English-Medium Instruction and Intercultural Sensitivity: A Korean Case Study

Abstract

This case study examined the reactions of local students to the diversity in student population. Specifically, it investigated how the local students’ intercultural sensitivity to the international students is interrelated with their perception of the English-medium instruction (EMI) policy. The quantitative and qualitative analyses of the questionnaire responses of 213 college students and the subsequent interviews with 15 students revealed a lack of intercultural sensitivity which was correlated with their perception of EMI. The findings indicated that the local students’ different perceptions of the policy interplayed, directly and indirectly, with their sensitivity to the cultures of international students. The implications of these findings are discussed in terms of cultivating intercultural sensitivity in an English as a lingua franca context.

Keywords

English-medium instruction English as a lingua franca intercultural sensitivity international students internationalization of higher education

Introduction

For the past decade, higher education (HE) has reformed its role in the increasingly globalized societies of many Asian countries. Institutions of HE have found themselves at the forefront of attempts to respond to the consequences of rapid economic growth, and intense domestic and international competition. In an educational sector like HE, internationalization has often been translated into the policy of English use in classroom teaching, English-medium instruction (EMI). In Korean HE, this policy has been initiated and implemented in a top-down manner by the government and the policymakers of individual universities (Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development, 2007) and it has been viewed as a primary instrument to ultimately raise the universities’ competitiveness in the global educational market and to draw more international students into the campuses (see Byun et al., 2011, for an overview of the development of EMI in Korean HE). These expected outcomes have often been portrayed as national and global benefits brought to university campuses, such as the financial stability of Korean institutions in the current competitive HE market around the globe and active academic and cultural exchanges with other countries.

In the course of internationalization, the trend of EMI has become more explicitly influential in Korean HE, and as of 2011, about 30% of the classes in some of the leading universities in Korea have been offered in EMI (Aju University, 2012). With the growth of the portion of courses offered as EMI, the number of international university students increased from 15,000 in 2005 to more than 60,000 in 2010, representing a growth rate of 400% (National Index, 2013). Given the supposed financial, cultural, and academic benefits from the growth in international students, this significant change in the composition of the student population may be taken as a major positive effect of EMI (Jensen & Johannesson, 1995; Manakul, 2007; Tsuneyoshi, 2005). However, studies of EMI have continuously reported negative effects of EMI on students’ learning processes and outcomes, such as a lack of evidence of English improvement and ineffective delivery of course contents (e.g., Chang, 2010; D. Cho, 2012; Hu & Alsagoff, 2010; Jensen & Johannesson, 1995; Kahng, 1999; Manakul, 2007; Manh, 2012; Tsuneyoshi, 2005). These ongoing studies on EMI are dedicated to resolving these identified issues and proposing optimal strategies for implementing EMI for a truly international HE.

EMI has created new dynamics in classroom interaction between local and international students. In the non-English society in which a fairly homogeneous Korean student population has been the norm in classrooms, this new learning context has been considered a challenge (Byun et al., 2011). The students differ not only in their level of English proficiency and prior education but, more importantly, vary in their cultural backgrounds. If properly negotiated in multicultural interaction, these differences may help local and international students develop the capability to manage intercultural interaction through linguistic and paralinguistic resources. However, this multicultural context also causes problems for the students. While international students frequently experience discrimination (Karuppan & Barari, 2010; Lee & Rice, 2007), local students feel disadvantaged in learning due to the imposed use of English in an EMI classroom and a lack of understanding of different cultures (J. Kim, Tatar, & Choi, 2014). Thus, it is critical for the members of an institution to reach a shared understanding of the impact of the cultural diversity on the institution and its international management (Hermans, 2005).

Korean universities have engaged in increasing the numbers of international students and scholars but ignored establishing an infrastructure to support these new additions to the campuses (Ghazarian & Youhne, 2015). There has been very little understanding of how culturally sensitive the local students, who are in direct contact with the international students in the EMI classrooms, would be toward the cultures of their international classmates. This study explores the intercultural sensitivity of the tertiary-level students and their perceptions of EMI. To more effectively address the goal, this study investigates one Korean university that has implemented this policy for all the subject courses. Specifically, the following two research questions guided the analysis.

Research Question 1: What is the level of intercultural sensitivity of the tertiary-level students taking subject courses in EMI in a non-English HE context?

