miscelánea 71 (2025): pp. 67-89 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

YONAY RODRÍGUEZ RODRÍGUEZ

CUD-AGM Universidad de Zaragoza

yonay@unizar.es

<https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1969-7218>

A STUDY OF BELIEFS ABOUT EMI PROGRAMMES

IN A GALICIAN UNIVERSITY

ESTUDIO DE LAS CREENCIAS SOBRE

EL APRENDIZAJE DE CONTENIDOS EN INGLÉS

EN UNA UNIVERSIDAD GALLEGA

https://doi.org/10.26754/ojs_misc/mj.202510358

Abstract

The beliefs that learners hold are a key variable in language learning, and from a

socio-cultural perspective, learner beliefs are connected to the context in which

learning takes place. This study, which forms part of a more extensive project on

beliefs about English as a foreign language (EFL), explores the views of a group

of students and instructors at the University of Santiago de Compostela (USC)

regarding content learning in English. The beliefs of 373 students and instructors

were measured by means of a questionnaire and interview. Despite indicating a

generally positive predisposition towards EMI programmes, the responses varied

based on the academic field of the course content, students’ previous language-

learning experience and the type of English instruction used in teaching. In

addition, the data revealed a series of issues concerning the implementation of

EMI programmes at the USC. This study is the first of its type to be conducted

at this institution and one of the few in Galicia. Findings from the study

underscore the context-specific nature of beliefs in general while also drawing the

USC, together with other Spanish and foreign academic institutions, into a

broader assessment and discussion of EMI programmes.

Key words: beliefs, context, English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI),

programme implementation.

Yonay Rodríguez Rodríguez

miscelánea 71 (2025): pp. 67-89 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

Resumen

Las creencias del estudiantado son una variable importante en el proceso de

aprendizaje de un idioma, y desde un enfoque sociocultural, guardan una estrecha

relación con el contexto donde se aprende. Como parte de un proyecto más

extenso acerca de las creencias sobre el Inglés como Lengua Extranjera (ILE), en

este estudio se exploraron las ideas preconcebidas de un grupo de estudiantes y

profesores de la Universidade de Santiago de Compostela (USC) sobre el

aprendizaje de contenidos en inglés. Para ello se recopiló información de 373

participantes mediante un cuestionario y una entrevista. Los datos indican que, a

pesar de que los participantes mostraron una predisposición favorable hacia los

programas EMI, el área académica del alumnado, su experiencia previa en el

aprendizaje de idiomas, y el tipo de instrucción en inglés del profesorado marcaron

algunas diferencias. Además, se identificaron una serie de cuestiones relacionadas

con la implementación de estos programas en la USC. Al ser el primero de su tipo

que se realiza en esta institución y uno de los pocos en Galicia, este estudio

refuerza el carácter contextual de las creencias y ubica a la USC, junto a otras

universidades españolas e internacionales, en la evaluación de los programas EMI.

Palabras clave: creencias, contexto, instrucción en inglés, implementación de

programas.

1. Introduction

In recent decades, research has focused on the different ways in which beliefs are

formed and how beliefs relate to the actions, emotions and identities of learners

and instructors within the social and political contexts in which the teaching-

learning process takes place (Ellis and Tanaka 2003; Kalaja et al. 2015). Several

studies conducted in Spain have addressed the ways in which beliefs are related to

different language-learning variables (Roothooft and Breeze 2016; Doiz et al.

2019; Rodríguez-Izquierdo et al. 2020). However, few have been carried out in

Galicia, a region in northwestern Spain. One study, conducted by Cal Varela and

Fernández Polo (2007), explored self-perceptions of English proficiency among

the teaching staff at the University of Santiago de Compostela (USC) and the

ability of these academics to carry out activities related to their work. However,

students were not included as participants in the study. Another study, by Loredo

Gutiérrez et al. (2007), surveyed the attitudes of Galician students toward

multilingualism. The present study intends to fill the research gap by exploring

the views of 373 USC students and faculty members regarding English as a

medium of instruction (EMI).

A Study of Beliefs about EMI Programmes

miscelánea 71 (2025): pp. 67-89 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

As part of a process of internationalisation, Galician universities have enacted

various initiatives to enhance their curricula in order to attract more students

from outside the country. At the USC, where the present study was carried out,

the last decade has seen the introduction of a wide range of extracurricular

courses offered in different foreign languages (FLs) and an increasing number of

for-credit courses in English. In addition, universities have taken measures to

apply the Regulation for Quality Teaching in FLs (LEDUS in Galician), which

demands that all university teaching staff demonstrate a CEFR C1 proficiency

level if they are to teach a subject in English; to enrol in these courses, students

are required to have a B2 level. This expanded course offering in FLs has had a

direct impact on the beliefs and attitudes that students and faculty hold about

English as a language of instruction for learning course content, and this is the

dimension of EFL learning that this project sets out to explore. Evaluating how

students and instructors perceive the implementation of academic programs such

as EMI is necessary to make informed decisions that have implications for future

educational initiatives of this kind.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Content Learning through English Instruction in Higher Education

The presence of EMI programmes in higher education curricula has expanded in

recent times in step with the process of internationalisation. Yet, findings from

studies on their effectiveness for learning have been rather ambiguous. On the

one hand, EMI programmes are generally welcomed by students and educators

(Doiz et al. 2011; Aguilar 2017; An and Thomas 2021) and have been associated

with significant improvements in all four main English skills (Rogier 2012).

Students have also acknowledged that EMI-based teaching has certain

advantages, such as high student motivation due to the instrumental role of

English, as EMI increases students’ opportunities to practice their linguistic

skills, thus making them better prepared for mobility and more competitive

within the job market (Avello et al. 2016; Fernández-Costales 2017; Serna

Bermejo and Lasagabaster 2023). University faculty also report that EMI

programmes help them develop their linguistic competence, giving them an

added feeling of accomplishment and satisfaction; additionally, these programmes

are often tied to certain administrative and/or financial incentives (Dearden and

Macaro 2016; Macaro et al. 2019).

On the other hand, several common issues surrounding the implementation of

these programmes have been identified, mainly concerning the English

Yonay Rodríguez Rodríguez

miscelánea 71 (2025): pp. 67-89 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

proficiency of learners and the preparedness and attitudes of instructors, together

with issues relating to policy implementation and the involvement of other

stakeholders. Regarding linguistic competence in English, much concern has

been voiced about the ability of learners to assimilate content and develop

linguistic skills through EMI (Doiz et al. 2011; Murata 2019; Wang 2021). In

addition, challenges related to the development of disciplinary literacy and the

distribution of EMI subjects across the curriculum are also seen as problematic

(Airey 2011; Dearden 2018; Dafouz and Smit 2020).

The introduction of EMI programmes also leads to a change in the role of

lecturers and professors. Different studies (Doiz et al. 2013b; Kirkgöz and

Dikilitaş 2018; Murata 2019; Bowles and Murphy 2020) have identified both

positive and negative aspects of EMI in this regard. The disadvantages include,

for example, the general tendency for instructors who teach through EMI to

sidestep linguistic issues in their practice (Doiz et al. 2011; Dafouz 2014; Aguilar

2017), largely because they are not English specialists. In addition, merely

possessing linguistic expertise in English does not make an instructor qualified

to deliver this type of teaching (Dearden and Macaro 2016; Akincioğlu 2024).

