Feature Article

Current Trends in English-medium

Instruction at Universities in Japan
Howard Brown
University of Niigata Prefecture
English-medium Instruction (EMI) of academic subjects is expanding rapidly at universities
in Japan without a clear nationwide picture of the context. This study paints such a
picture with findings from a nationwide survey of 258 universities with undergraduate
EMI programs (response rate 46%, n=118). The survey results cover the scope, scale andorganization of EMI programs as well as showing which fields are most often taught inEnglish. Results also reveal some challenges to EMI implementation relating to both faculty
and students.
日本の大学において、専門課程の英語による教育（EMI）が急速に広がりつつあるが、全国的な現状の輪郭は明確に描かれていない。本研究は、EMIによる学位プ
ログラムを提供する日本の大学258校を対象に実施した全国的調査によって明らかになった現状を報告する(回答率46%,n=118)。調査結果は、英語による教育が最も多く提供されている分野を示すだけでなく、EMIプログラムの範囲、規模、組織についても取り上げる。また、教員および学生双方のEMI導入に対する課題を明らかにする。

English-medium instruction (EMI) of content classes is a growing trend in Japan.
As of 2005, 176 universities reported offering some EMI courses and by 2013,
the number had jumped to 262 (MEXT, 2015). This represents a 50% increasein less than a decade, and currently, over one-third of Japanese universities offer
EMI (Table 1).
This rapid development has paralleled the “fast-moving worldwide shift
from English being taught as a foreign language (EFL) to English being the
medium of instruction (EMI) for academic subjects” (Dearden, 2014, p. 2). This
shift is reflected in the definition of EMI in Japan, where EMI refers to courses
conducted entirely in English, excluding those whose primary aim is language
3

BrownTable 1
Number of Universities Offering Undergraduate EMI programs
Universities (total)

2005

2009

2013

National (86)

42

47

59

Public (83)

16

24

29

Private (601)

118

123

174

Total (770)

176

194

262

education (MEXT, 2015). The growth of EMI in Japan appears to have been
largely uncoordinated, and there has not yet been a clear picture of how and why
EMI is developing nationwide. There is no standard image of normal in JapaneseEMI. This study is an attempt to paint just such a picture, based on a 2014 surveyof 258 universities known to offer undergraduate EMI courses.

Methods

To gather information about EMI in Japan, data was collected for this study
through a written survey1 developed based on trends arising in a pilot studyof eight Japanese EMI programs (Brown & Iyobe, 2014) and Wächter &Maiworm’s (2008) overview of English-taught programs in Europe. This survey
sample included 258 universities which self-reported to MEXT that they offeredundergraduate EMI courses as of 2011. Of those 258 universities, only 29 were
known to offer one or more full-degree English-taught programs (ETPs), in
which students can earn all credits necessary for graduation in English. At most
universities, a limited number of EMI courses were offered as a part of, or acomplement to, a mainly Japanese-medium program.
The survey was sent to the general affairs desk at the universities with abilingual cover letter asking the staff to forward the request for information
to the most appropriate faculty member or administrator. The survey was first
sent in the spring of 2014 with a follow-up in the fall of that year for universities
which had not responded to the first round. From the full sample of 258
universities, 118 responses were collected for a response rate of 46%. A total of4Current Trends in English-medium Instruction, OnCUE Journal, 10(1), pages 3-20

31% of responses came from national universities, 11% from public universities
and 58% from private universities. Considering the overall breakdown of EMI
programs in Japan (Table 1), national universities are somewhat overrepresented
in the responses, and private universities are somewhat underrepresented.
Responses were received from roughly equal numbers of administrators andfaculty members.

