Iberica 13

Ibérica 41 (2021): 13-38

ISSN: 1139-7241 / e-ISSN: 2340-2784

Abstract

Framed against the backdrop of internationalization of higher education, this

paper argues for the need to cross disciplinary boundaries and build stronger

bridges between the domains of English-medium education and ESP/EAP,

particularly at a time when English-taught programmes seem to challenge the

status quo of ESP professionals. To this end, this article will first briefly describe

the objects of study – ESP/EAP and EME – and map out the relationship

between the two. Secondly, a description of what are called the ‘diverging zones’

between these two educational approaches will be developed. In this section,

major differences in curricular goals, in the way English is conceptualised, in

students’ and teachers’ profiles, as well as in the pedagogical practices developed

will be examined. Thirdly, the section entitled ‘converging zones’ will look into

some of the contact points of EME and ESP theories and practices so that

possible gaps are bridged. Finally, the last part of the paper, titled ‘emerging

zones’ will provide suggestions for joint collaborative research and the

development of teacher education programmes that truly respond to the current

needs of EME and ESP/EAP professionals and students as well.

Keywords: English-medium education, ESP, EAP, internationalisation,

higher education.

Resumen

Cruzando las fronteras disciplinarias: La enseñanza en inglés (EME) se
encuentra con el inglés para fines específicos (ESP)

Enmarcado en el contexto de la internacionalización de la enseñanza superior,

este artículo defiende la necesidad de cruzar las fronteras disciplinarias y tender

Crossing disciplinary boundaries:
English-medium education (EME) meets
English for Specific Purposes (ESP)

Emma Dafouz

Universidad Complutense de Madrid

edafouz@ucm.es

Ibérica 41 (2021): 13-38

EMMA DAFouz

puentes más sólidos entre los ámbitos de la enseñanza de contenidos en inglés y
el inglés para fines específicos/académicos (IFE/IFA), especialmente en un
momento en que la enseñanza en inglés parece desafiar el statu quo de los
profesionales de IFE/IFA. Para ello, este artículo describe primero brevemente
los objetos de estudio - ESP/EAP y EME - y examina la relación entre ambos.
En segundo lugar, el trabajo describe lo que se denominan las “zonas de
divergencia” entre estos dos enfoques educativos. En esta sección, se abordan las
diferencias en los objetivos curriculares, en la forma de conceptualizar el inglés,
en los perfiles de estudiantes y de profesores, así como en las prácticas
pedagógicas desarrolladas. En tercer lugar, en la sección titulada “zonas de
convergencia” se profundiza en los puntos de contacto de las teorías y prácticas
sobre las que se sustentan EME y ESP con el fin de salvar las posibles
diferencias. Finalmente, la última parte del artículo, titulada “zonas emergentes”,
ofrece sugerencias para la investigación conjunta y el desarrollo de programas de
formación del profesorado que respondan realmente a las necesidades actuales
tanto de los profesionales de EME y ESP/EAP como de sus estudiantes.

Palabras clave: Inglés como lengua de educación, inglés para fines
específicos, inglés para fines académicos, internacionalización, educación
superior.

1. Introduction: Setting the scene

In a world that is more globally connected than ever the presence of English
has increasingly grown, to the point that it is now essential for
communication in commerce, science, technology and academia. In the case
of academia, the last two decades have also witnessed a widespread use of
English, not only for research and publishing, but also for educational
purposes, particularly in higher education institutions (Dafouz & Smit, 2020;
Doiz et al., 2013; Hultgren et al., 2015; Macaro et al., 2019). This use of
English as language of instruction is broadly connected to the
internationalisation of educational settings, wherein English has been given
roles that contribute to employment opportunities, international mobility, as
well as the development of global skills and disciplinary knowledge (Beelen
& Wit, 2012).

A wide number of empirical studies researching this gradual shift to English-
medium education (or EME) in tertiary settings have been conducted in the
last years. Such studies have focused on a vast range of topics that span from
examining policies and the motivations for the introduction of EME (e.g.
Altinyelken et al., 2014; Bonancina-Pugh, 2012), to describing its

implications at the classroom level, or exploring participant attitudes (e.g.
lecturers’, students’ or managers’) and their beliefs and perceptions of this
phenomenon (Aguilar, 2017; Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2020; Dafouz et al., 2016;
Kuteeva et al., 2020; llurda et al., 2014). By and large, it can be said that the
diverse research findings have adopted either a positive tone, underlining the
opportunities of EME for teaching and learning in present day higher
education, or, in contrast, a discouraging tone, emphasising the loss of
quality in education as a result, amongst other factors, of teachers’ and
learners’ poor (academic) English language skills.

Arguing against this binary and somewhat simplistic interpretation, this
paper aims to add depth to current understandings of EME by focusing
precisely on the affordances (and challenges) that this educational change
can bring to English for Specific Purposes (ESP) professionals and learners;
and, vice versa, to reflect on the opportunities and challenges that ESP can
bring to EME lecturers and participants. As pointed out in nesi (2020, p. ix)
‘modern ESP … learners increasingly need to be able to interact within and
between a range of cultures; they will also belong to diverse discourse
communities with differing demands for standardisation and accuracy, and
differing communicative purposes’. At the same time, in EME there is now
a growing recognition that for these programmes to reach their full potential,
explicit awareness of academic language and disciplinary literacies needs to
be factored into subject-learning curricula (Dafouz, 2018; Meyer et al., 2018)

Adopting the two-fold standpoint of a researcher involved in EME for over
two decades as well as of a policy advisor responsible for curricular
internationalisation at my university, I will argue here for the need to cross
disciplinary boundaries and build stronger bridges between the EME and
ESP domains, particularly at a time when English-taught programmes seem
to ‘compete with ESP courses and challenge the status quo of ESP teachers’
(Bocanegra-Valle & Basturkmen, 2019, p. 131). Thus, this article is primarily
geared toward the interests of ESP participants who are (or may be in the
future) in EME settings as well as of those who would like to investigate
further in these areas. Additionally, this study calls upon the growing
number of EME professionals that acknowledge the importance of
language(s) in their educational practices. In doing so, I will touch upon
several key questions that are deemed relevant for ESP and EME
practitioners, namely what are the needs in EME that ESP professionals can
help to address? What are the gaps in ESP that EME professionals can aim
to fill? How can EME and ESP teaching and learning be supportive of one

CroSSIng DISCIPlInAry BounDArIES: EnglISH-MEDIuM EDuCATIon (EME) MEETS EnglISH For SPECIFIC PurPoSES (ESP)

Ibérica 41 (2021): 13-38 15

another? And finally, which research avenues can this alignment open up for
researchers?

The paper will first briefly describe the objects of study – ESP and EME –
and map out the relationship between the two. Secondly, a description of
what I have called ‘diverging zones’ between these two educational
approaches will be developed. In this part, major differences in curricular
goals, views of English, students’ and teachers’ profiles, as well as the
pedagogical practices developed in these ESP and EME contexts will be
displayed. Thirdly, the section entitled ‘converging zones’ will look into some
of the contact points of EME and ESP theories and practices so that
possible gaps are bridged and, finally, the last section will focus on ‘emerging
zones’ where further research is suggested to coordinate efforts and expand
investigative initiatives across fields.

2. Defining EME and ESP

As most readers of this journal are lSP/lAP professionals, providing
lengthy definitions of what ESP is and what it covers is most likely not
necessary. nevertheless, the purpose of this section is to demarcate the
objectives of these two areas, so that hasty assumptions of what ESP and
EME respectively cover are not automatically made. I will sketch thus the
areas of influence of both so that the zones of convergence and divergence
examined later can be traced more easily.