Other issues such as the need for effective EMI assessment tasks, educators’

concerns about the additional responsibilities and workload that EMI entails and

the lack of administrative and financial support from other stakeholders (Aguilar

2017; Mede et al. 2018; Shohamy 2019) have also been detected.

Most of the concerns identified thus far in research seem to point to problems

stemming from inconsistencies in policy implementation, which results in limited

or incongruent procedures that hamper successful teaching and learning. This,

coupled with the need to monitor and assess these programmes, plus the need for

more human and financial resources, are pressing concerns in many institutions

of higher education today (Roberts and Palmer 2011; Doiz et al. 2013a; Ekoç

2018), including the USC, as the present study seeks to show.

2.2. The Concept of Beliefs

In simple terms, a belief can be understood as a strong opinion about what is

considered right, good or appropriate. In EFL, the beliefs of students and

instructors are central to their approaches to and expectations about the learning

process (Ellis 2008; Sadeghi and Abdi 2015). Beliefs have been found to play a

key role, for instance, in the mismatch between the aims and behaviour of

students and educators in the classroom, in the way students choose and deploy

learning strategies, in levels of student anxiety, and in the degree of autonomy in

the learning process (Barcelos and Kalaja 2006; Dafouz et al. 2016; Sydorenko et

al. 2017; Doiz and Lasagabaster 2018; Moncada-Comas 2022). Woods (1996)

A Study of Beliefs about EMI Programmes

miscelánea 71 (2025): pp. 67-89 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

showed that teachers’ beliefs about knowledge (BAK) were closely linked to

their decisions when organising and delivering the course and also to their

professional identity, which has been supported by more recent studies (Huang

et al. 2021; Er 2024).

According to Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory (SCT), beliefs change under the

influence of significant others (Barcelos and Kalaja 2011), that is, individuals or

conditions relevant to the learner, such as other learners, friends, teachers,

advisors and academic programmes. These sources provide varied interpretations,

experiences, or circumstances related to the learning event, which learners and

teachers assimilate and act upon. Among these significant others, scholars have

identified, for example, the language-learning context (ESL vs EFL), classroom

instruction, institutional policies, socio-cultural factors and new situational

experiences (e.g. university transfer due to changing cities, migration or Erasmus

programmes) (Orduna-Nocito and Sánchez-García 2022; Sato and Storch 2022;

Cots and Mancho-Barés 2024).

In the Spanish context, in their analysis of different learning environments (EFL

formal instruction, Study-abroad (SA) and English as a Medium of Instruction

(EMI)), Pérez Vidal et al. (2018) reported on more pragmatic benefits and more

self-confidence for EMI students as compared to students with SA experience. In

addition, Doiz and Lasagabaster (2018) and Serna Bermejo and Lasagabaster

(2023) found a relationship between L2 motivation and EMI contexts among

Spanish learners. More recently, interest has focused on the socio-academic

context and perceptions of students and teachers (Pérez-Llantada 2018; Rubio-

Cuenca and Perea-Barberá 2021; Velilla Sánchez 2021) to identify issues and

implement initiatives to improve the quality of EMI programmes.

3. The Study

EMI programmes are a type of significant other according to SCT and discussed

above. That is, they are a learning environment which will inevitably affect the

beliefs of students and instructors. In turn, their beliefs about these courses will

influence their choice of learning and teaching strategies, as well as their

motivation and attitude towards the learning process. With this in mind, the

present study focused on two main research questions:

RQ1. What are the beliefs of USC students and instructors from different

academic disciplines about learning course content in English?

RQ2. How do USC students and teaching staff evaluate the implementation

and functioning of EMI programmes?

Yonay Rodríguez Rodríguez

miscelánea 71 (2025): pp. 67-89 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

3.1. Participants

Of the 649 USC informants who participated in the main study about beliefs,

57% (n=373) provided data about their beliefs regarding content learning in

English, 338 of whom were students and 35 were instructors. Table 1 below

outlines the main demographic characteristics of this population sample.

STUDENTS (n=338)

Academic level Sex Nationality Academic areas

1st year

n=124 (37%) Females

n=238 (70%) Foreign

n=32 (10%)

English Studies n=99 (29%)

Other lang and lit n=20 (6%)

Cultural studies n=7 (2%)

2nd year

n=75 (22%) Males

n=100 (30%) Spanish

n=306 (90%)

Chemistry n=78 (23%)

Physics n=16 (5%)

Double degrees (Nat Sc) n=9 (2%)

3rd year

n=70 (21%)

Engineering n=17 (5%)

Journalism and AdV Comm n=6 (2%)

Criminology and Law n=19 (6%)

4th year

n=61 (18%)

Odontology n=27 (8%)

Educational Sciences n=40 (12%)

Master P.

n=8 (2%)

INSTRUCTORS (n=35)

Level taught Sex Nationality Type of English instruction

Undergraduate

n=17 (48%) Females

n=17 (49%) Foreign

n=4 (11%) EMI programmes

n=16 (45%)

Under- and

postgraduate

n=17 (48%)

Males

n=18 (51%) Spanish

n=31 (88%)

General English programmes

(Philology, ESP)

n=19 (55%)

Postgraduate only

n=1 (3%)

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the USC population sample

3.2. Methodology

A total of 338 students completed an online questionnaire on beliefs, of whom 56

were also interviewed. Meanwhile, 35 faculty members responded to the

questionnaire, 22 of whom participated in an interview. The student questionnaire

was a 39-item inventory based on the Beliefs About Learning Language Inventory

A Study of Beliefs about EMI Programmes

miscelánea 71 (2025): pp. 67-89 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

(BALLI) for FL students (Horwitz 1988). It included four items on beliefs about

EMI programmes, of which one close-ended question (36) was an opener to

another three (37-39). The 34-item questionnaire version for instructors included

two items related to EMI programmes. To tailor the study to the USC context,

the two questionnaires were available in multilingual format (Galician, Spanish,

English) and included a final section for open comments. The reliability of each

tool, which was measured using Cronbach’s alpha, ranged between 0.6 and 0.7.

Face-to-face semi-structured interviews were carried out with students and

instructors, using a set of 16 questions for students and 12 for instructors; each

set included one question and a number of prompts about EMI programmes. The

shortest conversations with students lasted about 27-30 minutes, and 31 of these

shortest conversations were held individually. The longest interviews lasted

approximately 52 minutes, six of them were held with two students and three of

them with focus groups of 4-5 students. Meanwhile, the instructors discussed

EMI programmes during individual interviews that lasted about 37 minutes. The

interviews were also offered in multilingual versions, and all answers were

transcribed orthographically for analysis.

As stipulated by the ethical guidelines of the USC (Código de Boas Prácticas Na

Investigación 2018: 11-12), consent was obtained from all participants prior to

collecting the study data, and informant anonymity was guaranteed through data

coding. Quantitative data were analysed using a variety of statistical tests available

in the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) with an alpha level set

at.05, while NVivo software was used for thematic analysis of the interview data.