Results and Discussion

Key findings from the survey results are reported and discussed below. While
the results are intended to be descriptive rather than analytical, some interesting
differences in approaches to EMI emerged. The size of university student bodyseemed to influence some, but not all, results. The type of university, publicly
or privately funded, also seemed to impact some responses. It should be notedthat during data analysis, no significant differences were seen between national
and local public universities. In addition, local public universities represented avery limited number of responses. As such, in the discussion below, national andpublic universities are grouped together as publicly-funded universities to contrast
them with private universities.
Scope and Scale of EMI Programs
Results indicate that EMI programs in Japan tend to be small and peripheral.
Only 6% of respondents reported that all or most students at their university take
Table 2
Approximate Size of EMI Programs
Students in EMI courses

Percentage of responses

All

3%

Most

3%

About 50%

2%

About 25%

12%

About 10%21%

5% or fewer

47%

5

BrownEMI classes. However, at nearly two thirds of universities, EMI classes serve 10%
or less of the student body (Table 2).
This small program size is consistent with earlier studies (Brown & Iyobe,2014) which showed that many programs served as few as 2%-3% of students.
This is also consistent with Nakatsugawa’s (2014) finding that the government
is not encouraging widespread EMI but rather is aiming to serve approximately
10% of the nationwide university cohort.
It seems that large universities (more than 10,000 students) and mediumsized universities (2,500 to 10,000 students) have relatively small EMI programs
more often than small universities (fewer than 2,500 students) do (Table 3). In
fact, 57% of large universities and 61% of medium-sized universities reported
that EMI serves fewer than 5% of students, while only 35% of small universities
reported this program size. In general, there seems to be more variety in program
size among smaller universities. These differences are considered significant
based on a chi square test result showing p = 0.0304.
In addition to being small, EMI programs tend not to be integrated into
the students’ mainstream program. While some universities offer coordinatedprograms, either within a given department or serving the needs of several
departments, nearly half of responding universities reported that EMI was ad
hoc (Table 4).
Table 3Comparison of EMI Program Sizes Based on Size of University
Percentage of responses
Students in EMI courses

Small

MediumLargeLess than 5%

35%

61%

57%

Approximately 10%

20%

20%

32%

Approximately 25%

20%

18%

0%

Approximately 50%

10%

0%

0%

Most

5%

0%

0%

All

10%

0%

6%

6

Current Trends in English-medium Instruction, OnCUE Journal, 10(1), pages 3-20
Table 4
EMI Program Structure
Program Type

Description

Responses

Ad hocA few classes across the curriculum. Not a significant part of thecurriculum.

44%

Semistructured

Positioned within a given department. Several classes related to
students’ major taught in English. May have some structure but
not formally recognized as a program.

28%

Integrated

Positioned within a given department as a formalized program.
May have entry benchmarks and completion requirements. May
have a certificate of completion / diploma.

15%

+α

Serving students from several departments. EMI credits offeredin addition to major. Possibly parallel to program for incoming
exchange students. May have a formal program name and acertificate of completion / diploma.

12%

Chapple (2014) notes this ad hoc delivery saying that EMI is being
implemented without concern for the quality of the classes or integrity of thecurriculum. In addition, Takagi (2015) found that EMI courses in Japan areoften based on what the existing faculty of a given university can teach in English,
rather than on how such courses fit together to form a coherent curriculum.
Despite the current tendency for small program size and ad hoc delivery,
there is a trend towards larger, more organized programs (Table 5). A quarterof universities have recently increased EMI courses, and 16% have formalized
previously ad hoc programs. More than 75% of responding universities are
currently expanding or planning to expand EMI offerings (Table 6).
Table 5
Overview of Recent Changes in EMI Programs
Recent Changes

Responses

Increase number of classes

24%

Change to more formalized program

16%

Increase student numbers

8%7

BrownTable 6
Expansion Plans among Established EMI Programs
Planned Changes

Responses

No expansion plans

23%

Currently expanding

42%

Expansion in the near future36%

It is interesting to note that this expansion is largely seen in publicly funded
universities. Comparisons using a chi square test shows a significant difference(p = 0.00428) between university types. Nearly all (96%) publicly-funded
universities are currently expanding or planning to expand EMI programs, whilemore than one third of private universities have no expansion plans. It seems thatwhile more private universities are now adopting EMI for the first time (Table1), more publicly-funded universities are expanding previously implemented
programs.
The Student Body and Faculty of EMI Programs
Rationales for EMI are tied to domestic students. Looking at the mean scores
given for possible rationales on a five-point Likert scale (Table 7), we see that
EMI appears to be linked directly to domestic students’ language proficiency andpost-graduation workplace needs.
Also, while full-degree ETPs tend to attract international students, nondegree EMI programs mainly serve domestic students (Table 8). EMI students
are predominately domestic at nearly half of responding universities and entirely
domestic at a further 12%. In this sense, although Japan’s relatively few ETPs
attract and serve international students, the more common non-degree EMI
programs seem to be part of Japan’s internationalization at-home efforts.
Among universities reporting all or predominately international students
in EMI programs, approximately 60% report mainly full-time international
students in EMI, while 40% report mainly short-term, visiting students. Thoseshort-term students are studying in Japan for as little as one semester and may beattending only EMI courses while on campus. The full-time students, in contrast,
8