Research Question 2: In what ways are their perceptions of EMI interrelated with the level of intercultural sensitivity?

By answering these questions, we ultimately aim to offer some concrete advice on how to create culturally inclusive learning environments and to truly internationalize HE in a non-English society.

Review of Literature

Internationalization of HE and EMI

According to Knight (2008), internationalization refers to specific actions or services of an institution to cultivate global citizenship of its members. Those actions and diverse services are geared toward a community beyond local and national boundaries and engender intercultural and international encounters. In a non-English HE institution, internationalization has often been embodied in visible changes in the context, such as trade in HE, emphasis on domestic and international university rankings, and the international recruitment of the best and brightest students and scholars (Piller & Cho, 2013). Notably, hybrid forms of education have surfaced due to the increasing frequency of border-crossing activities within the established local systems, ranging from degree programs in English to attract students from other countries to branch campuses of foreign universities in the local context (Altbach, 2004; Knight, 2008; Teichler, 2004). Enforcement of EMI has been considered a fundamental requirement for implementing those newly adopted educational programs and has contributed to the spread of English to HE.

Researchers have rigorously investigated how EMI can be justified in a non-English context from different angles (Chang, 2010; D. Cho, 2012; Hu & Alsagoff, 2010; Jensen & Johannesson, 1995; Kahng, 1999; J. Kim et al., 2014; Tsuneyoshi, 2005). Although EMI was favored for the benefit of English learning (Sert, 2008), some major problems related to this context were identified: students’ and instructors’ lack of English proficiency, inefficient academic content acquisition, and lack of appropriate language training (Erling & Hilgendorf, 2006). From a different angle, researchers have also examined students’ and instructors’ reactions to EMI courses (e.g., Chang, 2010; D. Cho, 2012; Hu & Alsagoff, 2010; J. Kim, 2014; J. Kim et al., 2014; Manh, 2012; Sert, 2008). For example, Korean students recognized the role of English as a medium of international communication for internationalized HE; however, this perception did not necessarily increase motivation to develop English proficiency (Y.-G. Cho, 2013; J. Kim, 2014). To handle those problems and to secure the sustainability of the policy, an institution should have systematic supports in place, including reinforced English programs for students (e.g., Chang, 2010; E. G. Kim, Kweon, & Kim, 2017) and enhanced teacher training (e.g., D. Cho, 2012).

Diversity and Intercultural Sensitivity

The growing diversity in the non-English HE context has contributed to spreading English in an educational market and transformed the role of English to a tool for intercultural communication. In EMI classrooms, English is not the first language of any of the students and functions as a means of communication between them, namely, “English as a lingua franca” (Baker, 2009; House, 1999; Seidlhofer, 2001, 2005). English as a lingua franca is the contact language for intercultural encounters between persons who share neither a common native language nor a common culture (Firth, 1996). Their English proficiency is not limited to linguistic knowledge but extends to “knowledge, motivation, and skills to interact effectively and appropriately with members of different cultures” (Wiseman, Hammer, & Nishida, 1989, p. 192).

Given the significance of the intercultural aspects of second language (L2) communication, empirical studies have focused on the role of intercultural sensitivity in L2 development and social and cultural adjustment (e.g., Baker, 2012; Halualani, 2010; Trytten, Lowe, & Walden, 2012; Young & Schartner, 2014). Chen and Starosta (2000) describes intercultural sensitivity as one’s “active desire to motivate (oneself) to understand, appreciate, and accept differences among cultures” (p. 231). This affective dimension of intercultural communication is crucial for developing one’s ability to think and act in interculturally appropriate ways, or intercultural communicative competence (Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003). In a culturally diverse learning community, students from different cultural backgrounds bring their own ways of sense-making to the learning context. With increased sensitivity to other cultures, they can better participate in classroom interaction, which in turn facilitates better learning outcomes (Halualani, 2010; Young & Schartner, 2014).