Based on the research questions, three variables were used to contrast each group

of participants, that is, the students’ field of study, their foreign language

experience, and their sex; in the case of instructors, the variables used were years

of professional experience, type of English instruction, and sex.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. The Pattern of Beliefs of Students and Instructors about EMI

As regards the student questionnaire, three main statements (STs) were used to

explore their perceptions about learning through EMI.

ST37. My level of satisfaction about learning English through another subject

is (very low /low/a bit low/a bit high/high/very high).

ST38. When I learn other subjects in English, my English skills develop (not a

bit/very little/a bit/moderately/much/very much).

Yonay Rodríguez Rodríguez

miscelánea 71 (2025): pp. 67-89 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

ST39. When I learn a subject in English, I learn the content of this subject (I

can’t learn it/with much difficulty/with difficulty/with some difficulty/

easily/very easily).

Concerning the first research question, the findings show a generally homogenous

pattern of beliefs both among students and teaching staff about EMI, with differences

emerging based on variables such as disciplinary area and the type of instruction.

4.1.1. Quantitative Data from Students’ Questionnaire Responses

The reported level of satisfaction with learning content through English among

students was rather minimal (M=3.7). Whereas the informants expressed that

they are capable of learning the content of the academic subjects relatively well

(M=4.21), they believed the development of their language competence in English

to be limited (M=4.05). As one of the informants commented,

…having other subjects in English serves to learn specific vocabulary rather than to

develop skills, in my opinion and personal experience. (QtSt282)

The analysis of the variables confirmed this general belief pattern, while certain

contrasts also became evident.

4.1.1.1. Variable 1: Learners’ Area of Study

Regarding the areas of study in which learners were enrolled, a comparison of

responses across three main discipline areas yielded significant statistical

differences. As expected, responses to ST37 by Humanities and Social Sciences

students contrasted with those of the other groups in all three items related to

EMI (Table 2).

GROUPS: G1 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES (n=126)

G2 NATURAL SCIENCES (n=103)

G3 APPLIED SCIENCES (n=109)

Questionnaire statement (ST) Mean value Significant differences

ST37. My level of satisfaction with learning

English through another subject is…

G1 (M=4.03)

G1-G2 (p<.001)G2 (M=3.28)

G3 (M=3.74)

ST38. When I learn other subjects in English,

my English skills develop…

G1(M=4.48) G1-G2 (p<.001)

G2 (M=3.63)

G3 (M=3.94) G1-G3 (p<.001)

ST39. When I learn a subject in English, I learn

the content of this subject…

G1(M=4.47) G1-G2 (p=.01)

G2(M=4.13)

G3(M=3.99) G1-G3 (p< .001)

Table 2. Statistically significant differences in responses across the three main disciplinary areas

A Study of Beliefs about EMI Programmes

miscelánea 71 (2025): pp. 67-89 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

To obtain a more detailed account of students’ beliefs across specific academic

fields, the questionnaire responses were also organised into 11 different academic

subgroups containing one or two related degrees. The statistically significant

differences found are shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Statistical differences in responses across the 11 academic areas (n=338)

As can be observed, the responses to ST37 varied across the different disciplinary

fields. The learners who reported the strongest dissatisfaction with the EMI

experience were those enrolled in chemistry (M=3.21) and educational sciences

(M=3.08). However, fewer significant differences were found for statements 38

and 39, and the pattern described in Table 2 above was confirmed, with students

in English studies acknowledging greater development of their language skills

(M=4.56) and more effective learning of the course content (M=4.53). All in all,

the informants reported that they learned the content of their respective academic

subjects relatively well, while they perceived their language learning was limited.

These results mirror the unbalanced EMI learning scenario in terms of content

and language-learning outcomes in higher education (HE) that Airey describes

(2016: 73). He explains that, when enrolling in EMI courses, students are

expected to have already acquired sufficient linguistic competence in pre-

university education. Yet, as we shall see throughout this section, not only are the

student informants affected by this imbalance in EMI programmes, but also by

Yonay Rodríguez Rodríguez

miscelánea 71 (2025): pp. 67-89 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

insufficient linguistic preparation before starting them. Other research has also

pinpointed the different issues that this imbalance may cause for students’

learning (Arnó-Macià and Aguilar-Pérez 2021; Pun and Jin 2021; Zhang and

Pladevall-Ballester 2021).

4.1.1.2. Variable 2: Language-Learning Experience (LLE)

This variable comprised three sub-variables: the number of languages that

students knew other than their L1 —here called extra languages (ExL)—, the

number of foreign languages they had learnt through formal instruction (LFI),

and their SA experiences. The results for this variable, as shown in Table 3,

confirm that those students who have learnt more languages and those with some

SA experience hold different beliefs about EMI learning.

Sub-variable 1: Extra

Languages (ExL)

ST37 My level of

satisfaction...is…

ST38…my English skills

develop…

1ExL (n=106) (M=3.37) (M=3.72)

2ExL (n=151) (M=3.79) (M=4.04)

3ExL (n=59) (M=4.08) (M=4.61)

Significant differences 3ExL and 1ExL (p=.01) 3ExL and 1ExL (p<.001)

3ExL and 2ExL (p=.02)

Significant correlations - -

Sub-variable 2: Languages

learnt by FI (LFI)

1LFI (n=171) (M=3.50) (M=3.91)

2LFI (n=150) (M=3.89) (M=4.15)

3LFI (n=14) (M=4.36) (M=4.64)

Significant differences 3LFI and 1LFI (p=.02) -

Significant correlations - Positive [r (338) = .13, p=.015]

Sub variable 3: SA

experience

SA (n=93) (M=3.89) (M=4.30)

No SA (n=245) (M=3.64) (M=3.96)

Significant differences - t(336) =-2.28,p=.02

Significant correlations - Positive [r (338) = .12, p=.023]

Table 3. Significant differences and correlations for ST37 and ST38 based on LLE (n=338)

These results mirror past investigations that clarify the cognitive benefits of

increasing the linguistic repertoire and spending time in environments where

English is the native language (Kristiansen et al. 2008; Fox et al. 2019). In

addition, SA experiences in combination with formal instruction increase

students’ instrumental and integrative motivation and trigger belief changes as

A Study of Beliefs about EMI Programmes

miscelánea 71 (2025): pp. 67-89 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

regards learning strategies and autonomous learning (Serrano et al. 2016;

McManus 2023).

4.1.1.3. Variable 3: Sex

Female students reported more English linguistic growth (M=4.16) through

EMI lessons than males (M=3.79, p=.01), and they also reported more effective

learning of course content (M=4.29) than their male counterparts (M=4.02,

p=.01). Possible explanations for these findings include higher motivation and a

more effective use of learning strategies by females as identified in previous

research. They have been found to use, for example, more strategies for general

study, for practicing formal rules and for conversation than their male counterparts

(Dörnyei and Ryan 2015; Montero-Saiz Aja 2021).

