Russian (1), and both Swedish and Spanish (1).
Survey data were entered into MAXQDA 2020 and analyzed by two
independent researchers. The sample size proved too small to ascertain if
there are significant statistical differences among participants based on
disciplinary, or language background or other demographics. Therefore,
descriptive statistics were extracted from the quantitative data and arereported below. The qualitative survey responses and interview
transcripts were analyzed through a process of coding and consolidationof themes, as recommended by Kvale (2008).

Open-ended commentsfrom the survey items are reported alongside interview data in thefollowing results section. Survey respondents are denoted by the term
respondents

and their L1 and EMI discipline are displayed next totheir comments. Interview participants are referred to asinterviewees

or by their pseudonym as noted in Table 1.
We believe that this localized replication of the Macaro et al. (2020)
study adds valuable results to the worldwide picture of EMI PD being
developed. An acknowledged limitation of Macaro et al. (2020) was the68Faculty Perspectives on Professional Development and Certification for EMI

small number of countries surveyed, therefore we seek to expand its reach.
Consequently, our research design necessarily remains similar to thisprevious research. However, we recognize that this cannot give full
qualitative insight into PD for EMI in Japan. Past EMI research about
Japan and our analysis presented below both raise issues pertinent to ourcontext that we did not have sufficient data to investigate. For example,
we note that a number of professors teaching in EMI programs may have
had English-language teacher training prior to teaching EMI classes, also
power imbalances in relation to the part-/full-time professional status of
EMI professors or the rank of their institution, or even the status of the
EMI program itself within the university will all no doubt affectperceptions about PD needs and participation. We look forward to futurestudies that can delve deeper into these topics.

6．Results
6.1

Research Question One

The first research question seeks to gain context for exploring EMI
teachers’ views about PD for EMI by finding out how many respondents
have undertaken some form of PD to help improve their teaching throughthe medium of English. Results indicate that in-service PD is much morecommon than pre-service training. Only 19.6% of respondents reported
they had taken part in pre-service training; however, the number of people
who had taken part in training since they started teaching at a university
was unexpectedly high, at 45.7% (Table 1).
Table 2

Participation in pre- and in-service training for EMI

Type of Training

Completed

Did not complete

UnsurePre-service

18（19.6）65（70.6）9（9.8）

In-service

42（45.7）45（48.9）5（5.4）

䈜 frequency, % shown in brackets
Source: authors

69

The most common type of pre-service PD (n=7) was teaching
methodology courses taken as part of a graduate program, though thesecourses did not focus on EMI per se. Only two respondents specificallymentioned EMI, one having learned about it as part of their PhD program(L1=German), and one having completed a three-day intensive EMI
workshop (L1=Spanish). Among respondents who have completed inservice training, 19 attended in-house PD events/workshops offered bytheir own universities, while five received training conducted in Japan byforeign universities or private training companies based abroad. Only tworeported attending PD courses abroad. Some respondents (n=9) also
reported finding their own PD opportunities, including pedagogy
workshops at conferences, online training, advice and resources online, or
support from colleagues. Professor A

exemplified this group, noting in

an interview that professional development is not something he expects
the university to provide since advice about teaching methods is “only a
Google search away.”
In our sample, Japanese L1 respondents were more likely, though only
slightly, to have attended PD events. Among the 18 respondents who had
attended pre-service PD activities, proportionally more had Japanese as
their L1(n=8). However, it is interesting to notice that all eight of these
respondents completed their graduate studies in English. This implies thatJapanese graduate students abroad have access to and make use of PD in
English. PD opportunities are not yet widely available to graduate
students domestically. While 45.7% of the entire sample attended inservice PD events, attendance was higher among Japanese professors(51.4%) and lower among professors who reported that their L1 wasEnglish (41.4%) or other (42.3%). Some international faculty memberscommented that their universities offer PD for EMI, but they have notattended as they felt it was intended for Japanese faculty members. There
were also several respondents who attended training about generalteaching skills. This is likely applicable to EMI classes, though not
specifically aimed at such. These responses demonstrate the point about
the fuzziness of EMI made by Macaro et al. (2020). Professors are notclear as to what constitutes EMI training.