Local students’ attitudes toward and acceptance of the international students’ cultures may create a great part of the international students’ experiences and would significantly influence their adaptation, identity change, and ultimate success (Gu, Schweisfurth, & Day, 2010; Kang, 2014). Internationally, mobile students’ choice of a host country depends not only on the quality of the host country’s education but also on social factors, that is, their experiences with local students and instructors (Brunton & Jeffrey, 2014; Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002). It is noteworthy that local Korean students come to EMI contexts with Korean sociocultural norms (Park, 2012). These norms are projected into their and others’ practices of using English. For example, exhibiting one’s command of English in a classroom would be regarded as being inconsiderate, self-important, and lacking a sense of self-identity as a Korean (Park, 2012). This negativity can be formed during intercultural encounters in EMI classrooms due to different perceptions of English as a lingua franca and the lack of ownership of the language interferes with classroom interaction (J. Kim et al., 2014).

In sum, the previous studies have highlighted the increasing role of intercultural sensitivity in the internationalization of HE. However, few studies to date have addressed how intercultural sensitivity is promoted or constrained by the EMI policy of an individual non-English HE institution. This study focuses on the specific case of one institution and examines the relationship between its EMI policy and intercultural sensitivity.

Method

Context and Participants

This research was conducted as an in-depth case study, “a research strategy which focuses on understanding the dynamics present within single settings” (Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 534). We chose a Korean university, built in 2009, with a master plan based on the policy of English officialization and the vision of cultivating the “global” competitiveness of the university. The university has implemented an EMI policy from the outset, and all class activities in subject as well as language courses are administered through the medium of English. Students not only use class materials, including textbooks, written in English but also take exams in English. At the time of this research, 149 international students were enrolled in full-degree programs of the university, among the total of 1,997 undergraduate enrollments. Notably, none of the international students were from English-speaking countries, and their nationalities and first language backgrounds varied (Table 1).

Table 1.

Nationality and First Language of the International Student Population (N = 149).

Country	Number of students	First language
Japan	2	Japanese
Kazakhstan	42	Kazakh/Russian
Kyrgyzstan	26	Kirgiz
Mongolia	29	Mongolian
Turkey	19	Turkish
Vietnam	31	Vietnamese

A total of 213 Korean students (136 males and 77 females) enrolled in the university participated in this study. The participants, as freshmen (115 students) or sophomores (98 students), had taken EMI classes of nonmajor humanities and social science courses as well as major subjects for 1.5 to 3.5 semesters. Their majors varied among business and engineering fields.

Procedure

The study was conducted in both a quantitative and qualitative manner. For the quantitative examination, we created a questionnaire with 23 items consisting of two parts: intercultural sensitivity and EMI. The items on intercultural sensitivity were constructed based on Chen and Starosta (2000) with minor modifications. They employed five subscales to measure intercultural sensitivity which were found to be reliable and to have high internal consistency (Fritz, Möllenberg, & Chen, 2002). The questionnaire of the present study adapted the items to measure each of the subscales: interaction engagement (Items 1-4); respect for cultural differences (Items 5-10); interaction confidence (Items 11-14); interaction enjoyment (Items 15-16); and interaction attentiveness (Items 17-19). The other part of the questionnaire addressed EMI, and four items were constructed primarily based on J. Kim (2014) and J. Kim and colleagues (2014; see the appendix).

After collecting the data from the questionnaire, we conducted qualitative interviews with 15 students (nine male students and six female students), who had completed the questionnaires. They were recruited through emails, and selected to balance gender and EMI experience (three semesters or above). Apart from these conditions, the selection was random. For example, interviewees’ levels of intercultural sensitivity, measured by the quantitative survey, were not considered for the selection. Upon gaining their informed consent, the native Korean-speaking researcher conducted a semistructured interview in Korean with groups of three or four students. Each interview lasted for 30 to 40 min, during which time the interviewees answered questions regarding interacting with international students in EMI classrooms.

Data Analysis

The items in the questionnaire were presented in 5-point Likert-type scale to obtain the respondent’s level of agreement with the given statement: 1 corresponding to strongly disagree and 5 to strongly agree. The SPSS statistical program was used to process the quantitative data in terms of descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients. The descriptive statistics calculated the participants’ levels of intercultural sensitivity and their perceptions of EMI, and correlation coefficients were employed to examine the relationships between intercultural sensitivity and EMI.

The audio-recorded interviews with 15 Korean students were transcribed for a detailed content analysis (Lieblich, Tuval-Mashiach, & Zilber, 1998). We interpreted the content of the text data through a systematic classification process that identified themes. In doing so, our focus was on revealing influential themes and on gaining some insights into the participants’ opinions on EMI and on intercultural communication. The identified themes were then compared with the results of the quantitative analysis.