4.1.2. Quantitative Data from Instructors’ Questionnaire Responses

Data related to the opinions of instructors about learning academic content in

English was elicited through questionnaire statements 29 and 32 and explored

in greater depth through the interviews. The wording for these items was as

follows:

ST29. In Galicia students who start their university degree have a good level of

English (a B1 at least). (Strongly disagree…Strongly agree)

ST32. I think they should include more subjects in English as part of the

university curriculum/programmes. [Yes, but only if they are optional

subjects / Yes, either as optional, compulsory or core subjects / No (…

please…comment…on the reasons.)]

Concerning student English proficiency on enrolment in university studies, 80%

of the teaching staff (n=28) concurred that this level is below the required

standard for HE (M=2.57). As for ST32, more than half of the instructors (57%,

n=20) supported the introduction of more EMI courses in the curriculum only if

these were offered as elective courses. Based on the variables of sex and years of

experience, no significant statistical differences were found. However, regarding

the type of instruction (i.e. GE or EMI), it seems that the EMI instructors are

more enthusiastic about the further implementation of EMI courses (M=2.75)

than the GE instructors (M=2.26; p=.02). As language specialists, it seems more

natural for the latter to identify implicit or secondary aspects, whether linguistic

and/or pedagogical, that may impinge on students’ learning and development. In

contrast, EMI instructors seem to be more positive based on the utilitarian value

of the language and the gratifying experience of teaching in a FL, as they attested

in the interviews.

Yonay Rodríguez Rodríguez

miscelánea 71 (2025): pp. 67-89 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

4.1.3. Qualitative Data from the Interviews

In terms of motivation and attitudes towards EMI programmes, about 89% of the

students (n=50) welcomed further implementation of these courses due to the

instrumentality of English, in that it guarantees preparedness for future

employment (8 ref),1 a variety of social opportunities (6 ref), better access to post-

graduate studies and research materials (7 ref) and enriched disciplinary and

language learning (2 ref). For their part, the instructors acknowledged the

usefulness of the language as a professional tool, not only for their students, but

also for themselves (4 ref). In addition, EMI instructors acknowledged that their

role grants them advantages regarding their teaching timetable and provides a

good opportunity to practice the language (4 ref).

Some lecturers and professors considered the students’ insufficient level of

English a hindrance to the learning of specific academic subjects (4 ref), and that

content learning is easier in a student’s mother tongue (2 ref). In addition, some

argued that EMI should not be imposed since there are other foreign languages

to learn as well (2 ref). Other instructors expressed their disapproval of EMI,

indicating that the challenge it poses for learners might lead to negative attitudes

towards the language. Indeed, some comments by EMI students also show

evidence of this issue:

In any case, to have to study a subject in a language that you cannot use proficiently

is always a challenge. (QtSt252)2

I don’t think I have upgraded my…language skills…in English at the USC. I think

my skills have improved very little compared to the level I had when I finished high

school, which is disappointing. (QtSt420)

The informants broadly agreed that learning English is different from learning

other subjects. Based on this belief, it is understandable that acquiring and teaching

content through EMI is very challenging, in that students and educators must

learn and teach, respectively, while engaged in course content that requires different

processes of learning. This issue has also been noted in previous studies (Cots

2013; Doiz et al. 2013b; Dafouz 2014; Pérez Vidal 2015; An and Thomas 2021).

4.2. Evaluation of EMI Programmes

In relation to the second research question regarding the implementation of these

programmes, the interviews revealed diverse sets of concerns.

4.2.1. Student and Instructor Proficiency

The comments of some instructors made clear that low levels of English

proficiency of beginning students at the USC were an issue:

A Study of Beliefs about EMI Programmes

miscelánea 71 (2025): pp. 67-89 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

Another problem is the uneven level of the students; for instance, some of them

want an exam in English but some others don’t. (EMI-IntT13)3

According to the official regulations, students are expected to have a B2 level… but it

is unrealistic. So… this means I’m forced to build basic language skills while trying to

force the programme as much as I can… The official regulations describe multilingual

students, and they say their level is high when it is really low. (GE-IntT16)

For their part, the students also acknowledged that their levels of proficiency, as

well as those of professors and lecturers, were not good enough for effective EMI

learning (5 ref). Pre-service instructors noted having received very little training

in English as future primary school teachers (2 ref), which echoes findings

reported by Loredo Gutiérrez et al. (2007) about a group of teachers in training

of whom less than 50% perceived their competence in English to be high. Apart

from their previous language-learning experiences in secondary education, this

also reflects the different levels of exposure to learning in English because of the

uneven distribution of courses across USC faculties and schools. For example, at

the beginning of the present study, only four subjects were taught in English in

the Faculty of Education, whereas 13 subjects were taught in the language in the

Faculty of Chemistry. An additional issue that underlies the negative opinions of

pre-service teaching staff seems to be the quality of the teaching they experience.

When asked if more courses in English should be included in the curriculum,

they stated:

What should be established is that if we have a good foundation at the secondary and

high school levels, we can have courses taught in English at the university. (IntSt18)

Yes, they [courses in English] should be included. We only had one subject over

three months taught by three teachers, none of whom spoke in English. And they

just focused on the basic grammar as usual. (IntSt21)

Furthermore, most of the participating instructors (95%, n=21) commented on

the preparation and attitudes of students and staff on EMI programmes. As the

following comments illustrate, the instructors themselves pointed out the need

for better training:

As to the teacher… they should allow us to take some lessons in English, for example,

for a better preparation. (EMI-IntT12)

I have a C1 level and would like to continue learning… I think all EMI teachers have

language limitations… Some students are way better than me in English because

they have lived abroad, or they are Erasmus students. (EMI-IntT13)

In the case of the other faculties, I see the advantages of EMI only if the teachers are

well prepared to deliver the lessons in English. As to the students…the level is so

unequal that perhaps it would be best to teach them English as a separate subject and

not… through the degree subjects. So, I think there’s more will to internationalize

the degrees than to have the students learn. (GE-IntT22)

Yonay Rodríguez Rodríguez

miscelánea 71 (2025): pp. 67-89 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

They [instructors] need to prepare themselves to teach specific language, for

instance, in a subject like English for law, the new ESP teacher needs to become

familiar with areas such as civil law and criminal law…general English teachers do

not normally learn terms related to law, business or science… thus, it’s necessary to

spend extra-time preparing lessons. (GE-IntT2)

These findings suggest a positive predisposition of EMI instructors to improve

their language competence in English, which aligns with the results reported by

Cal Varela and Fernández Polo (2007) about the motivations and beliefs of the

USC staff. In addition, an imbalance was found in the skill levels of the teaching

staff. On the one hand, while GE instructors have high linguistic proficiency,

they lack solid preparation to teach in ESP areas. On the other hand, pre-service

teaching staff are given good pedagogical training, but linguistic training in their

degree programmes is lacking. As regards the EMI instructors, although they are

specialists in their respective content areas, they also seem to require more solid

professional development, both pedagogically and linguistically. In this regard,

different initiatives have been set in motion in Spain and beyond, such as EMI

professional development and training programmes (Arnó-Macià and Aguilar-

Pérez 2021; Dafouz 2021; Webster and Herington 2021; Morell et al. 2022; Gil

and Mur-Dueñas 2023) which could serve as a blueprint to design solutions

customised to the needs of students and faculty at the USC.

