This document summarizes a study on the language gardening practices and orientations of English-medium instruction teachers in Turkish higher education. The study examined how content teachers view their students' written and spoken English use, and whether their expectations differ from language teachers. Findings show content teachers prefer standard English in academic writing but are more tolerant of variation in speaking as long as meaning is clear. Language teachers expect stronger conformity to standard English. Overall, the study provides insight into language policy beliefs and practices in Turkish universities that use English as the primary language of instruction.

1. Language Gardening Practices of
English-Medium Instruction Teachers in
Higher Education
Ali Karakaş
Ph.D Candidate in Applied Linguistics
10th Newcastle upon Tyne Postgraduate Conference in Linguistics
20 March 2015

2. Overview

3. Background
English-medium instruction (EMI) gathered great
momentum in educational institutions.
•Dramatic increase in the number of EMI programs/universities - both at
undergraduate and postgraduate level (Ammon & McConnell, 2002; Dearden,
2014; Wächter & Maiworm, 2008).
•Increasing number of international students and teaching staff in non-
Anglophone countries
In Turkey: Internationalization strategies
•Membership to the Bologna process
•Big switch to EMI: around 20% of the programs (Arik & Arik, 2014)
•Huge increase in the number of international students and staff

4. Rationale
So far, focus on issues unrelated to language:
– Cognitive pedagogical aspect
– Socio-political aspect
– Educational language planning aspects (Selvi, 2014)
– Largely discussed & researched
Currently, focus on language-related issues:
– Linguistic aspects
language policy & practice matters (Turner & Robson, 2008).
– Little research in non-Anglophone settings (e.g. Björkman, 2011,
2013; Kuteeva, 2014; Saarinen & Nikula, 2013), particularly in Turkey
(Jenkins, 2014).
Medium of
Instruction (MI)
debate
The notion of
‘E’ (English)

5. Why English language policies?
Rationale
‘’…determine criteria for language correctness, oblige people to adopt certain
ways of speaking and writing, create definitions about language and especially
determine the priority of certain languages in society and how these languages
should be used, taught and learned’’
(Shohamy, 2006, p. 77)
‘’[EMI] programs [are] being introduced with scant underpinning of
research findings into the relationships between language and content”
or of language ideology
(Wilkinson & Zegers, 2006, p. 12)
Why EMI programs?

6. How do Turkish EMI universities and their teaching staff
orient to students’ language use?
•How do content teachers orient to their students’ written and spoken English in
respect of language practices?
•Are there any differences in content and language teachers’ expectations of
their students’ spoken and written English? If so, what are the underlying
reasons?
Research questions

7. Language gardening: why a
‘gardening’ image?
“… an image that nicely caters for the arsenal of
prescriptive texts (dictionaries, style guides, usage
books, grammars) that give a standard language
like English much of its muscle” (Burridge, 2008, p.
3).
Language gardener
•anyone who has concerns about language and its
use
•one who “who simply enjoy[s] looking things up in
dictionaries and usage books” (p. 2)
•one who attempts to modify the language
practices of others
Conceptual orientations

8. Critical Language Policy (LP)
Definitions
“an officially mandated set of rules for language use and form within a
nation-state” (Spolsky, 2012, p. 3).
“language policy (LP) is the primary mechanism for organizing,
managing and manipulating language behaviours as it consists of
decisions made about languages and their uses in society” (Shohamy,
2006, p. 45)
is concerned with choices, as noted by Walter and Benson (2012), but
they also comprise the beliefs and values shaping the choices made
(Spolsky, 2005).
Conceptual orientations

9. Language policy framework (Spolsky, 2004)
- a set of beliefs as regards
language and language use
“the formulation and proclamation
of an explicit plan or policy,
usually but not necessarily written
in a formal document, about
language use” (Spolsky, 2004, p.
14).
what individuals actually do while using the language (e.g.
their pattern of linguistic choices, formality, following the
agreed rules or not and etc.).