70Faculty Perspectives on Professional Development and Certification for EMI

6.2

Research Question Two

The second research question focused on professors’ beliefs about therequirements for successful EMI teaching as a proxy for their perceptionsof the potential value of PD for EMI. The aim was to investigate to what
extent respondents feel that teaching in EMI courses requires different
competencies than L1-medium classes or using English as an academic
language.
First, professors were asked if they believe that teaching methods in EMI
and L1-medium classes should be different. More than half, 57.6%, reported
that teaching methods have to change in EMI classes, while 22.8% said thatthey did not, the remainder, 19.6%, were unsure. Of those who answeredthat teaching methods should be different, 22 mentioned the students’language proficiency as the reason. They noted that teachers in EMI classes
need to be more sensitive to students’ language proficiency and maintain aslower pace, use simplified vocabulary, and implement other forms ofscaffolding. Professor B mentioned their increased concern for the students’
understanding when teaching in EMI,
When I teach in Japanese, I don’t worry about whether my explanation is clear
enough or not. I take it for granted that they can understand my Japanese.
Whereas if I have to teach everything in English, I am a lot more careful.

A much smaller number, only five respondents, mentioned potential
cultural issues as a reason for changing teaching methods. They touched
upon the use of appropriate examples, the contrast between English as a
low-context and Japanese as a high-context language, and distinct student
expectations based on their experiences in different academic traditions.
One survey respondent (L1 Japanese, SocSci, LangFoc) noted:
I do not have to interact with students so much when I teach in Japanese.
However, I constantly have to interact with students when I teach in English
because most of my students are exchange students from Europe, North
America, and Oceania. They prefer interactive teaching (class activities).

A European respondent (L1 other, SocSci) commented on the lack of ashared cultural background when teaching in Japan, saying teaching EMI

71

courses at a European university “feels somehow

lighterthanteaching here, simply because most students there are European, so wehave more background information in common, that helps with jokes,
references to popular culture, quotations, and so on.”The respondents’ L1 appears to be a factor in their feelings about changing
teaching style. Three-quarters (75.9%) of native English-speaking professors
said that EMI necessitates a change, while just over half (51.4%) of theJapanese L1 respondents and just under half (46.1%) of other L1 respondents
agreed. We also investigated the perceptions of professors based on the lengthof their EMI teaching career. We found that whether they were just about tostart teaching, had been teaching for less than five, five to ten, or for ten or
more years, more than half of the respondents felt that there is a need tochange teaching style for EMI.
Given previous literature suggesting that professors in the natural sciences
find teaching in EMI courses easier than those in the humanities and social
sciences (Kuteeva and Airey 2014), we checked for variation in the responses
by discipline. Findings from our sample are consistent with this idea, withproportionally more respondents in Natural Science and Engineering
believing that EMI does not require a change in teaching methods (33.3% of
those responding
respondednoyes ).

were in these fields compared to 11.3% of those who
We also suspected that professors teaching courses

with a language focus (and therefore likely to have completed language
teacher training at some point in their careers) may feel differently. As might
be expected, proportionally more LangFoc respondents indicate that teachingshould change for EMI (20.7% of those responding

yesclass compared to 9.5% of those who responded

no ).

taught a LangFoc

Participants were also asked about their confidence teaching in English.
Most (71.7%) reported that they were confident and 26.0% felt somewhat
confident. Only two respondents did not feel confident. When broken downby the respondents’ L1, the vast majority of international faculty members
said that they are confident teaching in English and the majority ofJapanese respondents said that they are somewhat confident (see Table2). Interestingly, the Japanese respondents who are only somewhat
confident are not necessarily those who lack training and support. A total72

Faculty Perspectives on Professional Development and Certification for EMI

of 16.6% of “somewhat confident” respondents had pre-service PD and
50.0% had in-service PD, which is consistent with the sample as a wholeat 19.7% and 47.5% respectively. This “somewhat confident” group is also
more likely to think that EMI certification is important for them
personally, 62.5% as opposed to 52.2% of the entire sample (see section 6.3
below).
Comments from the somewhat confident Japanese professors tended tofocus on language proficiency, with some mentioning their own language
issues or errors, and others noting their difficulty in understanding
students and assessing their learning. Several (n=7) of the somewhat
confident Japanese L1 respondents compared themselves unfavorably tonative speakers of English, noting that “I do not feel fully confident when
(L1 Japanese, Hums) “I am

I discuss with native-English students

nervous when teaching students from English-speaking countries” (L1Japanese, unclassified discipline), or “I am not a native-English speakerand cannot teach as good as native speakers
Table 3

(L1 Japanese, SocSci).