4.2.2. Instructors’ Attitudes and Pedagogical Practice

Some comments by the EMI teaching staff illustrated that their teaching practice

was rather intuitive and based on their beliefs about teaching in English, thus

revealing a lack of pedagogical cohesion across the faculties and schools:

In terms of materials, I give my master students everything in English just as it is

stipulated in the programme. We are not allowed to give them any materials in

Spanish or Galician… It is also true that sometimes if they come across a word they

don’t know, I translate it for them. (EMI-IntT12)

So, I make clear from day one that I don’t teach English, but I won’t assess their

English either… In the case of the materials I give them out in English. (EMI-IntT15)

We should always be clear about the content, for instance, in the use of PowerPoint

slides I include illustrations to accompany the meaning of new words, we use a

combination of materials in English and Spanish… I don’t assess their language skills

but... What I don’t do is to give them the translated word or to accept questions in

Spanish or Galician. I [try] to force them to repeat [the question] in English. So, it’s

a mutual understanding that it is not an English class, but we try to understand each

other in English. (EMI-IntT18)

In terms of methodological approaches when teaching classes through EMI, the

instructors also attempt to use translanguaging,4 albeit inconsistently, as can be

gathered by some of their comments:

A Study of Beliefs about EMI Programmes

miscelánea 71 (2025): pp. 67-89 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

In chemical engineering… students can take the same subject in Spanish/Galician

or in English… In the case of the materials, I give them out in English… but via

the forums they have access to the materials in Spanish… They could do without the

English materials and use the Spanish ones, but I don’t think they do because

reading is one of their best skills. (EMI-IntT15)

Because the level of my students is not homogenous, I would usually use my

presentation slides in Spanish for those low-level students so that they may have a

better chance to follow the content but in fact there are more materials and

bibliography in English… so I give them terminology translated into Spanish

(practically a literal translation). In a one-to-one interaction, I usually use Spanish if

I see they don’t understand the explanation in English or if they can’t formulate

questions clearly. But to address the whole class I usually use English. (EMI-IntT19)

These inconsistent pedagogical practices and assessment criteria are detrimental to

the effectiveness of EMI programmes. The fact that students receive little or no

feedback about their linguistic performance runs contrary to the aims of EMI to

develop or reinforce their language skills. This means that some learners must

assimilate course content in English despite poor linguistic competence attained in

pre-university years. Along these same lines, the issue of the development of

academic English skills for their future professions should also be addressed. As

regards pedagogy, the compartmentalisation of languages, i.e. the use of English or

Spanish rather than the full available language repertoire, creates what Doiz et al.

refer to as “the hegemony of the monolingual mindset” (2013b: 215). In the case

of the current study, based in the region of Galicia, such a monolingual approach is

also detrimental to the use of the Galician language since it serves to foster the use

of the more dominant L1 (Spanish) as a counterpart to English. Moreover, whereas

team-teaching might not be feasible at the present time at the USC due to a shortage

of teaching staff, it is an alternative worth exploring in the future.

4.2.3. Curricular Organisation of EMI Programmes

Other EMI implementation-related issues voiced by the faculty members involved

the placing of EMI subjects in the most appropriate academic years or levels

throughout the curriculum, which increases the difficulty of teaching these

programmes (4 ref), as stated by one interviewee.

They [students] may find these subjects difficult because they are normally placed in

the last years of their degrees and some years have gone past since students last

studied English. Hence, on the one hand, it would seem feasible for this type of

English subject to be present at the beginning of their degree; however, on the other

hand, at the beginning stages of a degree students are not familiar with some

important concepts for their degrees and thus, it may seem useless to teach them

some terms in English before they even know what they are in their native language(s)

(GE-IntT2).

Yonay Rodríguez Rodríguez

miscelánea 71 (2025): pp. 67-89 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

Additional suggestions regarding the implementation of this methodology

included consistent need analysis and monitoring (1 ref), effective decision-

making and support by stakeholders and local authorities, and sufficient academic,

human and economic resources (7 ref). All these aspects impinge on the quality

of EMI programmes, that is, on “the level of excellence at which the institutional

EMI policy is reflected in instructional practices…, learning outcomes and

alumni performance” (Akincioğlu 2024: 146).

4.2.4 Linguistic Friction of EFL and L1s

Finally, the data also showed the linguistic friction that can arise from the process

of internationalisation in multilingual contexts (Doiz et al. 2011, 2014; Cots

2013). This is reflected in the ideological approach of two interviewees, the first

of whom wondered, “Why do we have to give up Spanish as a LF and surrender

to English?” (GE-IntT3). In a similar vein, a second instructor explained that

EMI subjects widen the gap between those students with high and lower levels of

proficiency. “It harms, consequently, those students whose skills are not

linguistic” (GE-IntT5). Other participants also consider English as a form of

imperialism, as these comments show:

Although foreign languages are very important, I think it is more important to know

your mother tongue very well. In the case of Galician people, it is sad when I hear

them speak proficiently in English, Spanish, or other foreign languages but they

can’t produce a full correct sentence in Galician, the language of our land. (QtSt238)

Forced linguistic colonialism has a negative impact on the recipient cultures. The

educational, personal, and developmental benefits deriving from the learning of a

foreign language are present regardless of the language learned. The impossibility of

choosing beyond the English language is inadequate, and it leads students to think

they are not good at languages since they cannot achieve a high level of competence

in English in particular. (GE-QtT4)

This linguistic tension cannot be overlooked when implementing EMI programmes

in multilingual regions since monolingual practices in English undermine the

multilingual identities of the learners and teachers. Thus, EMI pedagogies should

favor more inclusive, multilingual practices (Doiz et al. 2019; Akincioğlu 2024).

5. Concluding Remarks

In this study I have addressed two main research questions about EMI programs

at the USC. The first one aimed to identify the beliefs of the participants about

content learning in English in the different academic areas. The data reported

here indicate that they share positive views about the implementation of EMI

A Study of Beliefs about EMI Programmes

miscelánea 71 (2025): pp. 67-89 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

courses, mostly due to the utilitarian use of English. A key finding in this study,

however, is that the academic field of the students, as well as their linguistic

experience, had a bearing on responses, as did the type of English instruction the

teachers delivered. The primary implication of these findings is the need for

customised pedagogies in EMI programmes at the USC.

As regards the second question, the perceptions of students and teaching staff

about the EMI experience revealed various issues regarding the implementation

of this methodology, such as inadequate linguistic preparation, inconsistent

pedagogical practices and organisational difficulties. These data mirror the

results of previous studies conducted both in Spain and abroad (Dafouz et al.

2016; Kirkgöz and Dikilitaş 2018; Pérez-Llantada 2018; Doiz et al. 2019; Arnó-

Macià and Aguilar-Pérez 2021; Akincioğlu 2024). Thus, further evaluation and

adjustment of the implementation policies of these programmes at the USC is

required to tackle these issues.