With an initial focus on the term ESP, the general aim has been to develop
discipline-related teaching practices tuned to (young-adult or adult) learners
whose main objective is learning English for specific educational (Evans &
green, 2007) or professional purposes (Bhatia, 2004). In this vein, the ability
to function competently in a range of genres (very often written but not only)
is a main concern for these learners as it can determine their access not only
to career opportunities but also to positive identities and even life choices
(Hyland, 2006). The classic work by Dudley-Evans and St John (1998)
describes ESP as traditionally divided into two main areas: English for
occupational Purposes (EoP) and English for Academic Purposes (EAP). At
the university level, students who are expected to enter a professional academic
community in a research-oriented university, for instance, would generally
require EAP practice. The branch of EAP focuses specifically on the academic
study skills usually needed in higher education settings (e.g. reading skills, note-

EMMA DAFouz

Ibérica 41 (2021): 13-3816

taking, essay writing, specialised terminology, etc). on the other hand, students
who are expected to join the workforce right after graduation would typically
need EoP practice, in the form of very specific communicative language that
will enable them to use English in their professions (e.g. English for nursing,
English for Accountants, English for Shopfloor Staff, etc). Broadly, by
considering students’ needs after they have left the university, the choice of
focus on EAP or EoP can be appropriately made.

The label EME, or the more widely used to date, English-medium
instruction (EMI) (Ekoç, 2020; Macaro, 2018; Pecorari & Malmström, 2018),
is generally connected to the growing internationalisation of education
across the world. Typically, EMI refers ‘to the teaching and learning of an
academic subject (i.e. economic, chemistry, aeronautical engineering, etc.)
using English as the language of instruction, and usually without an explicit
focus on language learning or specific language aims’ (Dafouz, 2018, p.170).
Furthermore, while not explicit in the acronym, EMI is understood to be
mainly implemented at the tertiary level.

In order to delineate the differences between labels, Airey (2016) uses a
continuum where language-oriented approaches are contrasted with content-
oriented ones, as figure 1 below displays:

At the left end of the continuum, we find EAP courses with mainly
language learning outcomes aiming to provide students with the academic
reading and writing skills they need to complete their studies. Here,
academic language is viewed as a generic set of skills that can be acquired
more or less independently of the content area where they will be used. In
the centre, we find Content and language Integrated learning (or ClIl).
ClIl, also referred to in some settings as Bilingual Education in other

CroSSIng DISCIPlInAry BounDArIES: EnglISH-MEDIuM EDuCATIon (EME) MEETS EnglISH For SPECIFIC PurPoSES (ESP)

Ibérica 41 (2021): 13-38 17

Figure 1. The language/content continuum (Airey, 2016, p. 73).

1.e gurFi anguage/lThe

p.2016,,eyrAi(nuumiontcentontcanguage/

.73)

settings (see lorenzo, 2017), an educational approach developed
principally in primary and secondary school settings, where the final goal
is to develop both language proficiency and content knowledge in a
balanced manner (Coyle et al., 2010). At the right end of the continuum,
under EMI, language is viewed mainly as a tool for teaching and,
consequently, not expected to affect the content taught to any great degree
(Airey, 2016).

Within the realm of EMI, other related labels have also been used, such as
English-medium programmes (Schmidt-unterberger, 2018), English-taught
programmes (Wächter & Maiworm, 2014) and Integrating Content and
language in Higher Education (or IClHE) (Wilkinson & zegers, 2007).
Similar to ClIl, the acronym IClHE addresses the integration of both
content and language but specifically in higher education. First coined at the
university of Maastricht in 2004, IClHE is usually reserved for tertiary-level
programmes that have explicit and integrated content and language learning
aims (Valcke & Wilkinson, 2017). However, it could be said that, since its
inception, the IClHE focus has been mostly used in research circles which
emphasise the importance of addressing language as a key component in the
construction of knowledge, and look into classroom discourse as well ‘as an
integral part of teaching and learning’ (Smit & Dafouz, 2012, p. 2), even if
not all programmes include an explicit language focus.

Finally, a recently developed label known as EMEMuS, which stands for
English-medium education in multilingual university settings, has been
coined to portray more accurately the particular features of this
educational setting (Dafouz & Smit, 2016, 2020). To begin with, in
EMEMuS the term ‘education’, which embraces both teaching and
learning, is used against the unidirectional ‘instruction’ and includes also
reference to research in university circles. Moreover, EMEMuS explicitly
describes the multilingual sociolinguistic setting that characterises present
day societies and HEIs more specifically. In European EME settings, for
instance, 55% of the student population is on average not local but comes
from various settings and thus brings other linguistic repertoires to the
classroom (Wächter & Maiworm, 2014). In these multilingual scenarios,
while English is a central element, its role as a lingua franca (or ElF)
amongst speakers of different l1s contributes to re-examining the
seemingly uniform role of English from a more dynamic, multi-
dimensional and communicative light (Iino & Murata, 2016). Finally,
university settings are focalised in EMEMuS, revealing concrete features

EMMA DAFouz

Ibérica 41 (2021): 13-3818

not shared by previous levels of education, such as the voluntary nature of

university studies, the diversity of the student population and the

cognitively mature profile of students (Smit & Dafouz, 2012).

Figure 2 below displays the positioning of EMEMuS (or EME for short) in

relation to the ESP/EAP labels, on the one hand, and IClHE and EMI, on

the other. given that EMEMuS is intrinsically multi-dimensional and

therefore encompasses more than the language and content dimensions

displayed below, I will place it on a slightly higher level to index that it is

more inclusive than the labels IClHE and EMI (for a more detailed account

of EMEMuS and its dimensions see Dafouz & Smit, 2016, pp. 399–402,

2020).

As visualised in Figure 2, and taking into account the distance between the

labels ESP/EAP and EMEMuS along the continuum, one would

instinctively assume that no relationship can be established. nevertheless, as

stated earlier, the aim of this paper is first to demarcate zones of divergence

in order to subsequently address the converging zones that ESP and EME

share and, ultimately, conclude with the emerging zones, described as

windows of opportunity for research, professional development and

collaboration across these two fields.

3. English-medium education and ESP: Diverging

zones

While binary distinctions can often lead to simplifying realities that are

intrinsically complex, the purpose of this section is to point out the most

noticeable differences between EME and ESP, so that potential zones of

convergence and collaboration can be discussed later on in section 4.

CroSSIng DISCIPlInAry BounDArIES: EnglISH-MEDIuM EDuCATIon (EME) MEETS EnglISH For SPECIFIC PurPoSES (ESP)

Ibérica 41 (2021): 13-38 19

Figure 2. EMEMUS in the language and content continuum.

gFi e ur 2. EMEM

uunitnoctnetnocdnaegaugnalehtniUS EM

mu .

3.1. The construct of ‘English’ in EME and ESP settings

The two acronyms examined throughout this paper – ESP and EME – share
one letter: the ‘E’ for English. However, while usually treated as a uniform
reality, English cannot be envisaged as a single monolithic construct but
rather as a multifaceted one whereby highly diverse functional roles co-exist
and are foregrounded depending on the context of use (Dafouz & Smit,
2017). over the last decade, sociolinguistic research has questioned
monolingual norms and conceptualisations of languages as static entities
(e.g. Canagarajah, 2011; garcía & Wei, 2014) and advocated for a more fluid
understanding of language(s). This understanding, in turn, responds more
accurately to how individuals use the language(s) at their disposal and how
they resort to distinct linguistic repertoires when needed (Singh & lu, 2020).
Drawing on this sociolinguistic paradigm, the English that ESP and EME
practitioners deal with is substantially different. Thus, according to
Basturkmen (2005, p. 5), in ESP or, at least ‘[i]n the early years of ESP, the
objective was … imparting linguistic knowledge with ESP functioning to
reveal the facts about the linguistic features of subject-specific language.’
over time, this approach evolved into viewing English as the language used
in discourse communities with specific communicative purposes and distinct
language patterns grouped under the key linguistic notion of ‘genre’ (Swales,
2004).