Confidence in teaching in English

L1

Confident

Not confident

Japanese

13（35.1）

2（5.4）

22（59.5）

English28（96.6）

01 （3.4）Other25（96.2）01 （3.8）Somewhat confident䈜 frequency, % shown in brackets
Source: authors

Respondents were also asked if the English proficiency needed for EMI
teaching is different from the language used when presenting at aconference. A majority (78.2%) agreed. They observed that presentations
are often based on extensive preparation, with the one-way flow of ideas
controlled by the presenter; however, teaching is more of a two-way
communicative task that requires real-time improvisation, adaptation, andresponses to student needs. The responses did not vary based on theacademic subject taught but there was some variation based on theprofessors’ L1, with native English-speaking professors being somewhat

73less likely to acknowledge differences between presenting and teaching in
English (see Table 4).
Table 4

Agreement that there is a difference in required English proficiency
between conference presentation and EMI teaching
Agree

L1

DisagreeUnsureJapanese

32（86.5）3（8.1）

2（5.4）English18（62.1）

3（10.3）8（27.6）

Other

22（84.6）1（3.8）

3（11.5）

䈜 frequency, % shown in brackets
Source: authors

6.3

Research Question Three

The third research question asks about teacher certification for EMI.
The results show that certification is not implemented in Japan and is notwell understood as a concept. However, respondents would be somewhat
open to a certification scheme if one were implemented.
When asked about the current use of certification schemes in Japan,
only one participant reported such a scheme being used at their university,
61 respondents (66.3%) said that their university does not have acertification scheme, and 30 (32.6%) professors were not sure. However,participants’ comments indicate that the concept of EMI certification is
not clearly understood. For example, the single participant who reported
that their university has an EMI certification scheme was actuallyreferring to university funded PD opportunities, not certification. Similar
confusion was apparent among other respondents, with six questioning or
expressing doubts about the definition of certification. One respondent (L1Japanese, Eng) asked, “I am not sure what ‘certification for EMI teachers’means here. Do you mean the scores such as TOEIC, TOEFL, or IELTS?”
Four respondents pointed to a PhD or other academic credentials in lieu
of certification, with one(L1 Japanese, Eng) saying, “a professor is not acertified teacher,” and another (L1 English, SocSci) noting “all instructors
must have a Masters or PhD in order to teach at the University.”
Using a five-point Likert scale, respondents were asked how important74

Faculty Perspectives on Professional Development and Certification for EMI

certification for EMI teachers would be in five different situations: forthem personally, for their department, for their university, for Japannationally, and internationally. In all situations, at least half of respondents
said that EMI certification would be at least moderately important.
However, on closer examination, some interesting patterns emerged. First,
perceptions of the importance of EMI certification increase as thesituation becomes less personal. A total of 72.8% say a national EMI
certificate would be important, whereas only 52.2% believe a certificate
would be important for them personally. Also, respondents who were new
to EMI teaching, those with five years or less experience, were more
likely to consider personal certification important than their moreexperienced colleagues, but less likely to favor certification at the national
level. Two interviewees (Professor B and Professor C) raised the idea thatcertification would be useful for those, especially less-experienced
professors, looking for a new job. The Japanese L1 interviewee noted that
if the certificate were issued by a prestigious foreign institution, it would
be particularly valuable to “give credibility” to the EMI skills that a
professor is claiming.

52.2%

Personal

57.6%

Department

65.2%

72.8%

70.7%

University

National

GlobalSource: authors

Figure 1

Respondents

Responses indicating moderate or greater importanceof EMI certification as a function of context

were

also

asked

about

possibleissueswiththeimplementation of a potential certification scheme for EMI teachers. The
most common concern (n=24) was about the time commitment requiredfor certification. Faculty members felt that there are already enoughdemands on their time and adding the burden of certification would be
difficult. Professor D noted:

75

Working for a Japanese university, we get more than enough to do in terms of
not only teaching or researching, but also actually maintaining or developing
the institution. So, you know, basically, you know, we are busy enough.

Another major concern (n=17) involved the contents or requirements ofa possible certification program. Respondents were worried about how
the contents would be standardized given the wide variety of disciplines
taught in English. They worried about who would design and manage
such a certification program. There was also a concern that certification
schemes would evolve to become formalized and bureaucratized, and thus
lose the value they were intended to offer. One respondent (L1 English,
SocSci) noted:
I feel Japan already places far too much weight on formal certification programs.
If an EMI certification program were introduced, I fear the MEXT and theinstitutions themselves would begin making completion of some set of courses
mandatory, and I fear the requirements would become highly formalistic andwould represent yet another barrier to creativity and innovation.