Results

Intercultural Sensitivity and Perception of the Context

In the quantitative examination of the participants’ intercultural sensitivity and their perceptions of the surrounding context (EMI), their responses to the five subscales of intercultural sensitivity and EMI were calculated. The examined subscales included interaction engagement (Engagement), respect for cultural differences (Respect), interaction confidence (Confidence), interaction enjoyment (Enjoyment), and interaction attentiveness (Attentiveness). Before conducting the descriptive statistics of the participants’ intercultural sensitivity and their perceptions of the surrounding context (EMI), we calculated the reliability estimates for intercultural sensitivity subscales and EMI. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha values for the five subscales of intercultural sensitivity ranged from .650 for Respect to .767 for Engagement, while the reliability estimate for overall intercultural sensitivity scales (total) was high, that is, .811. The reliability of the contextual factor of EMI was modest (.663) but considered acceptable (Table 2).

Table 2.

Reliability Estimates in Cronbach’s Alpha.

	Question number	Cronbach’s α
Intercultural sensitivity (total)	1-19	.811
Engagement	1, 8, 14, 19	.767
Respect	5, 6, 9, 10, 15, 16	.650
Confidence	4, 12, 13, 18	.766
Enjoyment	2, 7	.697
Attentiveness	3, 11, 17	.664
EMI	20-23	.663

Note. EMI = English-medium instruction.

Participants’ intercultural sensitivity score was found to be slightly higher than the mean, that is, 3.36. Among the five subscales, Respect scored the highest, 3.61, whereas Confidence showed the lowest score, 2.97 (Table 3). This finding indicates that the participants were quite respectful of the cultures of their international classmates but far from being confident in interacting with them.

Table 3.

Local Students’ Scores on Intercultural Sensitivity (N = 213).

	Lowest score	Highest score	M	SD
Intercultural sensitivity (total)	2.42	4.58	3.36	0.44
Engagement	2.00	5.00	3.59	0.69
Respect	2.33	4.67	3.61	0.44
Confidence	1.00	5.00	2.97	0.76
Enjoyment	1.50	5.00	3.40	0.76
Attentiveness	1.33	5.00	3.04	0.73

Analysis of the interview data revealed that starting an interaction with classmates from other cultures was a challenge to the participants for various reasons, such as limited competence in English. Notably, the interviewees associated intercultural communication with the capability to speak English as accurately as possible. That is, their discussion of the English skill revolved around accuracy in pronunciation or grammatical accuracy, rather than fluency, as borne out in the following excerpt.

I am afraid of speaking out in class. It’s embarrassing to speak broken English. My pronunciation is terrible, too. I have noticed they [international students] don’t really speak correct English. It’s almost funny for us to communicate with each other in poor English. (Student 12: Female, sophomore, engineering major)

Apparently, this lack of confidence frequently created negativity toward interacting with their international peers. Collaborative tasks, in particular, were indicated as being problematic. The following excerpt reveals the tendency toward exclusion.

I don’t think I want to work with international students for a team project. Somehow we [Korean students] can’t get our meaning across to them. It’s uncomfortable, and the work doesn’t progress well with them. Last semester, taking Evolution of Civilization class, we had a team project. We scheduled a meeting to talk about the project together, but only Koreans showed up at the meeting, and the international teammate came almost one hour later and kept talking about something irrelevant to the topic. I guess things that were clear to us were not clear to them. (Student 14: Female, sophomore, business management major)

In the additional statistical analysis of correlation coefficients, internal dynamics between subscales was identified (Table 4). The subscale of Respect, which gained the highest score, correlated only with Engagement and Enjoyment. The subscale of Confidence, its score being the lowest, correlated significantly with three other subscales: Engagement, Enjoyment, and Attentiveness. Thus, the low level of confidence in interacting with international students affected, or was affected by, the levels of interaction engagement, enjoyment, and attentiveness.

Table 4.

Correlation Coefficients Between Intercultural Sensitivity Subscales.

	Engagement	Respect	Confidence	Enjoyment	Attentiveness
Engagement	1	.286** (.002)	.710** (.000)	.424** (.000)	.297** (.001)
Respect	.286** (.002)	1	.167 (.074)	.392** (.000)	.131 (.161)
Confidence	.710** (.000)	.167 (.074)	1	.416** (.000)	.224* (.015)
Enjoyment	.424** (.000)	.392** (.000)	.416** (.000)	1	.123 (.187)
Attentiveness	.297** (.001)	.131 (.161)	.224* (.015)	.123 (.187)	1

Correlation is significant at the .05 level. **Correlation is significant at the .01 level.