In contrast, in EME the focus is largely on disciplinary content learning
and, as a result, English is viewed as the ‘tool’ to achieve this (Dafouz &
Smit, 2017, p. 287). English is an instrument accepted by all ‘which does
not belong to any specific community and needs to be learnt in educational
settings by everyone, including native speakers’ (Kuteeva et al., 2020, p.
288). Such an understanding, however, is rather an idealisation which
overlooks the diversity and variability of English language uses and users
in the real world and in HEIs more particularly. In EME programmes
outside the Anglophone world, English has multiple roles that vary
depending on the contextual variables. Thus, in addition to the EFl role,
it can also be used as a lingua franca (ElF) by l2 speakers of English who
employ it as a contact language amongst individuals with other linguistic
backgrounds (Jenkins, 2014). The notion of lingua franca has extended so
widely in some disciplinary and professional contexts, such as Business
Studies, that there is now a special acronym known as BElF (Business
English as a lingua Franca) to refer specifically to this scenario (Komori-
glatz, 2018). Business settings are generally known to be inherently

EMMA DAFouz

Ibérica 41 (2021): 13-3820

multilingual, including functional and professional codes, and thus
constructed by their speakers in accordance with their individual
repertoires and the specific needs and context of their interaction. under
this light, BElF is seen as ‘flexible, hybrid and variable, with all
participants in the interaction having the right to contribute to, construct
and use the shared repertoire as is necessary in order to achieve their
interactional goals’ (Komori-glatz, 2018, p. 55). In other words, BElF
students are true users of the language.

The conceptualisations described above, both for ESP and EME, form part
of language ideologies, which are socially situated and connected to
questions of identity and power (Bhattacharya, 2017; Creese & Martin,
2003). Such ideologies have clear repercussions on the teaching and learning
practices employed, on the group dynamics or on the assessment criteria
followed. Therefore, the aforementioned English standard variety that most
EME lecturers believe to be using in their classrooms is rather a reduced
version of the multifaceted roles that English plays in EME classrooms
where societal, institutional, pedagogical and communicational functions
come into play in complex and dynamic ways (Dafouz & Smit, 2017). Thus,
a lecturer’s preference, for instance, for one English variety over another (e.g.
American vs British English) reflects language ideologies that usually align
(consciously or not) with certain pedagogical practices and materials. In this
respect, while native varieties of English have been reported to be valued by
EME students and lecturers alike, such preferences do not enjoy the same
status across all settings. Thus, it would be interesting to conduct further
research into why such preferences arise in certain sites and not in others
(Kuteeva, 2020).

3.2. Participant profiles: Teachers and students in EME and ESP

contexts

When comparing the participant profiles of both teachers and students in
these settings, notable differences emerge. By and large, the ESP teacher is
traditionally an English language expert who holds a degree or has been
trained in the English as a Foreign language (EFl) paradigm and afterwards
receives training in more disciplinary-focused language teaching (or ESP).
Bocanegra-Valle and Basturkmen (2019, p. 128) argue that while ESP and
EAP teaching have expanded substantially, ‘little is known about what kinds
of knowledge, skills and abilities these ESP teachers need and how they are
acquired and developed’. In his reflection on how EAP has changed over the

CroSSIng DISCIPlInAry BounDArIES: EnglISH-MEDIuM EDuCATIon (EME) MEETS EnglISH For SPECIFIC PurPoSES (ESP)

Ibérica 41 (2021): 13-38 21

last 20 years, Hyland (2012, p. 33) notes that ESP/EAP professionals were
at first responsible for identifying key features of genres and translating
them into effective teaching materials, and that while they did not have to ‘be
experts in disciplinary content … they did need to have some awareness and
feel for a particular vocational area’.

In turn, the EME lecturer is most typically a content expert, usually with
(advanced) English language proficiency, sometimes as a result of
international academic experiences, such as completing studies or a PhD
abroad. The level of English that these professionals are required to certify
in order to work in EME programmes is known to vary significantly across
contexts. Thus, while some HEIs demand a C1 level of general English
(Common European Framework of reference, CEFr) to lecture, others
accept a B2 level – a decision which very often depends on the human
resources at their disposal or on the university or government policies in
place. In any case, what needs to be highlighted when talking about English
language proficiency and EME is that even lecturers with a high competence
in English usually lack the pedagogical expertise to realise that learning
complex content in a foreign language is not only a matter of changing
linguistic codes (Dafouz & Smit, 2020; Pavón Vázquez & ramos, 2018). In
other words, most EME professionals do not have the capacity to make their
procedural knowledge available to students and thus find disciplinary
language so natural that it is ‘difficult to analyze it or dissect it’ (llinares et
al., 2012, p. 111) in the way that novice students would need them to do. It
is precisely the development of such disciplinary language knowledge and
practices, which typically belong to the EAP/ESP realm, that constitutes an
area where EME lecturers would strongly benefit from guided assistance and
collaboration (see section 5.3 for further elaboration of this point).

As for the student profile, ESP and EME students share some features but
clearly differ in others. Broadly, in ESP we typically find a homogenous
group of local and national students who usually share an l1 and enrol in
these courses (which are more often compulsory than not) as part of the
degree requirements. It is not uncommon, however, at least in the case of
Spain, that students are allowed to validate the ESP/EAP credits if they
provide a formal certificate of their English proficiency. By doing this, HEIs
avoid large classrooms with highly mixed-ability groups. Moreover, these
ESP courses generally view the student population as language ‘learners’,
that is, as non-native English speakers who are deemed perennially deficient
and always in search of native-like proficiency. I will revisit this point in

EMMA DAFouz

Ibérica 41 (2021): 13-3822

section 5 when emerging zones for EME and ESP collaboration are
developed.

In the EME classroom a more heterogenous student body is typically found,
where home but also international students come together. Enrolment in
EME programmes, unlike in ESP ones, is for the most part voluntary, thus
the reasons for joining them vary widely, ranging from a need to have a
differentiated curriculum, the pursuit of international experiences, higher
employability opportunities, to English language development in settings
where English proficiency is traditionally lower (e.g. Ackerley et al., 2017). In
contrast to the view of ESP, students in EME are often envisaged as ‘users’,
in the sense that they employ the language freely with other speakers of
English from a vast variety of linguacultural backgrounds, as noted when
referring to the case of BElF earlier. Furthermore, EME participants focus
mainly on developing meaningful communicative exchanges rather than on
language accuracy. In other words, EME students switch from the ‘language-
learning mode’ to the ‘application mode’ (Ke & Cahyani, 2014).

3.3. Pedagogical practices in EME and ESP

As mentioned above, closely related to the construct of English and the
teacher and student profiles, we find the pedagogical practices developed in
ESP and EME contexts respectively. In an ESP scenario where the teaching
objective is the development of subject-disciplinary language and skills,
language-learning methodologies are clearly followed. Traditionally, ESP was
largely textual in its approach, and, consequently, focused mainly on
vocabulary building and the development of student product outcomes (i.e.
essay writing, case reports, oral presentations). However, current ESP
teaching practices (Kırkgöz & Dikilita, 2018; Terauchi et al., 2020) seem to
be gradually moving onto social participation paradigms where issues of
identity and leaners’ experiences outside the classroom can be seen as an
opportunity for collaboration with EME lecturers, as 5.3. below will develop
further.