Current Trends in English-medium Instruction, OnCUE Journal, 10(1), pages 3-20
Table 7
Possible Rationales for Implementing EMI (Five-point Likert Scale Results)
Rationale

Mean

Mode

Attract foreign students

3.1

5

Attract domestic students

3.4

4

Prepare domestic students for the demands of international markets

4.4

5

Improve the profile of the university

3.2

3

Improve the English language skills of domestic students

4.4

5

Respond to the government push for internationalization of
education

3.2

3

Maintain competitiveness with rival universities

2.9

3

Improve the position of the university on ranking lists

2.6

3

Offer content which is better taught in English

3.4

3

Note. Responses on a Likert scale where 1= not an important factor, 5= a very important factor.
Table 8
Breakdown of Students in EMI
Responses
Students

Full-degree ETPs

Non-degree EMI

All international

45%

9%

Predominately international

22%

9%

A balance of international and domestic

12%

16%

Predominately domestic

22%

54%

All domestic

0%

12%

are generally enrolled in a mainstream Japanese-medium program and take EMI
courses as a part of their degree, similar to domestic students.
The faculty members in EMI programs are also predominately domestic. In
9BrownTable 9
Breakdown of Faculty Teaching in EMI
Responses
Faculty

Full-degree
ETPs

Non-degree
EMI

All international, native speakers of English

0%1%

All international from a variety of language backgrounds

0%0%Primarily international, native speakers of English

12%

29%

Primarily international from a variety of language backgrounds

0%5%Balance of international and Japanese

22%

24%

Primarily Japanese

45%

37%

All Japanese

22%

2%

ETPs two thirds of responding universities have predominately or all Japanesefaculty (Table 9). For non-degree EMI programs, the figures are more balanced,
but Japanese faculty appear to be in the majority.
These results reflect two ways in which EMI has developed in Japan. Earlier
findings (Brown & Iyobe, 2014) show that some EMI programs in Japan are
positioned within language-learning departments. Content-based language classes
develop over time and shift their focus away from language learning to becomecontent classes taught by language-teaching faculty, mainly international (Sekiya,
2005; Carty & Susser, 2015). Other programs, (Honma, 2003; Aloiau, 2008), aredeveloped and taught by content specialists, largely Japanese. At some universities,
both kinds of programs are developing in parallel in different departments.
Two interesting findings emerged from a comparison of universities’ faculty
breakdown. First, small universities appear more likely to have a balance ofJapanese and international faculty in EMI. In fact, 64% of small universities
reported a balanced EMI faculty, compared with only 18% of medium-sized
and 12% of large universities (chi square test result, p = 0.0178). Also, private
universities seem to have more international faculty in EMI; 43% of private
10Current Trends in English-medium Instruction, OnCUE Journal, 10(1), pages 3-20

universities reported predominantly international EMI faculty, compared toonly 19% of publicly funded universities (chi square test result, p = 0.0174).
There are concerns about EMI faculty in the literature. Chapple (2014)
argues that there is little acknowledgement of the special demands of EMI.
Classes are taught by those willing to do it, rather than those who have thenecessary expertise and sensitivity. Ishikawa (2009) is concerned with the longterm buy-in from faculty. Amid falling budgets and increasing workloads, EMI
represents an unrealistic burden. And Yonezawa, Akiba, and Hirouchi (2009)
report concerns that faculty understanding of EMI and internationalization is
far behind the ambitious goals set by the government.
In addition, it seems that few Japanese faculty members have sufficientlanguage skills for success in EMI (IHEP, 2009). Fewer than 3% of positions
are held by foreign faculty, many of whom are language teachers, and only
approximately 10% of Japanese faculty members have international graduatelevel credentials (Ishikawa, 2009). There are, however, signs of change. The
government has called on universities to double the number of international
faculty positions, and the current Top Global University funding scheme
includes targets for hiring international faculty.
Fields Taught in EMI Programs
Table 10 shows the breakdown of fields offered by responding universities’
EMI programs. In non-degree programs, classes in the humanities are themost common, followed by social sciences and natural sciences. In fact, 70% of
responding universities offered EMI classes in the humanities. However, in ETPs,
technical fields were most common, followed by natural sciences.
An interesting point is that the fields offered in private and publicly funded
universities seem to differ. At private universities more than 75% of EMI
programs are offered in the humanities and social sciences. These two fields
dominate at publicly funded universities as well, but there is much more variety
in the fields available (Table 11). This difference is considered significant basedon a chi square test result, p = 0.00572.