Participants are also concerned about costs and who would pay forcertification (n=11). Some respondents (n=12) also noted a possible lack ofbuy-in from faculty members who may not see how obtaining certification
would benefit them socially, academically, or in terms of their career.
There is a similar concern about lack of buy-in from universities, withsome respondents noting an apparent lack of motivation to change thecurrent status quo at both the individual and institutional level (n=7). One
respondent (L1 English, NatSci) remarked that, “there seems to be no
incentive to improve one’s teaching at the university level. For teaching
to become more valued, it needs to be recognized with awards and/or
financial incentives.” There was also a minority view that requiring EMI
certification could be interpreted as a threat by some faculty members(n=2), especially those for whom English proficiency is a challenge andwho could be “very sensitive about their English competence and theircapacity to use English in EMI.” Another minority view questioned theentire premise of EMI-focused certification (n=3), noting that certification
is not required for faculty members who teach in L1 so requiring it for76Faculty Perspectives on Professional Development and Certification for EMI

EMI does not make sense and that training and PD support for teachingin general (i.e., in L1 programs) is more valuable and in more immediate
need.
6.4

Research Question Four

The final research question concerns what contents the professors
would like to see in a potential PD program for EMI. Respondents
overwhelmingly believe that teaching skills should be the focus of PD with34.8% saying the focus should be fully on teaching skills and a further
62.0% saying the focus should be balanced between teaching skills andlanguage proficiency. Only three respondents wanted PD exclusively
directed toward language proficiency: two of these professors are
Japanese who feel somewhat confident in teaching in English, the otherhas two European L1 and feels confident.
With regards to program length, there was a marked preference for ashort intensive PD course (47.8%) as opposed to long-term, ongoingtraining (17.3%) and a full 19.5% directly stated that they would notparticipate in a PD course of any length. When asked what they would
like to actually do in a PD course, respondents expressed varying degrees
of interest in possible content, with two-thirds of respondents expressing
interest in learning about EMI research, but only half expressing interestin second-language acquisition research. Fewer than half (40.2%) were infavor of having their classes observed as part of a PD course. They would
like to be observed by either outside experts or more experienced
colleagues, but not by a supervisor or superior. One respondent (L1Japanese, Hums, SocSci) was very clear that they “wouldn’t be able totrust a boss to make an adequate assessment.” A similar number of
respondents (38.0%) were unsure if they wanted to be observed or not,and 21.7% were against observation.
In terms of specific elements that respondents would like to see included
in a PD course, a quarter of responses mentioned instructor English
proficiency. In addition to support for developing their own proficiency,
respondents pointed to a need for faculty members to understand more
about their students’ English proficiency. For some respondents, this77

included an understanding of second language acquisition theory and/or
the techniques for teaching second languages, however, this view was heldby only a small minority (n=3). Skills for dealing with cultural differencesamong students were also raised as possible content for PD courses (n=7).
In particular, respondents described the need to understand the different
communication styles and educational backgrounds of international
students. Eighteen respondents mentioned pedagogy, with many citing theimportance of general teaching skills and others specifically mentioning
active learning approaches such as student interaction and participation.
It was also noted that EMI teachers need to be aware of and account forcontextual differences between students’ learning in L1 and in EMI. The
need for EMI-related PD to be discipline-specific was also raised. Professor
E described the interdisciplinary communication issues that arose during
a PD event sponsored by their university:
They had someone from engineering and someone from, I don’t know, sociology,
and they would participate in these programs and compare their exercises, forexample, and give feedback to each other. But even in Japanese, they wouldn’t
understand each other. Yeah. In terms of the content. So that was a problem.

7．Discussion and Conclusions
This study investigated EMI-related PD at universities in Japan in orderto provide local depth to the multi-country findings of Macro et al. (2020).
Our findings reveal the experiences, attitudes and needs of faculty
members teaching in English and show how EMI in Japan is followinginternational trends, yet also they also highlight how EMI PD must be
locally situated if it is to gain effective faculty buy-in.
EMI-related PD opportunities are relatively available in Japan. Almost
20% of the professors in our study said that they had taken part in preservice training and nearly 46% reported some kind of in-service training.
This is somewhat higher than the 38.6% of the Macro et al. (2020) sample,
indicating some possible good news for the development of EMI in Japan.
However, a sizable number of our participants indicated that they were
not sure if they had participated in PD activities for EMI (9.8% for pre-78