EME, instead, focusses largely on developing content-knowledge and thus a
transmission mode of education often predominates in these settings as a
legacy of teacher-centred methodologies (in the l1). These teacher-centred
strategies conceive knowledge ‘as being transmitted from expert teacher to
inexpert learner, and the teacher’s task is to ‘get it across’’ (Biggs, 1999, p.
61). The focus, ultimately, is on what the teacher does. In this scenario, EME

CroSSIng DISCIPlInAry BounDArIES: EnglISH-MEDIuM EDuCATIon (EME) MEETS EnglISH For SPECIFIC PurPoSES (ESP)

Ibérica 41 (2021): 13-38 23

lecturers usually lack the necessary pedagogical knowledge to face the
teaching of complex concepts in another language. Students, on the other
hand, are expected to have acquired the necessary language skills to complete
the EME course prior to entry and, consequently, subject-specific language
is often demoted to a remedial activity carried out outside the standard
curriculum. In some Spanish universities the situation for EAP/ESP
programmes is even more critical, as some have been removed from the
EME official curriculum on the assumption that formal English language
instruction is no longer needed as students will pick up language incidentally
(Arnó-Macià & Mancho-Barés, 2015; Breeze & Dafouz, 2017; Fortanet-
gómez, 2013). given the importance of this issue, section 5 will revisit the
topic when addressing possible zones of convergence.

regarding materials, the wealth of textbooks and resources typically
developed for the ESP/EAP fields (from business to tourism, engineering,
law, etc,) is notable. These texts were designed drawing on student needs and
chiefly used corpus linguistics and genre approaches (Swales, 2004). In
contrast, the first EME programmes often lacked tailor-made materials and
relied heavily on ad hoc adoptions of books written for English-language
speakers in Anglophone settings (Banegas & Busleimán, 2021). Moreover,
such EME materials often covered disciplinary subjects using examples
culturally removed from the students’ immediate context and scaffolding
was hardly developed to attend the language needs of the l2 users. In this
respect, some research suggests that a misalignment between the students’
actual learning needs and a lack of proper textbooks and teaching resources
may have compromised initially some EME achievements in, for instance,
student writing or exam responses (Dafouz, 2020).

Finally, assessment is another area where differences clearly emerge between
ESP and EME contexts. As a result of the language-oriented vs content-
oriented foci adopted, language is the target in an ESP setting and thus the
focus is principally on students’ accuracy and/or fluency. In EME, by
contrast, the emphasis on content usually prevents language from being
assessed, at least formally (and officially). nevertheless, many lecturers admit
to downgrading student work when language errors are too numerous or
flagrant, although such a criterion is often not included explicitly in the
course syllabus (Abedi et al., 2004; Dafouz, 2020; Dafouz et al., 2014; Kao
& Tsou, 2017). given the unclear focus on assessment in many EME
settings, it seems that collaborative research in this area would be very
welcome.

EMMA DAFouz

Ibérica 41 (2021): 13-3824

Having indexed some of the most noticeable differences, or what I called

‘diverging zones’ between EME and ESP, I would like now to offer a

summary table for the sake of clarity:

4. EME and ESP: Converging zones

This section addresses the converging zones or points of contact that EME

and ESP teaching and learning somewhat share. It examines as well how

some of these contact points are currently being tried out and paves the way

for section 5 where more concrete suggestions for future collaboration in

research and teacher professional development programmes will be

addressed.

CroSSIng DISCIPlInAry BounDArIES: EnglISH-MEDIuM EDuCATIon (EME) MEETS EnglISH For SPECIFIC PurPoSES (ESP)

Ibérica 41 (2021): 13-38 25

ESP EME

Curricular
goals

Disciplinary-language learning Disciplinary-content learning

Teacher profile Language expert with formal training in
English Language Teaching (native or non-
native)

Content expert with usually no formal
training in ELT (native and non-native)

Roles of
English

English viewed as specific set of skills and
disciplinary language (ESP/EAP)

English as a means of instruction (a tool),
English as a Lingua Franca (ELF)

Student profile Fairly homogenous: local and national
Student as language ‘learner’

Heterogenous: local, national, and
international
Student as language ‘user’

Pedagogical
knowledge

EFL pedagogy
Student-centred

Content-knowledge
pedagogy/transmission mode
Teacher-centred

Assessment Language-focused
Focus on language accuracy and fluency

Content-focused
Focus on disciplinary knowledge (often
declarative)

Teaching
formats

Text-based combined with EFL
communicative approaches

Mostly lecture-based

Materials ESP/EAP materials designed for the EFL
(L2 learner)

Content materials usually designed for the
English-speaking learner or
adapted/translated from non-English (L1)
sources

Curricular
goals

Disciplinary-language learning Disciplinary-content learning

Table 1. Diverging zones between ESP and EME teaching and learning contexts.

programmes will be addressed.

4.1. Constructivist theories of (language) learning in EME and ESP

reflecting a socio-constructivist view of education, the new literacies

approach (Street, 1999) viewed ESP and EAP as moving beyond the

teaching and learning of academic and disciplinary skills and proposed a

view of such skills as social practices. This socio-constructivist position

recognises the importance of language in the building of knowledge and

of disciplinary identity and shows a greater respect for students’ subject

knowledge, interests and perceptions (Hyland, 2012). In this view, the

teacher, as language expert, is engaged in the co-building of disciplinary

content with the student, who is the content-expert-to-be. Similarly, in the

EME milieu, the content teacher can be also seen to move gradually

beyond the transmission model described above and aim at co-

constructing disciplinary knowledge with students by making the

classroom more interactive and student-centred. Moreover, in some EME

settings students are sometimes found to display higher oral interpersonal

skills in English than their lecturers, while the former are stronger in

academic language proficiency as a result of researching and publishing in

English. Thus, the different strengths that both sets of participants bring

to the classroom can be looked upon as complementary rather than

threatening and as a way forward in developing constructivist theories of

learning. In this vein, empirical research on EME in European higher

education has suggested that course design can be facilitated by promoting

student-centred learning, wherein students take more responsibility for

what and how to learn (Wilkinson, 2013). These suggestions will be

touched upon again in section 5.

4.2. Developing Disciplinary Literacies in ESP and EME settings

The sociolinguistic turn in language education, mentioned in 3.1, shifted the

focus from a skill-based view of disciplinary learning to envisaging literacies

as social practices. According to this paradigm, in becoming socialised into

their respective disciplines, students learn both how to communicate in

particular ways and how to behave as particular kinds of people (Murray,

2008). Thus, when writing or speaking as academics, as accountants or as

philosophers, students gradually become members of their disciplines’

respective communities of practice (lave & Wenger, 1991). The acquisition

of such academic literacies enables students to effectively and legitimately

engage with and influence knowledge, both in speaking and in writing.

EMMA DAFouz

Ibérica 41 (2021): 13-3826

Against this sociolinguistic background, in ESP/EAP, genre theories have

been followed to map how individuals use language to develop relationships,

establish communities and ‘get things done’ (Hyland, 2012). ESP/EAP have

also examined the ways genres differ across disciplines and language groups

and have encouraged more recently research into languages other than

English and into the ways speakers of those languages use English to

construct disciplinary literacies. In the case of EME, as pointed out earlier,

such disciplinary literacies are often invisible to the content lecturer and thus,

despite being experts in their own discipline, EME practitioners are not

usually prepared pedagogically to explain the linguistic conventions

operating within subject-specific areas. In this respect, I believe EME has

opened a window of opportunity for language awareness (Dafouz, 2018) –

an opportunity actually identified by lecturers when they come across

international exchange students whose institutional, cultural and linguistic

backgrounds compel them to reflect on the linguistic goals they have for all

their students (whether national or international).

In sum, the concept of disciplinary literacies (Dls) sketched here has thus

proved to be a useful starting point for the discussion of disciplinary

language learning goals for both ESP/EAP and EME practitioners.

Concrete illustrations of how collaboration on this particular area can be

further developed will be addressed next.