The participants’ perceptions of the EMI policy were found to be only slightly positive, as indicated by the score staying slightly higher than the mean, 3.38. This finding suggests that they appreciated the context in terms of its contribution to improving English proficiency, increasing opportunities to interact with international students, and further raising awareness of foreign cultures. However, as shown in the wide distribution of the scores, from 1 to 5, the participants’ reactions to EMI varied greatly (Table 5).

Table 5.

Local Students’ Perception of the EMI policy (N = 213).

	Lowest score	Highest score	M	SD
EMI	1.00	5.00	3.38	0.85

Note. EMI = English-medium instruction.

The interviewees commonly noted the learning context created by EMI as an indicator of the university’s internationalization. Specifically, they talked about the role of English in terms of international communication, their prospect of improving English communication skills, and better career opportunities in the future.

100% English lecture is very stressful. But, English is one of the most widely spoken languages. English is used in many parts of the world and is often the language that is common to people who have different first languages other than English, just like us, Koreans, and the international students of the university. Speaking English well is a plus to my future career and taking classes in English will help improve my English competence. (Student 10: Male, sophomore, engineering major)

Relationship Between Intercultural Sensitivity and Perception of EMI

Given the participants’ different levels of intercultural sensitivity and perception of the EMI context, this study investigated how the intercultural sensitivity and EMI would interplay with each other. The correlation analysis revealed that, overall, the participants’ level of intercultural sensitivity was significantly interrelated with their attitude toward EMI which had been formed from their experiences with EMI in a classroom practice. Thus, those who were highly sensitive toward the cultures of foreign classmates tended to appreciate EMI. On the contrary, negative perceptions of international students and their cultures were highly associated with adverse reactions toward the policy (Table 6).

Table 6.

Correlation Coefficients Between Intercultural Sensitivity and the Context.

	EMI
Intercultural sensitivity (Total)	.266** (.004)
Engagement	.176 (.058)
Respect	.210* (.024)
Confidence	.080 (.394)
Enjoyment	.246** (.008)
Attentiveness	.251** (.007)

Note. EMI = English-medium instruction.

Correlation is significant at the .05 level. **Correlation is significant at the .01 level.

The interviewees frequently commented on international students in relation to the EMI context. As taking courses in English is not optional, but imposed as the university’s policy, their critical remarks on EMI were embedded in a clear display of a lack of sensitivity to international students. In the following excerpt, one interviewee comments on the difficulty in understanding international students. Interestingly, he brings up the need for the Korean language, regardless of those with no Korean language background.

I don’t understand lectures, especially in the major courses. I always wait for the professors’ summary sessions in Korean at the end of the classes. Without the Korean summaries, I have to rely on the textbooks translated into Korean. Then, what’s the use of going to class, if I have to study on my own? We could be better achievers if we were taught in Korean. I even think there’s discrimination against our language. International students need to learn the Korean language themselves once they are here in a Korean university. English is not their first language and it’s very difficult to communicate with them in English anyway. (Student 05: Male, sophomore, business management major)

The analysis of correlations between subscales of intercultural sensitivity and EMI revealed that EMI is strongly associated with the subscales of Attentiveness (r = .251) and Enjoyment (r = .246). These results suggest that those who do attend to or enjoy the cultures of their foreign classmates tend to appreciate EMI. The qualitative interview data support this finding. In the following excerpt, a lack of attentiveness to classmates is paired with their negative perception of EMI.

They [International students] talk a lot in class. But in some cases, I don’t understand what they are talking about. They tend to talk too long about something that seems unimportant or even irrelevant. I just don’t pay attention to what they say. I’m busy trying to understand my professor’s English. That’s difficult enough. (Student 04: Male, sophomore, engineering major)

While the correlation between the subscale of Respect and EMI was modest but significant (r = .210), the subscales of Engagement and Confidence did not fare as well as the others. Apparently, this finding indicates that neither of these two subscales affected, or were affected by, the participants’ experience with EMI. However, considering that interaction attentiveness correlates significantly with the level of confidence (Table 4), this result further suggests that the role of interaction confidence, if not direct, is still valid in forming participants’ perception of the context. This intriguing pattern of relationship was found in the qualitative part of the study. One interviewee, being highly positive about EMI, disclosed increased confidence in interacting with international students, as born out in the excerpt below.