Faculty Perspectives on Professional Development and Certification for EMI

service training, 5.4% for in-service training). One presumes that they knowwhether or not they took part in PD activities, so the uncertainty must be
in whether or not those activities were intended to specifically support EMI
teachers. Similar uncertainty arose in participants’ understanding of what apotential certification scheme for EMI teachers might entail. Definitions of
EMI and the competencies necessary to teach well in EMI contexts areunclear, even among those working in EMI programs.
Looking at the professors’ preferences for EMI-related training, our
respondents recognize the special skills that are needed for EMI teaching
and would like PD to focus on pedagogical issues. They also had a strong
preference for short-term intensive training over ongoing PD programs.
This is likely due to the weight that participating in PD events would
place on already overburdened professors. The time required for PD was
the most common concern cited by our respondents. Macaro et al. (2020)
suggested that this preference for short-term intensive PD represented adesire for a quick-fix, which they argue is an ineffective approach. However,
we argue that for our context, intensive programs may be an optimal
solution. The burden on professors’ time can be lightened while still offering
new pedagogical insights and an opportunity to create a community ofpractice and a network of support among fellow EMI professionals.
While our respondents were positive about the value of PD for EMI, we
found that certification for EMI professors is not well understood as a concept.
In contrast to Macro et al. (2020: 151) who claim that their respondents were“overwhelmingly” in favor of potential certification, our sample was, at best,moderately in favor, with less experienced faculty members being slightly
more positive about certification. As more universities in Japan are now
requiring newcomers to be willing to teach in English, certification could
prove useful to those beginning their careers or switching jobs. Respondents
in our sample expressed some concerns about implementing a certification
scheme, including the additional costs and time-burden it would incur.
Consistent with Oki’s (2019) observation that faculty buy-in actually reduced
when PD became mandatory, several participants worried about certification
becoming overly bureaucratized. The confusion over what constitutes EMI
training and certification that surfaced in our respondents’ comments makes79

it clear that these concerns cannot be effectively addressed unless thosecharged with designing certification establish shared understandings among
faculty members about PD aims and goals.
A positive finding of note is the diversity of our survey sample, with
40.2% of respondents reporting their L1 as Japanese, 31.5% English, and28.2% representing a total of 21 other first languages. This mirrors thediversity of the faculty body teaching in EMI programs, at least at theuniversities represented in our sample. While only 5.4% of all full- andpart-time faculty positions are held by international professors in Japan(MEXT 2016), in our experience, they are represented at a much higher
rate in EMI programs. International content-specialists are recruited forboth short-term and permanent positions, and existing language-teachingspecialists take on new roles in EMI programs (Kuwamura 2018).
The linguistic diversity of the sample was reflected in some interesting
points in our findings. First, Japanese faculty members were more likely
to have attended FD sessions for EMI teachers than their internationalcounterparts. Some international participants felt that such FD eventswere intended only for the Japanese faculty. This may be related to thecommonly expressed belief that FD for EMI focuses on languageproficiency issues (Bradford 2019). There may also be a structural reason
for this. As noted above, MEXT promotes and tracks participation of fulltime faculty members in FD activities; however, in many cases,
international faculty members working in EMI programs, especially thoseworking in programs supported by large-scale MEXT funding schemes,
are not full-time faculty. They are hired on term-limited contracts, or as
special invited lecturers (Kuwamura 2018), and as such, may not be
encouraged to attend FD events.
We also found that respondents’ L1 was a factor in their beliefs about
EMI teaching. Native English-speaking respondents were more likely thanJapanese or other L1 respondents to change how they teach in EMI
classes but were less likely to recognize a difference between teachingand presenting in English. We also noted that the English and other L1
groups were more confident about teaching in English than the Japanese
L1 group, with the Japanese group expressing anxiety about teaching80Faculty Perspectives on Professional Development and Certification for EMI

native English-speaking students and unfavorably comparing their own
teaching to native models. It could be that the English and other L1 groups
were hired to specifically teach in English whereas the Japanese L1
professors were not. Nevertheless, this raises troubling questions about
native speakerism and the perceived ownership of English in EMI
programs.
Having looked at all of this, we see implications for PD planners in Japan.
Some lessons from our findings are clear and straightforward: PD courses
for EMI should be short-term and intensive, and focused on pedagogy.
However, before designing course content, those implementing PD shouldlook carefully at the messaging surrounding their efforts. Despite thelargely positive stance towards PD for EMI, our study indicates that somefaculty members remain unclear as to how EMI training might differ fromgeneral language or pedagogical skills training, and some expressed
concern about the inclusivity of PD that appears to be directed towards
specific subsets of EMI professors. A shared understanding of aims andgoals based on a clear understanding of local contexts and needs is the
key to faculty buy-in and effective PD.

Notes1）The faculty body teaching EMI courses in Japan is diverse and includes
professors, associate professors, lecturers, visiting faculty, adjunct faculty,
instructors, and many other possible positions. For the purposes of thispaper, professor refers to anyone teaching academic courses at auniversity or college, regardless of academic rank or tenure status.
2) The survey instrument is available from the authors on request.