5. Future directions for EME and ESP collaboration:

Emerging zones

Three concrete research areas where both ESP and EME experts can

collaborate effectively are addressed in this last section. Evidently, the list of

possibilities is not exhaustive, but it could be an eye-opener for new lines of

joint action, both in research and teacher professional development, which

can be revisited over time.

5.1. Developing a glocal and disciplinary literacies-based curriculum

In this globally interconnected world we live in, the integration of global

needs is crucial, as is attention to the local specificities of our context. This

‘glocal’ perspective aligns closely with EME as it underlines its context-

sensitive nature, as well as with ‘modern’ views of ESP (nesi, 2020). In this

CroSSIng DISCIPlInAry BounDArIES: EnglISH-MEDIuM EDuCATIon (EME) MEETS EnglISH For SPECIFIC PurPoSES (ESP)

Ibérica 41 (2021): 13-38 27

vein gustafsson and Jacobs (2013) claim that the change of emphasis when
moving from an ESP to an EME approach largely allows for a greater focus
on learning and communication processes rather than on assessing solely
student products (exams, essays, case-reports, etc). Similarly, Blaj-Ward
(2017, p. 101) advises on the need to include ‘context sensitive measures of
quality in EAP provision, which give the student an active role in designing
this provision rather than merely a recipient role, and reflect the principle
that language proficiency development is ‘everyone’s business.’’ Along these
lines, the recent work by Jiang and zhang (2017) in EME Chinese settings
suggests that an EME-oriented ESP/EAP course design can also motivate
and facilitate students’ self-directedness, as is shown in student team-
teaching and process-oriented writing activities. under this paradigm,
students’ gradually take more responsibility in managing language study
through carrier content and, at the same time, develop more agency.

A way to do this is, as explained earlier, by training ESP professionals in
viewing subject disciplinary language as social practices embedded in specific
settings. In this regard, the use of the recently developed construct known
as Cognitive Discourse Functions or CDFs (Dalton-Puffer, 2013) bridges
the gap between the cognitive functions that students need to activate and
the discursive actions necessary to process content knowledge successfully.
Drawing on Bloom’s (1956) classic taxonomy for learning, Dalton-Puffer’s
model indexes seven categories (i.e. Classify, Define, Describe, Evaluate,
Explain, Explore and report), which, in turn, include a wider set of
subcategories (or members). These categories ideally ‘function as a kind of
lingua franca that may enable educators to communicate across subject
boundaries’ (Dalton-Puffer, 2013, p. 242). Translated to the realm of ESP
and EME, CDFs can help both sets of professionals (and their respective
students) engage in a dialogue where the discursive conventions of their
disciplinary areas can be more clearly approached. Moreover, Dalton-
Puffer’s construct is context-sensitive in that when applied to one specific
setting or to one specific subject it ‘may take on a very specific shape and
perhaps further elements’ (ibid, p. 237). The situated nature of this model
enables us also to move beyond perspectives initially theorised from the
linguistic angle and adopt a more epistemological view, where content
specialists unveil how they actually construct disciplinary knowledge in their
teaching and professions (Spires et al, 2018). By way of illustration, the use
of the CDFs model in the subject of history in secondary schools in Austria
(Dalton-Puffer & Bauer-Marschallinger, 2019) confirms enhancement of

EMMA DAFouz

Ibérica 41 (2021): 13-3828

students’ subject literacy competence when explicit attention is given to the
CDFs typical of history genres. An identification of the CDFs in place in
EME disciplines could prove useful not only in supporting students’
development of Dls and teachers’ content-pedagogy but also in identifying
the presence of what have been referred to as ‘hybrid genres’ or ‘blended
genres’ (Brown, 2017). Hybrid genres are described as texts where some
aspects of academic rhetoric in English are blended with features of other
(national) rhetorical traditions in a way that the resulting student output is
not deemed appropriate in either context. Investigations into these hybrid
varieties and how to approach them in a constructive manner would be of
interest for EAP practitioners working alongside EME lecturers.

5.2. Valuing Multilingualism and Translanguaging

In vein with the glocal and multilingual nature of present-day HEIs,
professionals from EME and ESP need to be aware of the multilingual
repertoires that students and lecturers bring to the classroom. While not
explicit in the ESP acronym, but an essential component of EMEMuS, the
role of multilingualism in the learning process cannot be ignored any longer
(e.g. Cenoz & gorter, 2010; Kuteeva et al., 2020; llurda et al., 2014). The
available literature advocates for a multilingual turn in education, although for
that to truly occur, crucial changes need to take place with regard to language
ideologies in the classroom. Some of the conflicting views reported by
participants regarding, for instance, the use of one vs. various languages when
teaching seem to be aligned with an institution’s prior traditions or with an
individual’s personal experience in dealing with international classrooms and
their treatment of and response to students’ multilingual repertoires (see e.g.
Dafouz et al., 2016; Kuteeva et al., 2020; Breeze & roothooft, 2021). Thus, in
the case of universities or individuals with a shorter tradition of
internationalisation, the use of various languages in the classroom is often
reported as a ‘deficiency’ and connected to factors such as insufficient teacher
or student language proficiency. In contrast, in settings with more experience
and tradition of multilingual and international students, the very same
practices may be viewed as a resource rather than an obstacle for
communication and learning (Jenkins, 2014; lasagabaster & Doiz, 2021).

Consequently, in order to overcome such monolingual views and English-
only practices, ESP and EME practitioners could share real life examples of
how multilingual professional practices can be useful for students in certain
content areas. Thus, for example, in the case of medical students, the use of

CroSSIng DISCIPlInAry BounDArIES: EnglISH-MEDIuM EDuCATIon (EME) MEETS EnglISH For SPECIFIC PurPoSES (ESP)

Ibérica 41 (2021): 13-38 29

the local language is deemed necessary to engage with local patients, while,

at the same time, English remains crucial for research and publishing.

Additionally, the creation of bilingual or multilingual online databases and

glossaries and bibliographies designed to support students’ academic and

linguistic development can be used to illustrate students’ use of their own

home languages for learning purposes. After all, one needs to remember

that in EMEMuS programmes the aim is to develop biliterate or pluriliterate

users who can employ their different multilingual repertoires depending on

their professional needs both at home and abroad (Meyer et al., 2018;

Palfreyman & Van der Walt, 2017; Wilkinson & gabriëls, 2020).

Closely related to multilingual uses and users, we find translanguaging (Tl),

a construct developed by garcía and li Wei (2014, p. 21), who argue that:

translanguaging does not refer to two separate languages nor to a synthesis

of different language practices or to a hybrid mixture. rather translanguaging

refers to new language practices that make visible the complexity of language

exchanges among people with different histories, and releases histories and

understandings that had been buried within fixed language identities

constrained by nation-states.

In this regard, the role of the ESP/EAP expert would first be to become

acquainted with this notion and its pedagogical use in the classroom, so that

an understanding and appreciation of translanguaging (Tl) practices can be

shared with EME practitioners. An educational view of such Tl strategies

can, in turn, enable students with a common l1 to construct their

disciplinary knowledge more effectively. Furthermore, as mentioned above,

when referring to pluriliteracies, Tl has also proved to be helpful in

developing students’ subject disciplinary language (Mazak & Carroll, 2016;

see Paulsrud et al., 2021 for a critical exploration of Tls in EMI).

Concurrently, the ESP/EAP practitioner could also point out to EME

professionals how such Tl practices, which may be useful under some

teaching and learning circumstances, can be viewed under a negative light

when they exclude international students with no shared l1 competence. In

this case, EME educators should be made aware of the dangers of leaving

out those who do not have the required linguistic resources to participate

actively in the international classroom (Kuteeva et al., 2020).