The findings of this study not only contribute to the existing body of knowledge

about learning through EMI but also carry significant implications since they

could inform the process of curricular adaptation or design of EMI programmes

to better align them with the learners’ and educators’ needs. In addition, these

results could also provide insights for teacher-training initiatives and for more

effective policy implementation including, for example, more resource allocation

and better instruction and assessment practices. Within the classroom context,

these findings could also be used by instructors to implement interventions to

foster motivation, to use more effective pedagogies and to design materials that

are better adapted to the students’ learning needs.

While this project provides valuable insights regarding EMI programmes at the

USC, it also has some limitations such as its exploratory character and the lack of

participation of actors other than students and teachers. To overcome these

limitations, future research should comprise a more in-depth analysis of the

impact this methodology has on students’ learning, and further examination of

the implementation policies involving other stakeholders such as administrators

and university councils. Finally, this study could be replicated in other institutions,

thereby permitting the emergence of evolving solutions and fostering increased

cohesion and functionality in EMI programmes across the Galician region and

more broadly in Spain.

Acknowledgements

Funding from the following institutions is highly appreciated: Regional

Government of Galicia (grants GPC2015/004, ED431D 2017/09, ED431B

Yonay Rodríguez Rodríguez

miscelánea 71 (2025): pp. 67-89 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

2018/05, ED431B 2021/02), the Spanish Ministry of Economy and

Competitiveness (grant FFI2015-64057-P) and the Spanish State Research

Agency (grants PGC2018-093622-B-I00 and PID2021-122267NB-I00).

Notes

1. In NVivo, a reference (ref) is the

number of times an answer or argument was

repeated.

2. Questionnaire-Student # (QtSt252).

3. GE or EMI Interview-Instructor #

(GEIntT12 or EMI-IntT12).

4. Translanguaging: the use of the

full linguistic repertoire of communicative

strategies that speakers possess from the

various languages that they know (Taken and

adapted from www.dicenlen.eu).

Works Cited

AGUILAR, Marta. 2017. “Engineering Lecturers’ Views on CLIL and EMI”. International Journal of

Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 20 (6): 722-735. <https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2015.10

73664>.

AIREY, John. 2011. “The Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix: A Heuristic Tool for Initiating

Collaboration in Higher Education”. Across the Disciplines 8 (3): 1-9. <https://doi.org/10.37514/

atd-j.2011.8.3.18>.

AIREY, John. 2016. “EAP, EMI or CLIL?” In Hyland, Ken and Philip Shaw (eds.) The Routledge

Handbook of English for Academic Purposes. Routledge: 71-83.

AKINCIOğLU, Mustafa. 2024. “Rethinking of EMI in Higher Education: A Critical View on Its Scope,

Definition and Quality”. Language, Culture and Curriculum 37 (2): 139-154. <https://doi.org/10.10

80/07908318.2023.2251519>.

AN, Jiangshan and Nathan THOMAS. 2021. “Students’ Beliefs about the Role of Interaction for

Science Learning and Language Learning in EMI Science Classes: Evidence from High Schools

in China”. Linguistics and Education 65 (100972): 1-11. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

linged.2021.100972>.

ARNó-MACIà, Elisabet and Marta AGUILAR-PÉREZ. 2021. “Language Issues in EMI. When Lecturers

and Students Can Choose the Language of Instruction 1”. In Block, David and Sarah Khan (eds.)

The Secret Life of English-Medium Instruction in Higher Education. Examining Microphenomena

in Context. Routledge: 19-42. <https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003005667-2>.

AVELLO, Maria, Mª Mar CAMACHO-MIñANO, Elena URQUIA-GRANDE and Cristina DEL CAMPO. 2016. “Is

Spain Different? Undergraduate Students’ Perceptions About the Use of English”. ICERI2016:

Proceedings 1 IATED: 1780-1786. <https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2016.0140>.

A Study of Beliefs about EMI Programmes

miscelánea 71 (2025): pp. 67-89 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

BARCELOS, Ana Maria F. and Paula KALAJA. 2006. Beliefs about SLA, New Research Approaches.

Springer.

BARCELOS, Ana Maria F. and Paula KALAJA. 2011 “Introduction to Beliefs about SLA Revisited”.

System 39 (3): 281-289. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.07.001>.

BOwLES, Hugo, and Amanda C. MURPHY. (eds.) 2020. English-Medium Instruction and the

Internationalization of Universities. Palgrave-McMillan. <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-

47860-5>.

CAL VARELA, Mario, and Francisco Javier FERNÁNDEZ POLO. 2007. English Use and Needs of the

Teaching and Research Staff at the University of Santiago de Compostela. Publishing and

Scientific Exchange Service-USC.

COTS, Josep M. 2013. “Introducing English-Medium Instruction at the University of Lleida,

Spain: Intervention, Beliefs and Practices”. In Doiz, Aintzane, David Lasagabaster and Juan

Manuel Sierra (eds.) English-Medium Instruction at Universities - Global Challenges.

Multilingual Matters: 106-28. <https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847698162-010>.

COTS, Josep M., and Guzmán MANCHO-BARÉS. 2024. “English-Medium Instruction in Higher

Education in Japan”. In Bolton, Kingsley, Werner Botha and Benedict Lin (eds.)The Routledge

Handbook of English-medium Instruction in Higher Education. Routledge: 491-503. <https://doi.

org/10.4324/9781003011644-38>.

DAFOUZ, Emma. 2014. “Integrating Content and Language in European Higher Education: An

Overview of Recurrent Research Concerns and Pending Issues”. In Agathopoulou, Eleni, Angeliki

Psaltou-Joycey and Marina Mattheoudakis (eds.) Cross-curricular Approaches to Language

Education. Cambridge Scholars Publishing: 289-304.

DAFOUZ, Emma. 2021. “Repositioning English-Medium Instruction in a Broader International

Agenda: Insights from a Survey on Teacher Professional Development”. Revista Alicantina de

Estudios Ingleses 34 (2021): 15-38. <https://doi.org/10.14198/raei.2021.34.08>.

DAFOUZ, Emma, Julia HüTTNER and Ute SMIT. 2016. “University Teachers’ Beliefs of Language and

Content Integration in English-Medium Education in Multilingual University Settings”. In Nikula,

Tarja, Emma Dafouz, Pat Moore and Ute Smit (eds.) Conceptualising Integration in CLIL and

Multilingual Education. Multilingual Matters: 123-144. <https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783096145-009>.

DAFOUZ, Emma and Ute SMIT. 2020. ROAD-MAPPING English Medium Education in the

Internationalised University. Palgrave Macmillan. <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23463-8>.

DEARDEN, Julie. 2018. “The Changing Roles of EMI Academics and English Language Specialists”.

In Kirkgöz, Yasemin and Kenan Dikilitaş (eds.) Key Issues in English for Specific Purposes in

Higher Education. Springer: 323-338. <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70214-8_18>.