81

References
Airey, J., 2011, “Talking about Teaching in English: Swedish University
Lecturers’ Experiences of Changing Teaching Language”, Ibérica, 22: 35-54.
American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2020, The Scope of the “Humanities”
for Purposes of the Humanities Indicators. (https://www.amacad.org/
humanities-indicators/scope-of-humanities, 2021.10.1)
Beaumont, B., 2020, “Identifying In-Service Support for Lecturers Working in
English Medium Instruction Contexts”, M. Carrió-Pastor, ed., Internationalising Learning in Higher Education: The Challenges of English as a Mediumof Instruction, 83-110, Springer.
Belarga, O., 2019, “Global Faculty Development Training Series: Implications
for the Teaching Faculty and the University’s Internationalization Program”,

Kansai University Journal of Higher Education, 10: 169-72. (https://www.kan
sai-u.ac.jp/ctl/activity/pdf/kiyo̲no.10̲pdf/kiyo̲no.10̲17.pdf, 2021.10.1)
Bradford, A., 2015, “Internationalization Policy at the Genba: Exploring the
Implementation of Social Science English-taught Undergraduate Degree
Programs in Three Japanese Universities”, (Doctoral dissertation, The
George Washington University), PQDT Open. (https://pqdtopen.proquest.
com/doc/1668131342.html?FMT=ABS, 2021.10.1)
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): 339-56. [DOI: 10.1177/1028315316647165]
Bradford, A., 2019, “It’s Not All about English! The Problem of Language
Foregrounding in English-medium Programmes in Japan”, Journal ofMultilingual and Multicultural Development, 40(8): 707-20. [DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2018.1551402]
Brown, H., 2016, “Current Trends in English-medium Instruction at
Universities in Japan”, OnCue Journal, 10(1): 3-20.
Brown, H. and Bradford, A., 2017, “EMI, CLIL, & CBI: Differing Approaches
and Goals”, P. Clements, A. Krause, and H. Brown, eds., Transformation in
Language Education, 328-34, JALT. (https://jalt-publications.org/files/pdfarticle/jalt2016-pcp-042.pdf, 2021.10.1)
Costa, F., 2015, “English Medium Instruction (EMI) Teacher Training Courses
in Europe”, Ricognizioni, 4(2): 127-36. [DOI: 10.13135/2384-8987/1102]
Chen, H., Han, J., and Wright, D., 2020, “An Investigation of Lecturers’ Teaching82

Faculty Perspectives on Professional Development and Certification for EMI

through English Medium of Instruction: A Case of Higher Education in China”,
Sustainability 2020, 12(10: 4046): 1-16. [DOI: 10.3390 /su12104046]
Cho, D. W., 2012, “English-medium Instruction in the University Context of
Korea:

Tradeoff

betweenTeaching

Outcomes

andMedia-imitated

University Ranking”, The Journal of Asia TEFL, 9(4): 135-63.
Dafouz, E., 2018, “English-medium Instruction and Teacher Education
Programmes in Higher Education: Ideological Forces and Imagined
Identities at Work”, International Journal of Bilingual Education and

Bilingualism, 21(5): 540-52. [DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2018.1487926]
Dafouz, E. and Smit, U., 2020, ROAD-MAPPING English Medium Education in
the Internationalised University, Palgrave Macmillan.
Devlin, M. and Samarawickrema, G., 2010, “The Criteria of Effective Teachingin a Changing Higher Education Context”, Higher Education Research &Development, 29(2): 111-24. [DOI: 10.1080/07294360903244398]
Dimova, S. and King, J., 2018, “Assessing English-medium Instruction Lecturer
Language Proﬁciency across Disciplines”, TESOL Quarterly, 52(3): 634-56.
[DOI: 10.1002/tesq.454]
Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., and Sierra, J. M., 2013, “Globalisation, Internationalisation, Multilingualism and Linguistic Strains in Higher Education”,
Studies in Higher Education, 38(9): 1407-21. [DOI: 10.1080/ 03075079.2011.
642349]European Commission, 2017, Communication from the commission to theEuropean Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a renewed EU agenda forhighereducation.

(SWD(2017)

164

final).

Brussels.

(https://eur-lex.

europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52017DC0247, 2021.10.1)
Fahnert, B., 2015, “Teaching Matters: Academic Professional Development in
the Early 21st Century”, FEMS microbiology letters, 362(20: fnv156): 1-6.
(https://academic.oup.com/femsle/article/362/20/fnv156/543204, 2021.10.1)
Fink, L. D., 2013, “The Current Status of Faculty Development Internationally”,

International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 7(2): 19. [DOI: 10.20429/ijsotl.2013.070204]
Fortanet-Gómez, I., 2020, “The Dimensions of EMI in the International
Classroom: Training Teachers for the Future University”, M. M. SánchezPérez, ed., Teacher Training for English-medium Instruction in Higher
Education, 1-20, IGI Global.
Greer, D. A., Cathcart, A., and Neale, L., 2016, “Helping Doctoral Students