EMMA DAFouz

Ibérica 41 (2021): 13-3830

5.3. Promoting Interdisciplinary Professional Development

Collaboration between EME and ESP professionals, as advocated throughout
this paper, is of paramount importance. However, in order for such
collaboration to function effectively, Airey (2016, p. 78) rightfully notes that:

both parties need to understand what the other can bring to the table ... the
content lecturer should not view the language expert as a low-level technician
dealing with issues of secondary importance and who is responsible for a
‘quick language fix’ [nor] the language expert fall int the trap of criticizing
what may appear to be underdeveloped or naive approaches to disciplinary
discourse on the part of the content lecturer.

Discussions and negotiations of what teaching and learning in ESP and
EME settings actually entails are therefore needed. In this vein, and drawing
on a recent study of ESP teachers from three different universities in Spain,
Bocanegra-Valle and Basturkmen (2019) argued that many of the ESP
professionals interviewed reported feeling like outsiders to the disciplinary
community they attend to and expressed a need to appear ‘credible’,
‘respected’ and ‘valued’ (ibid, p. 136) in the eyes of their content colleagues.
In order to achieve this, their work suggests closer collaboration amongst
professionals and more preparation in the development of disciplinary
literacies adapted to the true needs of the students and academics working
in their respective disciplinary areas. This cooperation has been addressed as
well in the ‘adjunct-ClIl model’ proposed by Arnó-Macià and Mancho-
Barés (2015), where language instruction is tailored to disciplinary needs in
a balanced ClIl-like manner, and where collaboration between language
and subject specialists is organised in a systematic manner. Another example
of the fruitful cooperation between content and ESP teachers can be found
in the South African context, described in detail in the special issue of Across
the Disciplines (gustafsson, 2011). In this project, language experts’
partnership with content lecturers begins by uncovering the tacit rules that
govern their disciplinary discourse(s) and by asking the type of questions a
novice would (Jacobs, 2005, 2007).

In order to achieve this, some authors suggest decentralising ESP units from
the English departments at HEIs where they are usually located, and placing
them instead in the faculties where they can work more closely with the
disciplinary experts and co-develop curricular innovations (Arkoudis et al.,
2014; Murray, 2016). Such a measure could bring with it a number of
advantages such as allowing ESP/EAP teachers to build their discipline

CroSSIng DISCIPlInAry BounDArIES: EnglISH-MEDIuM EDuCATIon (EME) MEETS EnglISH For SPECIFIC PurPoSES (ESP)

Ibérica 41 (2021): 13-38 31

knowledge and to gain familiarity with the expectations of the faculty

departments vis-à-vis the academic literacies of their respective disciplines.

This, in turn, could guide syllabus design and pedagogy accordingly, thereby

helping to ensure relevance and continuity. Such decentralisation would also

facilitate the integration of ESP/EAP teachers into the local academic

community and in doing so promote their understanding of its structures,

procedures, constraints, and opportunities that afford the development of

students’ language competence. Furthermore, greater decentralisation or

‘embeddedness’ (cf. Blaj-Ward, 2017) allows for the establishing and nurturing

of productive working relationships with academic and professional staff. This

could be seen to facilitate ESP/EAP teachers’ capacity to operate effectively

and better influence and support both academic staff and students through

personal contact and even committee membership.

The other side of the coin, however, views interdisciplinary collaboration

and the decentralisation of ESP/EAP units with certain suspicion as it raises

particular organisational challenges to departments in HEIs. As departments

have been traditionally organised around a disciplinary core, the integration

of insights and research from disciplines that do not advance this core is

often disregarded (ng & litzenberg, 2019). In any case, what teacher

professional development for EME ought to foreground is the need to go

beyond English language training only and aim for a more holistic

understanding of this educational phenomenon, one that repositions EME

in a broader international and multicultural frame (Dafouz, 2021).

While substantial efforts have been made to provide pedagogical support to

EME professionals often through trans-national project funding (see, for

instance, EQuiiP project, TACE project, etc) and the launching of new

specialised publications (Breeze & Sancho guinda, 2021; Morell &

nickolaevna, 2021; Sánchez-Pérez, 2020), there is still room for

improvement. For a start, the systemic support of teacher professional

development programmes for university professionals, whether in EME or

in other innovative practices, needs to be institutionalised. Such provision, I

would add, also needs to be extended to students beyond EME and ESP

settings and address disciplinary competence building in the l1 as well. If we

really want our university students (whether l1 or l2 learners) to develop

the necessary communicative, multilingual and multicultural strategies to

succeed in this globalised world, support cannot be postponed any longer –

a request which, I believe, is food for a whole different paper.

EMMA DAFouz

Ibérica 41 (2021): 13-3832

6. Concluding remarks

As global issues become ever more complex, the sharing, integration and
collaboration of diverse experiences and expertise across disciplinary
boundaries becomes truly crucial. With a focus on EME and ESP/EAP
affordances and challenges, this paper aimed to reconcile these seemingly
separate areas and unveil shared opportunities for teaching, learning and
research. In this respect, three major zones emerged as relevant for
collaboration and research: 1) the development of a glocal context-sensitive
curriculum designed jointly by EME and ESP practitioners, where real-life
tasks and disciplinary-led literacies are included; 2) the valuing of
multilingual and translingual practices which host the diverse linguistic
repertoires that students and lecturers bring to the current classroom, and
which, concurrently, view them as resources for learning rather than as
obstacles; and 3) the endorsement of interdisciplinary collaboration across
ESP and EME professionals from different disciplinary traditions in search
of a common ground that appeals to both. In this respect, if we want ESP
to be seen as a site for change rather than accommodation (Basturkmen,
2014), comprehensive measures that truly coordinate language-in-education
strategies across institutional levels need to be designed.

last, while ESP/EAP specialists have expressed understandable concerns with
regard to the fast spread of EME programmes in higher education and their
fear of losing professional space, this paper has tried to underline instead the
opportunities provided by EME and ESP collaboration. In doing so, it is hoped
that, on the one hand, EME programmes can view the importance of language
awareness for quality teaching and learning and, on the other, ESP can revisit
their teaching and learning strategies under a more transformative light.

Acknowledgements

My thanks to the reviewers, and to ute Smit, for their comments on earlier
versions of this paper. My gratitude also goes to Carmen Sancho guinda,
editor-in-chief and ruth Breeze, executive editor of IBErICA, for making
the whole editing process so straightforward. This work was supported by
the Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y universidades [grant number
PID2019-103862rB-100].

Article history:

Received 21 June 2021

Received in revised form 1 July 2021

Accepted 1 July 2021

CroSSIng DISCIPlInAry BounDArIES: EnglISH-MEDIuM EDuCATIon (EME) MEETS EnglISH For SPECIFIC PurPoSES (ESP)

Ibérica 41 (2021): 13-38 33

References

EMMA DAFouz

Ibérica 41 (2021): 13-3834

Abedi, J., Hofstetter, C. H., & Lord, C. (2004).

Assessment accommodations for English

language learners: Implications for policy-based

empirical research. Review of Educational

Research, 74(1), 1–28

Ackerley, K., M. Guarda, & F. Helm (Eds.) (2017).

Sharing perspectives on English-medium

instruction. Peter Lang.

Aguilar, M. (2017). Engineering lecturers’ views on

CLIL and EMI. International Journal of Bilingual

Education and Bilingualism, 20, 722–735.

Airey, J. (2016). EAP, EMI or CLIL? In K. Hyland &

P. Shaw (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of

English for academic purposes (pp. 71–83).

Routledge.

Altinyelken, H. K., Moorcroft, S., & van der Draai,

H. (2014). The dilemmas and complexities of

implementing language-in-education policies:

Perspectives from urban and rural contexts in

Uganda. International Journal of Educational

Development, 36, 90–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/

j.ijedudev.2013.11.001

Arkoudis, S., The University of Melbourne, &

National Senior Teaching Fellowship. (2014).