I think taking classes in English is beneficial because that makes it possible for us to get some input from international students. What they are saying may be grammatically incorrect, but somehow they can get their meaning across, which is interesting. So I find myself talking to them with more confidence than to my Korean friends. My Korean friend, like my dorm roommate. He would laugh at me if I spoke English to him. (Student 06: Female, sophomore, engineering major)

Discussion and Conclusion

This study mainly regarded the validity of an EMI policy in terms of its contributions to the internationalization of the particular HE institution in which it is implemented. Specifically, despite the growth in the international population in HE, we noted, there is no evidence showing that EMI is effective in securing the diversity of the HE population, and more importantly, that the growth will be sustained. As Hermans (2005) asserts, changing the complexion of the population should not be the evidence for internationalization. HE institutions may not see the expected positive effects of these strategies achieved without adequately addressing differences in communication styles, culture, and worldviews among the members of a HE institution. In this respect, the findings of this study pinpoint the specific role of the local students’ intercultural sensitivity in forming attitudes toward EMI (Baker, 2009; Sercu, 2002). Unfortunately, although the Korean students were aware of the benefits of EMI, their affective reactions toward interaction with international students were not high. Intercultural encounters occurring in EMI classrooms were often stressful to them. That is, in accordance with Moliner, Sales, Ferrandex, and Traver (2011), diversity among students was considered to be a problem that interfered with learning.

Such negative reactions may be explained by some of the locally defined sociocultural values and conventions shared by the participants (Halualani, 2010; Park, 2012). Their interpretations of international students’ behaviors were based on the Korean sociocultural conventions specific to learning contexts, such as refraining from an exhibition of one’s English command (Park, 2012) and staying quiet in class. As the locally shared conventions were not properly communicated with the international students or explicitly taught by any means, the participants in the present study remained negative toward international students’ classroom participation. Compared with the international students’ negative views of Korean students’ classroom participation and English use (J. Kim et al., 2014), this finding thus corroborates the significance of intercultural sensitivity in an EMI learning context.

As we conclude, we highlight two major implications which can be drawn from these findings: the need for promoting the notion of English as a lingua franca and the need for fostering intercultural sensitivity. Apparently, although the institution that was the focus of our study proclaimed globalization as central to its vision and implemented EMI to prepare the students for international communication, it did not cultivate the notion of English as a lingua franca. As shown in the interview data, the students evaluated their English competence in terms of their knowledge of grammar and accuracy of pronunciation. This suggests that they were constrained by the notion of English as a foreign language and felt themselves to be far from competent in the language used as the medium of communication in the classroom. English as a lingua franca needs to be explicitly promoted and emphasized before they take classes in EMI.

Institutional support should also offer opportunities to foster intercultural sensitivity in diverse programs along with internationalization (Baker, 2012; Kwon, 2013; Trytten et al., 2012; Young & Schartner, 2014). In the foreign language and culture programs for local students, emphasis should be placed on cultivating interactional attentiveness and enjoyment, as these intercultural sensitivity subscales are significantly associated with their reactions to the context. Freshmen and sophomores, in particular, need to be explicitly instructed to be attentive to international students and exposed to diverse cultural events. Curriculum designers and policymakers also need to acknowledge the effect of the level of interactional confidence on cultivating intercultural sensitivity and confirm that their programs cater to building confidence in interacting with other international students. In an EMI classroom, instructors need to promote interaction between local and international students. Students from different cultural backgrounds could be randomly assigned to groups, through which they can develop strong internal group relations and will greatly improve their ability to communicate their learning outside the group (Rienties, Alcott, & Jindal-Snape, 2014). Likewise, well-guided intercultural encounters in EMI classrooms should help the students better communicate and internalize their subject knowledge.