83Teach: Transitioning to Early Career Academia through Cognitive
Apprenticeship”, Higher Education Research and Development, 35(4): 71226. [DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2015.1137873]
Haines, K., 2017, “Purposeful Interaction and the Professional Development ofContent Teachers: Observations of Small-group Teaching and Learning in
the International Classroom”, J. Valcke and R. Wilkinson, eds., Integrating

Content and Language in Higher Education: Perspectives on Professional
Practice, 39-58, Peter Lang.
Horie, M., 2018, “Faculty Training for Non-native Speakers at Japanese
Universities: Effective English-medium Teaching for a Culturally Diverse
Student Population”, A. Bradford and H. Brown, eds., English-medium

Instruction in Japanese Higher Education: Policy, Challenges and Outcomes,
207-21, Multilingual Matters.
Inamorato dos Santos, A., Gaušas, S., MackevicƼiūteǙ , R., JotautyteǙ , A., and Martinaitis,
Ž., 2019, Innovating Professional Development in Higher Education: Case Studies,
EUR 29669 EN, Publications Office of the European Union. (https://publi
cations.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC115595, 2021.10.1)
Jiang, L., Zhang, L. J., and May, S., 2019, “Implementing English-medium
Instruction (EMI) in China: Teachers’ Practices and Perceptions, and Students’
Learning Motivation and Needs”, International Journal of Bilingual Education

and Bilingualism, 22(2): 107-19. [DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2016.12 31166]
Kurita, K., 2020, “Daigaku Insei no tameno Kyouiku Kenshu no Genjyo to Kadai(Current State and Issues of Programs in University Teaching for Graduate
Students)”, The Annual Report of Educational Psychology in Japan, 59: 191208. [DOI: 10.5926/arepj.59.191]
Kuteeva, M. and Airey, J., 2014, “Disciplinary Differences in the Use of English
in Higher Education: Reflections on Recent Language Policy Developments”,

Higher Education, 67(5): 533-49. [DOI: 10.1007/s10734-013-9660-6]
Kuwamura, A., 2018, “The Future of English-medium Instruction in Japan”, A.
Bradford and H. Brown, eds., English-medium Instruction in Japanese Higher
Education: Policy, Challenges and Outcomes, 265-82, Multilingual Matters.
Kuwamura, A., 2019. English-medium instruction and the expanding role oflanguage educators.In P. Clements, A. Krause, & P. Bennett (Eds.), Diversity
and inclusion. Tokyo: JALT. (https://jalt-publications.org/sites/default/
files/

pdf-article/jalt2018-pcp-003.pdf)

Kvale, S., 2008. Doing interviews. London: SAGE Publications.
Lasagabaster, D., 2018, “Fostering Team Teaching: Mapping out a Research

84Faculty Perspectives on Professional Development and Certification for EMI

Agenda for English-medium Instruction at University Level”, Language
Teaching, 51(3): 400-16. [DOI: 10.1017/S0261444818000113]
Land, R. and Gordon, G., 2015, Teaching Excellence Initiatives: Modalities andOperational Factors, The Higher Education Academy. (https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/teaching-excellence-initiatives-modalit
ies-and-operational-factors, 2021.10.1)
Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J., and Dearden, J., 2018, “A Systematic
Review of English Medium Instruction in Higher Education”, Language

Teaching, 51(1):36-76. [DOI:10.1017/S0261444817000350]
Macaro, E., Akincioglu, M., and Han, S., 2020, “English Medium Instruction inHigher Education: Teacher Perspectives on Professional Development andCertification, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 30(1): 144-57. [DOI:
10.1111/ijal.12272]
Macaro, E. and Tian, L., 2020, “Developing EMI Teachers through a
Collaborative Research Model”, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural

Development, 1-16. [DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2020.1862131]
McCarty, S., 2020, “Global Faculty Development in Practice”, APACALL

Newsletter, 24: 5-8, The Asia-Pacific Association for Computer-Assisted
Language Learning. (http://www.apacall.org/news/APACALL̲Newsletter
24.pdf, 2021.10.1)
MEXT., 2016, MEXT: Statistical abstract 2016 edition. (https://www.
mext.go.jp/en/publication/statistics/title02/detail02/1379369.htm, 2021.10.1)
MEXT., 2020, Heisei 30-nendo no Daigaku ni okeru Kyouiku Naiyo-tou no

Kaikaku Joukyo ni tsuite (Gaiyō) (Reform Status of Education Content atUniversities in 2018 (summary)), MEXT. (https://www.mext.go.jp/content/
20201005-mxt̲daigakuc03-000010276̲1.pdf, 2021.10.1)
Nakai, T., 2008, Daigaku Kyoin no tameno Kyoshitsu Eigo Hyogen (Faculty

Guide to Classroom English), ALC.
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): 553-63.
[DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2018.1491945]Ödalen, J., Brommesson, D., Erlingsson, G.Ó., Schaffer, J. K., and Fogelgren, M.,
2019, “Teaching University Teachers to Become Better Teachers: The
Effects of Pedagogical Training Courses at Six Swedish Universities”,

Higher

Education

Research&

Development,

38(2):

339-53.