Integrating English language communication skills

into disciplinary curricula: Options and strategies.

Arnbjörnsdóttir, B. (2020). English at the University

of Iceland: Students’ perceptions and practices. In

M. Kuteeva, K. Kaufhold, & N. Hynninen (Eds.),

Language perceptions and practices in multilingual

universities (pp. 245–265). Springer International

Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-

38755-6_10

Arnó-Macià, E., & Mancho-Barés, G. (2015). The

role of content and language in content and

language integrated learning (CLIL) at university:

Challenges and implications for ESP. English for

Specific Purposes, 37, 63–73. https://doi.org/

10.1016/j.esp.2014.06.007

Banegas, D. L., & Busleimán, G. M. (2021). EMI

materials in online initial English language teacher

education. In D. Lasagabaster & A. Doiz (Eds.),

Language use in English-medium instruction at

university (1st ed., pp. 100–125). Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/97810031345 34-6

Basturkmen, H. (2005). Ideas and options in

English for Specific Purposes. Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410617040

Beelen, J., & de Wit, H. (2012). Internationalisation

revisited: New dimensions in the internationalisation

of higher education. Centre for Applied Research on

Economics & Management (CAREM).

Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Worlds of written discourse. A

genre-based view. Continuum.

Bhattacharya, U. (2017). Colonization and English

ideologies in India: A language policy perspective.

Language Policy, 16(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/

10.1007/s10993-015-9399-2

Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: Teaching

for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research

& Development, 18(1), 57–75. https://doi.org/

10.1080/0729436990180105

Blaj-Ward, L. (2017). Language learning and use

in English-medium higher education. Springer

International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/

978-3-319-63239-1

Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational

objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive domain. David McKay.

Bocanegra-Valle, A., & Basturkmen, H. (2019).

Investigating the teacher education needs of

experienced ESP teachers in Spanish universities.

Ibérica, 38, 127–149.

Bonancina-Pugh, F. (2012). Researching

‘practiced language policies’: Insights from

conversation analysis. Language Policy, 11(3),

213–234.

Breeze, R., & Dafouz, E. (2017). Constructing

complex cognitive discourse functions in higher

education: An exploratory study of exam answers

in Spanish- and English-medium instruction

settings. System, 70, 81–91. https://doi.org/10.

1016/j.system.2017.09.024

Breeze, R., & Roothooft, H. (2021). Using the L1 in

university-level EMI: Attitudes among lecturers in

Spain. Language Awareness. DOI: 10.1080/

09658416.2021.1903911

Breeze, R., & Sancho Guinda, S. (2021). Teaching

English-medium instruction courses in higher

education: A guide for non-native speakers.

Bloomsbury. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350169791

?locatt=label:secondary_bloomsburyCollections

Brown, H. (2017). Cooperation and collaboration in

undergraduate EMI: Adapting EAP to the

emergence of blended academic norms and

practices in a Japanese university. In J. Valcke &

R. Wilkinson (Eds.), Integrating content and

language in higher education. Perspectives on

professional practice (pp. 151–166). Peter Lang.

Canagarajah, S. (2011). Translanguaging in the

classroom: Emerging issues for research and

pedagogy. In L. Wei (Ed.), Applied Linguistics

CroSSIng DISCIPlInAry BounDArIES: EnglISH-MEDIuM EDuCATIon (EME) MEETS EnglISH For SPECIFIC PurPoSES (ESP)

Ibérica 41 (2021): 13-38 35

Review (pp. 1–28). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/

10.1515/9783110239331.1

Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2010). The diversity of

multilingualism in education. International Journal

of the Sociology of Language, 2010(205), 37–53.

https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.2010.038

Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL.

Content and Language Integrated Learning.

Cambridge University Press.

Creese, A., & Martin, P. (2003). Multilingual

classroom ecologies: Inter-relationships,

interactions and ideologies. International Journal

of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 6(3–4),

161–167.

Dafouz, E. (2018). English-medium instruction in

multilingual university settings—An opportunity for

developing language awareness. In P. Garrett & J.

M. Cots (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of

language awareness (1st ed., pp. 170–185).

Routledge.

Dafouz, E. (2020). Undergraduate student

academic writing in English-medium higher

education: Explorations through the ROAD-

MAPPING lens. Journal of English for Academic

Purposes, 46, 100888. https://doi.org/10.1016/

j.jeap.2020.100888

Dafouz, E. (2021). Repositioning English-medium

instruction in a broader international agenda:

Insights from a survey on teacher professional

development. Revista Alicantina de Estudios

Ingleses, 34, 15-38. https://doi.org/10.14198/

raei.2021.34.08

Dafouz, E., Camacho, M., & Ur-quia, E. (2014).

‘Surely they can’t do as well’: A comparison of

business students’ academic performance in

English-medium and Spanish-as-first-language

medium programmes. Language and Education,

28(3), 223–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/

09500782.2013.808661

Dafouz, E., Hüttner, J., & Smit, U. (2016).

University teachers’ beliefs of language and

content integration in English-medium education in

multilingual settings. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P.

Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising

integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp.

123–143). Multilingual Matters.

Dafouz, E., & Smit, U. (2016). Towards a dynamic

conceptual framework for English-medium

education in multilingual university settings.

Applied Linguistics, 37(3), 397–415. https://

doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu034

Dafouz, E., & Smit, U. (2017). A sociolinguistic

approach to the multifaceted roles of English in

English-medium education in multilingual

university settings. In A. Llinares & T. Morton

(Eds.), Language learning & language teaching

(pp. 287–306). John Benjamins. https://benjamins.

com/catalog/lllt.47.17daf

Dafouz, E., & Smit, U. (2020). ROAD-MAPPING

English medium education in the internationalised

university. Palgrave MacMillan.

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2013). A construct of cognitive

discourse functions for conceptualising content-

language integration in CLIL and multilingual

education. European Journal of Applied

Linguistics, 1(2), 216–253. https://doi.org/10.1515/

eujal-2013-0011

Dalton-Puffer, C., & Bauer-Marschallinger, S.

(2019). Cognitive discourse functions meet

historical competences: Towards an integrated

pedagogy in CLIL history education. Journal of

Immersion and Content-Based Language

Education, 7(1), 30–60. https://doi.org/10.1075/

jicb.17017.dal

Doiz, A., D. Lasagabaster, & J.M. Sierra (Eds.)

(2013). English medium instruction at universities:

Global challenges. Multilingual Matters.

Dudley-Evans, T., & Saint John, M.-J. (1998).

Developments in ESP: A multi-disciplinary

approach (5. print). Cambridge Univ. Press.

Evans, S., & Green, C. (2007). Why EAP is

necessary: A survey of Hong Kong tertiary

students. Journal of English for Academic

Purposes, 6(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/

j.jeap.2006.11.005

Fortanet-Gómez, I. (2013). CLIL in higher

education: Towards a multilingual language policy.

Multilingual Matters.

García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging:

Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave

Macmillan.

Gustafsson, M., & Jacobs, C. (2013). Editorial:

Student learning and ICLHE – frameworks and

contexts. Journal of Academic Writing, ii–xii.

https://doi.org/10.18552/joaw.v3i1.141

Hultgren, A. K., Jensen, C., & Dimova, S. (2015).

English-medium instruction in European higher

education: From the North to the South. In S.

Dimova, A. K. Hultgren, & C. Jensen (Eds.),

English-medium instruction in European higher

education: English in Europe (pp. 1–15). De

Gruyter.

Hyland, K. (2006). English for academic purposes:

An advanced resource book. Routledge.

Hyland, K. (2012). ‘The past is the future with the

lights on’: Reflections on AELFE’s 20th birthday.