DEARDEN, Julie and Ernesto MACARO. 2016. “Higher Education Teachers’ Attitudes towards English

Medium Instruction: A Three-Country Comparison”. Studies in Second Language Learning and

Teaching 6 (3): 455-486. <https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.3.5>.

DOIZ, Aintzane and David LASAGABASTER. 2018. “Teachers’ and Students’ Second Language

Motivational Self System in English-Medium Instruction: A Qualitative Approach”. TESOL

Quarterly 52 (3): 657-679. <https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.452>.

DOIZ, Aintzane, David LASAGABASTER and Juan Manuel SIERRA. 2011. “Internationalisation,

Multilingualism and English-Medium Instruction”. World Englishes 30 (3): 345-359. <https://doi.

org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2011.01718.x>.

DOIZ, Aintzane, David LASAGABASTER and Juan Manuel SIERRA. (eds.) 2013b. English-Medium

Instruction at Universities - Global Challenges. Multilingual Matters. <https://doi.org/10.21832/

9781847698162>.

Yonay Rodríguez Rodríguez

miscelánea 71 (2025): pp. 67-89 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

DOIZ, Aintzane, David LASAGABASTER and Juan Manuel SIERRA. 2013a. “Globalisation,

Internationalisation, Multilingualism and Linguistic Strains in Higher Education”. Studies in

Higher Education 38 (9): 1407-1421. <https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.642349>.

DOIZ, Aintzane, David LASAGABASTER and Víctor PAVóN. 2019. “Undergraduates’ Beliefs about the

Role of Language and Team Teaching in EMI Courses at University”. Rassegna Italiana Di

Linguistica Applicata 50 (2-3): 111-127.

DOIZ, Aintzane, David LASAGABASTER and Juan Manuel SIERRA. 2014. “Language Friction and

Multilingual Policies in Higher Education: The Stakeholders’ View”. Journal of Multilingual and

Multicultural Development 35 (4): 345-360. <https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2013.874433>.

DöRNYEI, Zoltán and Stephen RYAN. 2015. “The Psychology of the Language Learner Revisited”.

The Psychology of the Language Learner Revisited. Routledge. <https://doi.

org/10.4324/9781315779553>.

EKOç, Arzu. 2018. “English Medium Instruction (EMI) from the Perspectives of Students at a

Technical University in Turkey”. Journal of Further and Highe.r Education 44 (2): 231-243. <https://

doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2018.1527025>

ELLIS, Rod. 2008. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford U.P.

ELLIS, Rod and Koichi TANAKA. 2003. “Study-Abroad, Language Proficiency, and Learner Beliefs

about Language Learning”. JALT Journal 25 (1): 63-85. <https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTJJ25.1-3>.

ER, Emre. 2024. “The Relationship between Principal Leadership and Teacher Practice: Exploring

the Mediating Effect of Teachers’ Beliefs and Professional Learning.” Educational Studies 50 (2):

166-185. <https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2021.1936458>.

FERNÁNDEZ-COSTALES, Alberto. 2017. “Assessing Students’ Perceptions Regarding English Medium

Instruction in Higher Education”. Didáctica : Lengua y Literatura 29: 43-63. <https://doi.

org/10.5209/DIDA.57129>.

FOx, Rebecca, Olga CORRETJER and Kelley wEBB. 2019. “Benefits of Foreign Language Learning and

Bilingualism: An Analysis of Published Empirical Research 2012-2019”. Foreign Language Annals

52 (4): 699-726. <https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12424>.

GIL, Vicky and Pilar MUR DUEñAS. 2023. “Designing and Implementing a Professional Programme

for ICLHE Teachers: Beyond Linguistic and Communicative Competence”. Journal of Language

Teaching and Research 14 (4): 1013-1022. <https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1404.19>.

HORwITZ, Elaine. 1988. “The Beliefs about Language Learning of Beginning University Foreign

Language Students”. The Modern Language Journal 72 (3): 283-294. <https://doi.

org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1988.tb04190.x>.

HUANG, Jing, Yi wANG and Feng TENG. 2021. “Understanding Changes in Teacher Beliefs and

Identity Formation: A Case Study of Three Novice Teachers in Hong Kong”. Teaching Education

32 (2): 193-207. <https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10476210.2019.1693535>.

KALAJA, Paula, Ana Maria F. BARCELOS, Mari ARO and Maria RUOHOTIE-LYHTY. (eds.) 2015. Beliefs,

Agency and Identity in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. Palgrave, McMillan.

KIRKGöZ, Yasemin, and Kenan DIKILITAş. (eds.) 2018. Key Issues in English for Specific Purposes in

Higher Education. Springer. < https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70214-8>.

KRISTIANSEN, Gitte, Michel ACHARD, René DIRVEN and Francisco J. RUIZ DE MENDOZA IBÁñEZ. (eds.) 2008.

Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives. Mouton de Gruyter.

A Study of Beliefs about EMI Programmes

miscelánea 71 (2025): pp. 67-89 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

LOREDO GUTIÉRREZ, Xaquin, Antonio FERNÁNDEZ SALGADO, Isabel SUÁREZ FERNÁNDEZ and Hakan CASARES

BERG. 2007. “Language Use and Language Attitudes in Galicia”. In Huguet, Ángel and David

Lasagabaster (eds.) Multilingualism in European Bilingual Contexts. Multilingual Matters: 40-

64. <https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.27939661.6>.

LU, Yen Hui. 2022. “A Case Study of EMI Teachers’ Professional Development: The Impact of

Interdisciplinary Teacher Collaboration”. RELC Journal 53 (3): 642-656. <https://doi.

org:10.1177/0033688220950888>.

MACARO, Ernesto, Samantha CURLE, Jack PUN, Jiangshan AN and Julie DEARDEN. 2018. “A Systematic

Review of English Medium Instruction in Higher Education”. Language Teaching 51 (1): 36-76

<https://doi.org:10.1017/S0261444817000350>.

MACARO, Ernesto, Antonio JIMèNEZ-MUñOZ and David LASAGABASTER. 2019. “The Importance of

Certification of English Medium Instruction Teachers in Higher Education in Spain”. Porta

Linguarum 32: 103-118. <https://doi.org/10.30827/pl.v0i32.13702>.

MCMANUS, Bykevin. 2023. “Practice in Study Abroad Contexts”. In Suzuki, Yuichi (ed.) Practice

and Automatization in Second Language Research. Routledge: 160-177. <https://doi.

org/10.4324/9781003414643>.

MEDE, Enisa, Nergis KOPARAN and Derin ATAY. 2018 “Perceptions of Students, Teachers and

Graduates About Civil Aviation Cabin Services ESP Program: An Exploratory Study in Turkey”.

In Kirkgöz, Yasemin and Kenan Dikilitaş (eds.) Key Issues in English for Specific Purposes in

Higher Education. Springer: 157-175. <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70214-8_10>.

MONCADA-COMAS, Balbina. 2022. “What Students Have To Say About Emi: Exploring University

Students’ Perspectives on Changing the Learning/Teaching Language To English”. ESP Today 10

(2): 263-85. <https://doi.org/10.18485/esptoday.2022.10.2.4>.