11

BrownTable 10
Breakdown of Fields Taught in EMI
Responses
FieldsFull-degree ETPs

Non-degree EMI

Technical / professional fields

100%

16%

Education

22%

20%

Humanities

44%

70%

Social Sciences

33%

46%

Natural Sciences

55%

30%

Medicine, dentistry, nursing, etc.

0%

11%

Table 11
Breakdown of Fields in EMI (Publicly-Funded vs. Private Universities)
Responses
FieldsPublicly-funded

PrivateTechnical / professional

10%

7%

Education

14%

5%

Humanities

25%

50%

Social Sciences

21%

28%

Natural Sciences

21%

8%

Medicine, dentistry, nursing, etc.

9%2%Issues with the Implementation of EMI Programs
Survey findings indicate a mismatch between universities’ reported priorities andtheir actual implementation of EMI in two key areas: faculty and students.
Faculty. When asked about factors for successful implementation of EMI,
respondents focused on the role of faculty. Faculty’s qualifications, their support
for and understanding of EMI, communication among them, and faculty12Current Trends in English-medium Instruction, OnCUE Journal, 10(1), pages 3-20

development efforts for them were all rated highly on a five-point Likert scale(Table 12).
In addition, lack of understanding of and interest in EMI were significant
challenges at one fifth of universities (Table 13). However, these werepredominantly publicly funded. This issue was reported by 28% of publicly
funded universities but only 4% of private universities.
Despite the key role faculty members play in successful EMI, nearly two
thirds of universities did not report faculty development (FD) efforts for their
EMI programs (Table 14). This is somewhat more pronounced at private
universities, where 67% offer no FD for EMI faculty, compared to 46% of
publicly funded universities (chi square test result, p = 0.00161).
This mismatch is perhaps not surprising given the position of faculty
development in general in Japan. FD has been mandatory since 2007; however,Table 12
Factors for Success in EMI Programs (Five-point Likert Scale Results)
FactorMean

Mode

Qualified faculty members

4.7

5

Support from university administrators

3.9

4

Support of leading faculty members

4.2

5Faculty-wide understanding of EMI

4.3

5

Effective Faculty Development efforts

4.2

5

Strict entry requirements for students

3.1

3Demand from students

3.7

4

Effective language support for students

4.1

4Effective marketing

3.1

3

Strong communication between participating faculty members

4.0

4Clearly structured program

4.0

4Note. Responses on a Likert scale where 1= not an important factor, 5= a very important factor.

13

BrownTable 13
Issues Facing EMI Programs
Issue

Responses

Insufficient language ability of international students

10%

Insufficient language ability of domestic students

51%

Active opposition from faculty members

9%

Lack of understanding from faculty members

21%

Active opposition from administrators

5%

Lack of understanding from administrators

9%

Insufficient language ability of faculty13%

Lack of interest in teaching EMI among faculty

18%

Difficulties with teaching ability of faculty

10%High dropout rate in EMI classes

2%

Table 14
Faculty Development for EMI Programs
Type of Faculty Development

Responses

No FD for EMI faculty

58%

Workshops and seminars by outside experts

16%

In-house workshops and seminars

14%

Faculty attend outside workshops and seminars

9%

FD previously provided but no longer

3%

Fink (2013) argues that this is not yet a meaningful effort. At many universities
FD is perfunctory, and the faculty engagement level is low.
There are, however, some early indications that FD specifically for EMI isdeveloping. The British Council now offers two training programs for EMI
faculty in Japan, one designed to support non-native faculty in their language
14