10. … LP [language policy] should not be limited to the examination of declared
and official statements. Rather, the real policy is executed through a variety of
mechanisms that determine the de facto practices. There is a need, therefore,
to examine the use of mechanisms and study their consequences and effects
on de facto LP, as it is through these mechanisms that the de facto language
policy is created and manifested” (Shohamy, 2006, p. 54)
Language policy mechanisms
a.Rules and regulations
b.Language educational policies
c.Language tests
d.Language in public space
e.Ideologies, myths, propaganda and coercion
Extended language policy (Shohamy, 2006)

11. The Study
AnkaraIstanbul

12. The Study
• Online & hard copy
questionnaire on perceptions of
English/EMI and experiences
(40 questions, roughly 15 mins)
• 423 responses (351 Ss/72 Ls)
• 14 lecturers & 20 students
• Content analysis and
discourse analysis
• Two focus groups: one with Ss
from Bilkent, the other with Ss
from Bogazici
• Each university's website data
and accessible policy
documents

13. Lecturers’ orientations to students’ writing
Findings
No N S. agree Agree Disagree S. disagree Mean SD
f % f % f % f % x̄ s
S3 72 8 11.1 30 41.7 27 37.5 7.82 9.7 2.54
S3. Students' academic writing should conform to either American or
British English in their exam papers and assignments.

14. Conformity to standard English desirable
A: Interviewer
L1: Male, Bilkent University, International Relations

15. Conformity to standard English desirable
A: Interviewer
S5: Male, Metu, Mechanical Engineering

16. Variation from StE acceptable: Focus on content & meaning
A: Interviewer
L5: Female, Bilkent, History

17. Lecturers’ orientations to students’ speaking
Findings
S4. Communicative success is more important than speaking correctly
in oral contexts (e.g. presentations, discussions).
No N S. agree Agree Disagree S. disagree Mean SD
f % f % f % f % x̄ s
S4 72 7 9.7 43 59.7 20 27.8 2 2.8 2.76 .66

18. Flexible approach: Communication & intelligibility important than
conformity to native English but using StE desirable
A: Interviewer
S1: Female, Bilkent, History

19. Non-conforming position: Maintaining non-native accents acceptable
A: Interviewer
L8: Female, Bilkent, History

20. Conformity to standard English desirable
A: Interviewer
S1: Female, Bilkent Metu, International Relations

21. Language teachers: conformity to StE important
A: Interviewer
S2: Male, Metu, Mechanical Engineering

22. Language teachers: conformity to StE important
A: Interviewer
S15: Male, Bogazici, International Relations

23. Conclusions
Content teachers are more inclined to intervene students’ writing
•Ideal for academic teaching
•Non-native English usage not appropriate for academic writing
•Conformity to a standard desirable & important
More tolerant with respect to speaking
•Focus on content & meaning
•Equity issues & acceptance of non-native usage
•Creative language use acceptable
Language teachers are harsher compared to content teachers
•Standard English is best in educational contexts & for academic writing

25. References
• Ammon, U., & McConnell, G. (2002). English as an academic language in Europe: A survey of its use in
teaching. Bern: Peter Lang.
• Arik, B. T., & Arik, E. (2014). The role and status of English in Turkish higher education. English Today, 30(4),
5–10. doi:10.1017/S0266078414000339
• Björkman, B. (2011). English as a lingua franca in higher education: Implications for EAP. Ibérica, 22, 79–100.
• Burridge, K. (2004). Blooming English: Observations on the roots, cultivation and hybrids of the English
language. Cambridge University Press.
• Dearden, J. (2014). English as a medium of instruction – a growing global phenomenon: phase 1 Interim report
(pp. 1–8). Oxford: British Council.
• Jenkins, J. (2014). English as a Lingua Franca in the international university. The politics of academic English
language policy. Abingdon, GB: Routledge.
• Kuteeva, M. (2014). The parallel language use of Swedish and English: the question of “nativeness” in university
policies and practices. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35(4), 332–344.
doi:10.1080/01434632.2013.874432.
• Saarinen, T. & Nikula, T. (2013). Implicit Policy, Invisible Language: Policies and Practices of International
Degree Programs in Finnish Higher Education. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster, & J. M. Sierra (Eds.). English-
medium instruction at universities: Global Challenges. (pp. 131-150). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
• Selvi, A. (2014). The medium-of-instruction debate in Turkey: oscillating between national ideas and bilingual
ideals. Current Issues in Language Planning, 1–20. Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14664208.2014.898357
• Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. London: Routledge.
• Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy: Key topics in sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Turner, Y., & Robson, S. (2008). Internationalizing the university. London: Continuum Intl. Pub. Group.
• Wachter, B. & Maiworm, F. (2008). English-taught programmes in European higher education: The picture in
2007. Lemmens: ACA Papers on Cooperation in Education