MONTERO-SAIZ AJA, Alejandra. 2021. “Gender-Based Differences in EFL Learners’ Language

Learning Strategies and Productive Vocabulary”. Theory and Practice of Second Language

Acquisition 2: 83-107. <https://doi.org/10.31261/TAPSLA.8594>.

MORELL, Teresa, Marian ALESON-CARBONELL and Pilar ESCABIAS-LLORET. 2022. “Prof-Teaching: An

English-Medium Instruction Professional Development Program with a Digital, Linguistic and

Pedagogical Approach”. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 16 (4-5): 392-411. <https://

doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2022.2052298>.

MURATA, Kumiko. (ed.) 2019. English-medium instruction from an English as a Lingua Franca

Perspective: Exploring the Higher Education Context. Routledge.

ORDUNA-NOCITO, Elena, and Davinia SÁNCHEZ-GARCÍA. 2022. “Aligning Higher Education Language

Policies with Lecturers’ Views on EMI Practices: A Comparative Study of Ten European

Universities”. System 104 (August). <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102692>.

PÉREZ-LLANTADA, Carmen. 2018. “Bringing into Focus Multilingual Realities: Faculty Perceptions of

Academic Languages on Campus”. Lingua 212: 30-43. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

lingua.2018.05.006>.

PÉREZ VIDAL, Carmen. 2015. “Languages for All in Education: CLIL and ICLHE at the Crossroads of

Multilingualism, Mobility and Internationalisation”. In Juan-Garau, Maria, and Joana Salazar-

Noguera (eds.) Content-Based Language Learning in Multilingual Educational Environments.

Springer: 163-177. <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11496-5_3>.

PÉREZ VIDAL, Carmen, Sonia LóPEZ-SERRANO, Jennifer AMENT and Dakota J THOMAS-wILHELM. (eds.)

2018. Learning Context Effects: Study Abroad, Formal Instruction and International Immersion

Classrooms. Language Science Press.

Yonay Rodríguez Rodríguez

miscelánea 71 (2025): pp. 67-89 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

PUN, Jack and Xina JIN. 2021. “Student Challenges and Learning Strategies at Hong Kong EMI

Universities”. PLoS ONE 16 (5): 1-16. <https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251564>.

ROBERTS, Amy and John D. PALMER. 2011. “Ideologies of the Globalization and Internationalization

of Higher Education: An East Asian Context”. In Palmer, John D., Amy Roberts, Young Ha Cho

and Gregory S. Ching (eds.) The Internationalization of East Asian Higher Education. Palgrave,

McMillan: 1-9. <https://doi.org/10.16194/j.cnki.31-1059/g4.2011.07.016>.

RODRÍGUEZ-IZQUIERDO, Rosa M., Inmaculada GONZÁLEZ FALCóN and Cristina GOENECHEA PERMISÁN. 2020.

“Teacher Beliefs and Approaches to Linguistic Diversity. Spanish as a Second Language in the

Inclusion of Immigrant Students”. Teaching and Teacher Education 90: 103035. <https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103035>.

ROGIER, Dawn. 2012. The Effects of English-Medium Instruction on Language Proficiency of Students

Enrolled in Higher Education in the UAE. The University of Exeter.

ROOTHOOFT, Hanne and Ruth BREEZE. 2016. “A Comparison of EFL Teachers’ and Students’ Attitudes

to Oral Corrective Feedback”. Language Awareness 25 (4): 318-335. <https://doi.org/10.1080/096

58416.2016.1235580>.

RUBIO-CUENCA, Francisco and María Dolores PEREA-BARBERÁ. 2021. “Monitoring EMI Teachers to

Assess Their Progress in University Bilingual Programs”. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses

34: 131-157. <https://doi.org/10.14198/raei.2021.34.07>.

SADEGHI, Karim and Heidar, ABDI. 2015. “A Comparison of EFL Teachers and Students’ Beliefs

about Language Learning”. Mextesol 39 (1): 1-14.

SATO, Masatoshi and Neomy STORCH. 2022. “Context Matters: Learner Beliefs and Interactional

Behaviors in an EFL vs. ESL Context”. Language Teaching Research 26 (5): 919-942. <https://doi.

org/10.1177/1362168820923582>.

SERNA BERMEJO, Iratxe and David LASAGABASTER. 2023. “Why Do Students Choose EMI Courses? An

Analysis of Their Motivational Drives”. Porta Linguarum Revista Interuniversitaria de Didáctica

de las Lenguas Extranjeras 40: 235-252. <https://doi.org/10.30827/portalin.vi40.27025>.

SERRANO, Raquel, Ángels LLANES and Elsa TRAGANT. 2016 “Examining L2 Development in Two

Short-Term Intensive Programs for Teenagers: Study Abroad vs. ‘at Home’”. System 57: 43-54.

<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.01.003>.

SHOHAMY, Elana. 2019. “Critical Language Testing and English Lingua Franca: How Can One Help

the Other?” In Murata, Kumiko (ed.) English-Medium Instruction from an English as a Lingua

Franca Perspective: Exploring the Higher Education Context. Routledge: 271-285. <https://doi.

org/10.4324/9781351184335-19>

SYDORENKO, Tetyana, Ching-Ni HSIEH, Seongmee AHN and Nike ARNOLD. 2017. “Foreign Language

Learners’ Beliefs about CALL : The Case of a US Midwestern University”. CALICO Journal: 34 (2):

196-218. <https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.28226>.

UNIVERSIDADE DE SANTIAGO DE COMPOSTELA. 2018. Código de Boas Prácticas Na Investigación

Universidade de Santiago de Compostela. <https://imaisd.usc.es/>.

VELILLA SÁNCHEZ, María de los Ángeles. 2021. English as an Academic Lingua Franca in Spanish

Tertiary Education: An Analysis of the Use of Pragmatic Strategies in English-Medium Lectures.

[Doctoral thesis. Universidad de Zaragoza]. Zaguán. <https://zaguan.unizar.es/>.

wANG, Ying. 2021. “The Role of English in Higher Education Internationalization: Language

Ideologies on EMI Programmes in China”. In Bowles, Hugo and Amanda C. Murphy (eds.)

English-Medium Instruction and the Internationalization of Universities. Palgrave, McMillan:

103-128. <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47860-5_5>.

A Study of Beliefs about EMI Programmes

miscelánea 71 (2025): pp. 67-89 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834

wEBSTER, Simon and Rupert HERINGTON. 2021. “Intensive Teacher Education for an EMI Context:

Facilitating the Professional Development of University Teachers.” International Research in

Higher Education 6 (3): 1-12. <https://doi.org/10.5430/irhe.v6n3p1>.

wOODS, Devon. 1996. Teacher Cognition in Language Learning. Beliefs, Decision-Making and

Classroom Practice. Cambridge U.P.

ZHANG, Mengjia and Elisabet PLADEVALL-BALLESTER. 2021. “Discipline-Specific Language Learning

Outcomes in EMI Programs in the People’s Republic of China”. Language and Education 35 (4):

357-374. <https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2021.1895827>.

Received: 22/03/2024

Accepted: 29/10/2024

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.