Current Trends in English-medium Instruction, OnCUE Journal, 10(1), pages 3-20

proficiency and the other aiming to improve teaching skills. However, these
programs are not yet widely implemented. Other isolated FD initiatives are also
taking place; however, it appears they are, for now, limited to universities thatare, in a sense, already doing EMI well.
Students. In addition to the needs of the faculty, there is also a mismatch
between universities’ reported priorities and actual implementation connectedto the students in EMI. Results indicate a widespread concern about thelanguage proficiency of domestic students. Language support for students was
identified as a key to success (Table 11), and low language proficiency among
domestic students was a concern at more than half of universities (Table 12). Thisis consistent with Tsuneyoshi (2005) and Ishikura (2015) who both report issues
with domestic students, especially those in non-degree EMI programs, keeping
up with classes. Given that domestic students are the bulk of participants in EMI
programs, this would seem to be a priority. However, in many programs, little isbeing done to address this situation.
As Table 15 shows, external language proficiency tests (TOEFL, IELTS,etc.) are part of entry requirements for many ETPs in Japan. However, languageproficiency benchmarks are much less common in non-degree programs. The
lack of entry benchmarks may indicate that students’ language proficiency ismeant to be supported during the EMI program. However, as seen in Table 16,
there is little or no coordination between EMI and language-teaching faculty innearly half of responding universities, implying that such support is not part ofthe program.
In addition, targeted English for Academic Purposes (EAP) classes are seenat only 8% of responding universities. More than 40% of EMI programs rely on
general English classes not associated with the program, and nearly half have norequired language training at all (Table 17).
Taken together, these faculty and student issues with implementation seemto confirm Chapple’s (2014) worry that EMI is being implemented superficiallyin Japan. This echoes Le Ha’s (2013) argument that the government sees EMI
rather simplistically, assuming that implementing EMI will automaticallyinternationalize the campus, attract international students, and give domestic
15

BrownTable 15
Language Proficiency Benchmarks for Entrance to EMI Programs
Responses
BenchmarkFull-degree ETPs

Non-degree EMI

None in place

25%

67%

Based on an external test

70%

22%

Based on an in-house test

3%

11%

Required pre-session / preparation courses

3%0%Table 16
Communication between EMI and Language-teaching Faculty
Type of communication between EMI faculty and language teachers

Responses

Little or none49%

Occasional communication

3%

Regular, informal communication

16%

Regular, coordinated communication

9%

Some (or all) of the EMI faculty are language teachers

24%

Table 17
Language Training for Students in EMI Programs
Available Language Training

Responses

Nothing special

49%

General English classes

43%

English for Academic Purposes (EAP) classes

8%

students an international experience. The fact that the program is in English is
the point; the actual quality of the program itself or the expertise, preparedness,and experience of the faculty are not considered. Hamid, Nguyen, and Baldauf
16Current Trends in English-medium Instruction, OnCUE Journal, 10(1), pages 3-20

(2013) explain that many governments see EMI as “a relatively simple andcheap solution to both the problems of internationalization and upgraded local
language proficiency” (p. 10).

Conclusion

This study began with the need to paint a picture of normal EMI in Japan. While
it is important to remember that EMI is implemented in a variety of models, it
can now be said that a typical undergraduate EMI program is a peripheral, ad
hoc program in the humanities or social sciences taught by Japanese faculty who
are not specifically trained as EMI teachers, for a limited number of domestic
students who may lack the necessary language proficiency and language support
to take full advantage of the program.
This is not a very positive description of EMI. However, it is also possible tosay that EMI in Japan is developing towards larger, more structured programs.
New programs are being implemented, including full-degree ETPs, appealing
to both domestic and international students. In addition, existing programs are
expanding and becoming a more central part of the curriculum. There is goodreason to be optimistic about future developments in EMI in Japan.
However, there are still some weaknesses in EMI programs which need tobe addressed. In particular, more attention needs to be paid to the students’language proficiency. Clear benchmarks and proficiency testing upon entry are
not widely seen. Programs also lack coordination between EMI and the students’language classes. In addition, there is a need for more effective ways to recruit,evaluate, incentivize and train faculty members involved in EMI.

Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by JSPS Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research(C), Project Number 25370638.