The current case study can serve as a point of reference for researchers and educators from other countries in similar situations. Several limitations, however, need to be noted. First, the participants were limited to first- and second-year university students. The findings cannot be generalized to the upper level students who have taken more EMI courses with diverse opportunities to experience cultural encounters. Also, the participants’ English proficiency was not included in the scope of this study, though it may have influenced the participants’ attitudes to EMI. In the qualitative part of the study, the interviewees’ levels of intercultural sensitivity, measured by the quantitative survey, were not controlled as they were recruited on a voluntary basis and selected for their EMI experience and the gender balance. Future studies, with these variables included in the design and properly controlled, should provide further information on the role of intercultural sensitivity in implementing an EMI policy and internationalizing HE.

Footnotes

Appendix

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Jeongyeon Kim is associate professor at the Division of General Studies at UNIST, where she teaches courses on language and culture and English styles. As applied linguist, she conducts multi-disciplinary research on intercultural communication, language policy, and language socialization. Currently, the focus of her research is the impact of globalization on higher education with a special interest in intercultural communicative competence and academic socialization.

Jinsook Choi received her PhD in anthropology, at the University at Albany. She is currently associate professor in UNIST and has been teaching social science in EFL settings in Korea for seven years. As linguistic anthropologist, she is interested in bilingual education, multiculturalism, and cultural identities both in Guatemala and in South Korea.

Bradley Tatar received his PhD in sociocultural anthropology, at the University at Albany. He is currently associate professor in UNIST and has been teaching social science in EFL settings in Korea for seven years. His research focuses on multicultural frameworks of politics and policy, including consumer culture, environmental politics, and higher education.

References

Aju University. (2012). The ratio of English-medium instruction in selected Korean Universities. Unpublished report, Office of Academic Affairs, Aju University, Suwon, South Korea.

Altbach

P. G.

(2004). Globalisation and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal world. Tertiary Education and Management, 10, 3-25.

Baker

(2009). The cultures of English as a lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 567-592.

Baker

(2012). From cultural awareness to intercultural awareness: Culture in ELT. ELT Journal, 66, 62-70.

Brunton

Jeffrey

(2014). Identifying factors that influence the learner empowerment of international students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 43, 321-334.

Byun

Chu

Kim

Park

Kim

Jung

(2011). English-medium teaching in Korean higher education: Policy debates and reality. Higher Education, 62, 431-449.

Chang

(2010). English-medium instruction for subject courses in tertiary education: Reactions from Taiwanese undergraduate students. Taiwan International ESP Journal, 2(1), 55-84.

Chen

G. M.

Starosta

W. J.

(2000). The development and validation of the intercultural Communication Sensitivity Scale. Human Communication, 3, 1-15.

Cho

(2012). English-medium Instruction in the university context of Korea: Tradeoff between teaching outcomes and media-initiated university ranking. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 9(4), 135-163.

10.

Cho

Y.-G.

(2013). English as an international language and second language motivation: A case study of Korean university students. Journal of the Korea English Education Society, 12(3), 111-134.

11.

Eisenhardt

(1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532-550.

12.

Erling

E. J.

Hilgendorf

S. K.

(2006). Language policies in the context of German higher education. Language Policy, 5, 267-292.

13.

Firth

(1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: On “lingua franca” English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 237-259.

14.

Fritz

Möllenberg

Chen

G. M.

(2002). Measuring intercultural sensitivity in different cultural contexts. Intercultural Communication Studies, 11(2), 165-176.

15.

Ghazarian

P. G.

Youhne

M. S.

(2015). Exploring intercultural pedagogy evidence from international faculty in South Korean higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 19, 476-490.

16.

Schweisfurth

Day

(2010). Learning and growing in a “foreign” context: Intercultural experiences of international students. Compare, 40, 7-23.

17.

Halualani

R. T.

(2010). Intercultural interaction at a multicultural university: Students’ definitions and sensemakings of intercultural interaction. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 3, 304-324.

18.

Hammer

M. R.

Bennett

M. J.

Wiseman

(2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The intercultural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 421-443.

19.

Hermans

J. W. M.

(2005). The X-factor: Internationalisation with a small “c.” In Kehm

B. M.

de Wit

(Eds.), Internationalisation in higher education: European responses to the global perspective (pp. 134-153). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: European Association for International Education.

20.

House

(1999). Misunderstanding in intercultural communication: Interactions in English as a lingua franca and the myth of mutual intelligibility. In Gnutzmann

(Ed.), Teaching and learning English as a global language (pp. 73-89). Tubingen, Germany: Stauffenburg.