Iberica, 24, 29-42.

EMMA DAFouz

Ibérica 41 (2021): 13-3836

Iino, M., & Murata, K. (2016). Dynamics of ELF

communication in an English-medium academic

context in Japan. From EFL learners to ELF users.

In K. Murata (Ed.), Exploring ELF in Japanese

academic and business contexts:

Conceptualisation, research and pedagogic

implications (pp. 111–131). Routledge.

Jacobs, C. (2005). On being an insider on the

outside: New spaces for integrating academic

literacies. Teaching in Higher Education, 10(4),

475–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510500

239091

Jacobs, C. (2007). Towards a critical

understanding of the teaching of discipline-specific

academic literacies: Making the tacit explicit.

Journal of Education, 41(1), 59–82.

Jenkins, J. (2014). English as a lingua franca in

the international university: The politics of

academic English language policy. Routledge.

Jiang, A. L., & Zhang, L. J. (2017). ESP/EAP

through English-medium instruction: Teachers’

perceptions and practices. In H. Reinders, D.

Nunan, & B. Zou (Eds.), Innovation in language

learning and teaching (pp. 173–195). Palgrave

Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-

60092-9_8

Kao, S.-M., & Tsou, W. (2017). EMI course

assessment: A survey study of the issues. In W.

Tsou & S.-M. Kao (Eds.), EMI course assessment:

A survey study of the issues (pp. 183–205).

Springer.

Ke, I.-C., & Cahyani, H. (2014). Learning to become

users of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF): How

ELF online communication affects Taiwanese

learners’ beliefs of English. System, 46, 28–38.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.07. 008

Kırkgöz, Y., & Dikilitaş, K. (2018). Recent

developments in ESP/EAP/EMI contexts. In Y.

Kırkgöz & K. Dikilitaş (Eds.), Key issues in English

for Specific Purposes in higher education (Vol. 11,

pp. 1–10). Springer International Publishing.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70214-8_1

Komori-Glatz, M. (2018). Conceptualising English

as a business lingua franca. European Journal of

International Management, 12(1/2), 46.

https://doi.org/10.1504/EJIM.2018.089043

Kuteeva, M. (2020). Revisiting the ‘E’ in EMI:

students’ perceptions of standard English, lingua

franca and translingual practices. International

Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,

23(3), 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.

2019.1637395

Kuteeva, M., K. Kaufhold, & N. Hynninen (Eds.)

(2020). Language perceptions and practices in

multilingual universities. Springer International

Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-

38755-6

Lasagabaster, D., & A. Doiz (Eds.). (2021).

Language use in English-medium instruction at

university: International perspectives on teacher

practice (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.

4324/9781003134534

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning:

Legitimate peripheral participation (1st ed.).

Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.

1017/CBO9780511815355

Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012).

The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge

University Press.

Llurda, E., Cots, J. M., & Armengol, L. (2014).

Views on multilingualism and internationalisation

in higher education: Administrative staff in the

spotlight. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural

Development, 35(4), 376–391. https://doi.org/10.

1080/01434632.2013.874435

Lorenzo, F. (2017). Historical literacy in bilingual

settings: Cognitive academic language in CLIL

history narratives. Linguistics and Education, 37,

32–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2016.11.

002

Macaro, E., Hultgren, A. K., Kirkpatrick, A., &

Lasagabaster, D. (2019). English medium

instruction: Global views and countries in focus.

Language Teaching, 52(02), 231–248.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444816000380

Mazak, C., & Carroll, K. S. (Eds.) (2016).

Translanguaging in higher education: Beyond

monolingual ideologies. Multilingual Matters.

Meyer, O., Imhof, M., Coyle, D., & Banerjee, M.

(2018). Positive learning and pluriliteracies. In O.

Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, G. Wittum, & A. Dengel

(Eds.), Positive learning in the age of information

(pp. 235–265). Springer. http://link.springer.com/

10.1007/978-3-658-19567-0_15

Morell, T., & Nickolaevna, V. (2021). Introduction.

Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 34, 7.

https://doi.org/10.14198/raei.2021.34.09

Murray, D. E. (2008). Planning change, changing

plans: Innovations in second language teaching.

University of Michigan Press.

Murray, N. (2016). An academic literacies

argument for decentralizing EAP provision. ELT

Journal, 70(4), 435–443. https://doi.org/10.1093/

elt/ccw030

Ng, D., & Litzenberg, K. (2019). Overcoming

disciplinary divides in higher education: The case

of agricultural economics. Palgrave

Emma Dafouz is Associate Professor in the Department of English
Studies at Complutense university of Madrid. Her research deals with
understanding the roles of language in education, and particularly, in
English-medium higher education. She served as Advisor for Curricular
Internationalization at her university from 2014-19. At present, she is Chair
of the Spanish regional group of IClHE.

CroSSIng DISCIPlInAry BounDArIES: EnglISH-MEDIuM EDuCATIon (EME) MEETS EnglISH For SPECIFIC PurPoSES (ESP)

Ibérica 41 (2021): 13-38 37

Communications, 5(1), 26. https://doi.org/10.1057/

s41599-019-0235-8

Palfreyman, D., & C. Van der Walt (Eds.) (2017).

Academic biliteracies: Multilingual repertoires in

higher education. Multilingual Matters.

Paulsrud, B., Z. Tian & J. Toth, (Eds.) (2021).

English-medium instruction and translanguaging.

Multilingual Matters.

Pavón Vázquez, V., & Ramos, A. (2018). The

linguistic internationalization of higher education: A

study on the presence of language policies and

bilingual studies in Spanish universities. Porta

Linguarum, Monográfico III, 31–46.

Sánchez-Pérez, M. del M. (Ed.) (2020). Teacher

training for English-medium instruction in higher

education. IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-

1-7998-2318-6

Schmidt-Unterberger, B. (2018). The English-

medium paradigm: A conceptualisation of English-

medium teaching in higher education. International

Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,

21(5), 527–539. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.

2018.1491949

Singh, M., & Lu, S. Y. (2020). Postmonolingual

critical thinking: Internationalising higher education

through students’ languages and knowledge.

Routledge.

Smit, U., & Dafouz, E. (Eds.) (2012). Integrating

content and language in higher education: Gaining

insights into English-medium instruction at

European universities. AILA Review (Vol. 25).

John Benjamins.

Street, B. V. (1999). New literacies in theory and

practice: What are the implications for language in

education? Linguistics and Education, 10(1),

1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-5898(99)

80103-X

Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres.

Exploration and application. Cambridge University

Press.

Terauchi, H., J. Noguchi., & A. Tajino (Eds.) (2020).

Towards a new paradigm for English language

teaching: English for specific purposes in Asia and

beyond. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Valcke, J., & R. Wilkinson (Eds.). (2017).

Integrating content and language in higher

education: Perspectives on professional practice.

Peter Lang.

Wächter, B., & F. Maiworm (Eds.) (2014). English-

taught pro-grammes in European higher

education: The state of play in 2014. Lemmens

Medien.

Wilkinson, R. (2013). English-medium instruction

at a Dutch university: Challenges and pitfalls. In A.

Doiz, D. Lasagabaster, & J. M. Sierra (Eds.),

English medium instruction at universities: Global

challenges (pp. 3–24). Multilingual Matters.

Wilkinson, R., & Gabriëls, R. (2020). Plurilingual

students in EMI: Perceptions of educational

democracy and linguistic justice. In M. Kuteeva, K.

Kaufhold, & N. Hynninen (Eds.), Language

perceptions and practices in multilingual

universities (pp. 217–244). Springer International

Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-

38755-6_9

Wilkinson, R., & V. Zegers (Eds.) (2007).

Researching content and language integration in

higher education. Valkhof Pers.