Notes

1. Copies of the full survey are available from the author upon request.
17

BrownReferences

Aloiau, E. (2008). The design of the international program English curriculum:
Faculty of Economics, Soka University. Soka Keizaironshu [Soka Journal of
Economics], 37(1), 107-127.
Brown, H., & Iyobe, B. (2014). The growth of English-medium instructionin Japan. In N. Sonda & A. Krause (Eds.), JALT2013 Conference. Tokyo,
Japan: JALT.
Carty, P., and Susser, B. (2015). Global education and classroom teaching: From
CBI to EMI. In P. Clements, A. Krause, and H. Brown (Eds.), JALT2014
Conference Proceedings. Tokyo, Japan: JALT.
Chapple, J. (2014). Finally feasible or fresh façade? Analyzing theinternationalization plans of Japanese universities. International Journal of
Research Studies in Education, 3(4), 1-14. doi: 10.5861/ijrse.2014.794
Dearden, J. (2014). English as a medium of instruction: A growing global
phenomenon. London, England: The British Council.
Fink, L. D. (2013). The current status of faculty development internationally.
International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 7(2), 1-9.
Hamid, M. O., Nguyen, H. T. M., & Baldauf, R. B. (2013). Medium of
instruction in Asia: Context, processes and outcomes. Current Issues in
Language Planning, 14(1), 1-15. doi: 10.1080/14664208.2013.792130
Honma, M. (2003). Keizaigakubu intanashonaru puroguram ni tsuite[Regarding the economic department international program] In I.
Takahashi (Ed.), Keizaigaku wa omoshiroi [Economics is interesting], (pp.
135-150). Tokyo, Japan: Soka University Keizai Gakkai.
IHEP. (2009). Impact of college rankings on institutional decision making: Fourcountry case studies. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education
Policy.
Ishikawa, M. (2009). University rankings, global models, and emerging
hegemony: Critical analysis from Japan. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 13(2), 159-173. doi: 10.1177/1028315308330853
Ishikura, Y. (2015). Realizing internationalization at home through Englishmedium courses at a Japanese university: Strategies to maximize student
18

Current Trends in English-medium Instruction, OnCUE Journal, 10(1), pages 3-20

learning. Higher Learning Research Communications, 5(1), 11-28.
Le Ha, P. (2013). Issues surrounding English, the internationalisation of higher
education and national cultural identity in Asia: A focus on Japan. Critical
Studies in Education, 54(2), 160-175.
MEXT. (2015). Heisei 25 nendo no daigaku ni okeru kyouiku naiyoutou no
kaikaku joukyou ni tsuite [About the state of affairs regarding university
reforms to education in 2013]. Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/daigaku/04052801/1361916.htm
Nakatsugawa, M. (2014, August). The recent shift toward “Gurobaru” onlanguage policy in Japan: A critical analysis of the recent language policy
developments. Paper presented at the The JACET 53rd (2014) International
Convention, Hiroshima, Japan.
Sekiya, Y. (2005). Content-based English teaching in an EFL setting: A caseof a Japanese university. In S. S. R. Jourdenais (Ed.), Content, tasks andprojects in the language classroom: 2004 conference proceedings (pp. 23-34).
Monterey, CA: Monterey Institute of International Studies.
Takagi, H. (2015). The internationalization of curricula: The complexity anddiversity of meaning in and beyond Japanese universities. Innovations in
Education and Teaching International, 52(4), 349-359.
Tsuneyoshi, R. (2005). Internationalization strategies in Japan: The dilemmas
and possibilities of study abroad programs using English. Journal of Researchin International Education, 4, 65-86. doi: 10.1177/1475240905050291
Wächter, B., & Maiworm, F. (2008). English-taught programmes in European
higher education: The picture in 2007. Bonn, Germany: Lemmens.
Yonezawa, A., Akiba, H., & Hirouchi, D. (2009). Japanese university leaders’perceptions of internationalization: The role of government in review andsupport. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(2), 125-142. doi:
10.1177/1028315308330847

19

BrownAuthor bio

Howard Brown is an associate professor with the University of Niigata Prefecture.
He coordinates the Academic-Communicative English Program and sits on thesteering committee for English-medium Studies. His current research interests relate
to the effective implementation of English-medium instruction programs in higher
education. brown@unii.ac.jp
Received: December 4, 2015
Accepted: April 14, 201620