[DOI:

10.1080/07294360.2018.1512955]

85

Oki, H., 2019, “Nihon no FD no Genjo to Kadai (Current Status and Issues of
FD in Japan)”, Nagoya Higher Education Research, 19: 17-32.
Ota, H. and Horiuchi, K., 2018, “How Accessible are English-taught Programs?
Exploring International Admissions Procedures”, A. Bradford and H. Brown,eds., English-medium Instruction in Japanese Higher Education: Policy,
Challenges and Outcomes, 108-29, Multilingual Matters.
Richards, J. and Pun, J., 2021, “A Typology of English-medium Instruction”,

RELC Journal. Advance online publication. [DOI: 10.1177/0033688220968584]
Rakhshandehroo, M., 2020, Faculty Development Support and EMI in Japan(Conference presentation), JALT2020: 46th Annual International Conferenceon Language Teaching and Learning & Educational Materials Exhibition,
November 16-23, Online.
Rothman, R. J., 2020, “Faculty Development in Japan: MEXT Expectations andthe Reality at Internationalizing Universities”, The Journal of Kanda
University of International Studies, 32: 301-21.
Sánchez-García, D. and Dafouz, E., 2020, “Equipping Educational Developers
for Inclusive International Programmes in Higher Education”, M. M.
Sánchez-Pérez, ed., Teacher Training for English-Medium Instruction inHigher Education, 21-40, IGI Global.
Sánchez-Pérez, M. M., ed., 2020, Teacher Training for English-Medium
Instruction in Higher Education, IGI Global.
Sato, M., 2013, Unpacking Faculty Development in Japan: An Ethnography ofFaculty Development Practitioners, (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Oxford), Oxford University Research Archive. (https://www.ora.ox.ac.uk/,
2021.10.1)
Yamamoto, B. A. and Bysouth, D., eds., 2015, A Handbook for Enhancing

English-medium Program Quality and Practice: Towards Effective Teaching,
Learning and Assessment, Osaka University Press.
Acknowledgements
This work was partially supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number
20H01698.

86名古屋高等教育研究 第 22 号 （2022）

日本における英語による授業のための能力開発プログラム（PD）と能力認定に関する教員の見解

ハワード・ブラウン*
アンネット・ブラッドフォード**



＜要

旨＞

日本の高等教育において英語による授業（EMI）がより重要な役割を果たすようになるにつれ、教員および学生の第二言語を使って効果
的に授業を行うための必要なサポートが不足しているという懸念が高まっている。本稿では、Macaro らが 2020 年に実施した EMI 関連のプロフェッショナル・ディベロップメント（PD）に関する多国間調
査をローカライズし、日本の市立、公立、国立大学の EMI プログラムを対象として、日本で EMI に従事する教員（n = 92）の経験、ニーズ、期待へのアンケートとインタビュー調査を実施した。回答者は、
日本語を母国語とする人（40.2％）、英語を母国語とする人（31.5％）、
その他の言語を母国語とする人（28.3％）とほぼ同率で、回答者の大半（73.6％）は人文・社会科学系の分野で教えており、ほとんど（83.7％）が EMI で 5 年以上の経験を持っていた。
結果によると、英語で教えることは、日本語で授業を行う能力や、学術言語としての英語能力とは、異なる能力が必要であると教員は認識している。しかし、その能力を身につけるための PD 活動に参加したことのある者は全体の半数以下であった。回答者は、短期的で、言語能力ではなく教える技術に焦点を当てたものであれば、EMI 関連の PDに前向きであるが、自分の能力を検証するシステムについては懐疑的である。回答者のニーズと期待は、EMI での教育経験や母国語、学問によっても異なる。これらの結果から、EMI 教員を支援するためのプ
ログラムは、教員のニーズや関心、そして大学が置かれた状況およびプ
ログラムの内容を明確に理解した上で開発すべきであると結論づける。

*新潟県立大学国際地域学部・教授**テンプル大学ジャパンキャンパス現代アジア研究機構・研究員

87