21.

Alsagoff

(2010). A public policy perspective on English medium instruction in China. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 31, 365-382.

22.

Jensen

Johannesson

(1995). Engineering courses taught in English: An experience from Denmark. European Journal of Engineering Education, 20, 19-23.

23.

Kahng

(1999). Immersion education in Southeast Asia. English Language and Literature Teaching, 5, 79-101.

24.

Kang

D. S.

(2014). How international students build a positive relationship with a hosting country: Examination of strategic public, message and channel of national public relations. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 43, 201-214.

25.

Karuppan

C. M.

Barari

(2010). Perceived discrimination and international students’ learning: An empirical investigation. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 33, 67-83.

26.

Kim

E. G.

Kweon

S.-O.

Kim

(2017). Korean engineering students’ perceptions of English-medium instruction (EMI) and L1 use in EMI classes. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 38, 130-145.

27.

Kim

(2014). College EFL learners’ speaking motivation under English-medium instruction policy. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 11(1), 71-96.

28.

Kim

Tatar

Choi

(2014). Emerging culture of English-medium instruction in Korea: Experiences of Korean and international students. Language & Intercultural Communication, 14, 441-459.

29.

Knight

(2008). Higher education in turmoil: The changing world of internationalization. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

30.

Kwon

(2013). The sociocultural adjustment of Chinese graduate students at Korean universities: A qualitative study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37, 536-549.

31.

Lee

J. J.

Rice

(2007). Welcome to America? International student perceptions of discrimination. Higher Education, 53, 381-409.

32.

Lieblich

Tuval-Mashiach

Zilber

(1998). Narrative research: Reading, analysis, and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

33.

Manakul

(2007). Role of English in internationalization of higher education: The case of the Graduate School of Engineering, Hokkaido University. Higher Education and Lifelong Learning, 15, 155-162.

34.

Manh

L. D.

(2012). English as a medium of instruction at tertiary education system in Vietnam. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 9(2), 97-122.

35.

Mazzarol

Soutar

G. N.

(2002). Push-pull factors influencing international student destination choice. The International Journal of Educational Management, 16, 82-90.

36.

Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development. (2007). Hankuk godeung gyoyuk-ui gukje-hwa jeonryak: 2007-nyon gyehuik-an [Strategic plan of internationalization of Korean higher education: 2007 action plan]. Unpublished government document, Seoul, South Korea.

37.

Moliner

Sales

Ferrandex

Traver

(2011). Inclusive cultures, policies and practices in Spanish compulsory secondary education schools: Teachers’ perceptions in ordinary and specific teaching contexts. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15, 557-572.

38.

National Index. (2013). The number of international students enrolled in Korean Universities. Retrieved from http://www.index.go.kr/potal/main/EachDtlPageDetail.do?idx_cd=1534

39.

Park

(2012). Insight into learners’ identity in the Korean English as a lingua franca context. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 11, 229-246.

40.

Piller

Cho

(2013). Neoliberalism as language policy. Language in Society, 42, 23-44.

41.

Rienties

Alcott

Jindal-Snape

(2014). To let students self-select or not: That is the question for teachers of culturally diverse groups. Journal of Studies in International Education, 18, 64-83.

42.

Seidlhofer

(2001). Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11, 133-158.

43.

Seidlhofer

(2005). English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal, 59, 339-341.

44.

Sercu

(2002). Autonomous learning and the acquisition of intercultural communicative competence: Some implications for course development. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 15, 61-74.

45.

Sert

(2008). The language of instruction dilemma in the Turkish context. System, 36, 156-171.

46.

Teichler

(2004). The changing debate on internationalisation of higher education. Higher Education, 48, 5-26.

47.

Trytten

D. A.

Lowe

A. W.

Walden

S. E.

(2012). “Asians are good at math. What an awful stereotype”: The model minority stereotype’s impact on Asian American engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, 101, 439-468.

48.

Tsuneyoshi

(2005). The dilemmas and possibilities of study abroad programs using English. Journal of Research in International Education, 4, 65-86.

49.

Wiseman

R. L.

Hammer

M. R.

Nishida

(1989). Predictors of intercultural communication competence. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 8, 11-16.

50.

Young

T. J.

Schartner

(2014). The effects of cross-cultural communication education on international students’ adjustment and adaptation. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 35, 547-562.