Group photo, New Technologies in Intercultural Communication Symposium (Image credit: Language on the Move)

On a crack-of-dawn flight early Monday morning last week, I flew to Sydney for the day to attend “New Technologies in Intercultural Communication“, a symposium hosted by the Language on the Move Team at Macquarie University.

The presentations explored intercultural communication ranging from the use of digital technologies by elderly migrants and their families (Dr Earvin Charles B. Cabalquinto), GenAI as digital shadow care support by international students (Dr Julia Kantek and Dr Thilakshi Mallawa Arachchi), language learning tools by transnational parents for heritage language maintenance (Dr Ana Sofia Bruzon), learning technologies in primary science classrooms in Australia and Korea (Dr Hye-Eun Chu), and social media in language learning (Dr Yeong-Ju Lee). And to think the new technology promising proficiency and fluency “back in my day” (I find myself relating to a joke Professor Piller made about technological development) relied on cassette tapes at the language lab!

The symposium showcased a fascinating catalogue of digital technologies enabling intercultural communication. We heard about high school students in an Australian classroom connecting with Korean students to hypothesize why the seasons differ between their two countries. We heard of transnational parents employing creative ways to encourage their children to connect to their heritage languages, especially to communicate with family members. It was also intriguing to hear how social media platforms such as Tiktok offer features such as “duet”, creating opportunities for speakers of different languages to collaborate and co-construct meaning.

While we heard of these novel and exciting ways technology can be used to enhance intercultural communication, each presenter emphasized the human element in communication. I could not help but think about how language learning tends to be marketed as fun, brain-boosting, or career-enhancing. And yet, language in human relationships is messy, and missteps happen! Even so, whether you already speak the language or are learning an additional one, I believe empathy and deeper understanding are borne out of the struggle to communicate and truly connect with each other.

The most striking point for me was that some uses of technology actually stem from institutional failures or social exclusion, leaving the vulnerable members of our society even more marginalized. Earvin reminded us that although much of the discussion seems to be on the importance of digital literacy skills, many still lack basic access to technological infrastructure that we often take for granted in urban Australia. Julia and Thilakshi’s presentation highlighted the isolation that international students experience, turning to GenAI for immediate advice on legal matters, polishing their resumes, or easing homesickness. Ana pointed to multilingual parents’ struggles of heritage language maintenance in the face of pervasive monolingual mindset across Australian schooling and public discourse.

As I flew back to Brisbane that evening, reflecting on the presentations, discussion questions, and conversations I had with fellow attendees strengthened my resolve to keep pushing for equity in language learning and digital access.

We need to keep asking: How do we use technology for intercultural communication? Who gets left out? And how can we keep working towards digital and social inclusion?

I want to thank UQ School of Education for making it possible for me to attend the symposium, and to Distinguished Professor Ingrid Piller, Dr Loy Lising, Dr Ana Sofia Bruzon and the Language on the Move team for bringing together a rich program and creating the opportunity to hear from and exchange ideas with other scholars.

Figure 1: Transitional “Hayakom at HBKU” sign marking HBKU’s presence in the TAMUQ building (picture taken by authors)

Walking into the Texas A&M University at Qatar (TAMUQ) building today feels different from just a year ago. As part of an ongoing project, several students and I (Sara) have been documenting the visual and linguistic changes taking place across the TAMUQ building in Education City, Qatar. The university’s traditional greeting Howdy, its maroon banners, and the familiar Aggie insignia (the shared nickname and identity of Texas A&M students and alumni) are still visible, yet they are beginning to lose their dominance. In their place, visitors are now welcomed by new blue-and-white signs displaying a translingual message: “Hayakom at HBKU.” The Gulf Arabic word hayakom, meaning “welcome,” has become increasingly prominent on posters, banners, and orientation booths. Although much of this signage is not yet permanently installed, the shift is already evident.

This evolving dynamic from Howdy to Hayakom reflects more than just a sudden change in branding. It marks a shift in Qatar’s higher education landscape, as the U.S. branch campus TAMUQ, part of Qatar Foundation (QF) and located in Education City, prepares to close in 2028 while its fellow QF institution, the homegrown Hamad Bin Khalifa University (HBKU), gradually assumes its facilities and students. The closure decision followed a surprise February 2024 vote by the Board of Regents of Texas A&M University’s main campus in College Station, Texas, which cited regional instability and a renewed focus on its U.S. mission. Soon after that announcement, the three of us began photographing every Texas A&M emblem, sign, and display in the building, creating a record to track the changes over time and to preserve a piece of the campus’s history. Over the past year, we have watched the visual culture of the space shift in real time. Through signage, slogans, and colors, the linguistic landscape of the building and the identities it projects tell a story of institutional transformation, cultural localization, and shifting ideologies of belonging.

The educationscape as a site of change

Scholars of linguistic landscapes often remind us that signs do more than convey information; they materialize power, ideology, identity, and values in public space (Ahmad, 2022; Hillman & Ahmad, 2024). The same can be said for educationscapes, where universities use visuals, language, and architecture to communicate identities, values and affiliations (Krompák et al., 2022).

Figure 2:  Howdy signage inside the TAMUQ building representing Aggie identity and transnational continuity (picture taken by authors)

At TAMUQ, Howdy has reigned supreme for more than twenty years. As the official greeting of Texas A&M, faculty, staff, and students at the main campus use it to welcome one another and to greet campus visitors as a sign of Aggie hospitality. On the Doha campus, Howdy appears in signage, emails, and posters for Student Affairs events such as “Howdy Week.” Its cheerful informality reinforced continuity between College Station and its branch campus thousands of miles away.

Now, however, Howdy coexists with Hayakom. HBKU has introduced its own greeting, one that foregrounds the local linguistic and cultural context. HBKU Student Affairs has also begun cultivating its own traditions: “Hayakom Tuesday,” echoing TAMUQ’s “Howdy Week,” and “Blue Thursday,” where students are encouraged to “wear blue, show blue, scream blue!”—a parallel to TAMUQ’s maroon-and-white Spirit Thursdays where Aggies are encouraged to “embrace the maroon and white.”

This bilingual, bicultural overlap reflects the liminal moment both institutions currently inhabit. TAMUQ has not yet closed, and many of its students and faculty still identify strongly with Aggie traditions. At the same time, HBKU is asserting itself through new rituals, slogans, and events.

From maroon to blue: Rebranding space and identity

Alongside slogans, colors play an equally prominent role in communicating institutional belonging. TAMUQ’s maroon and white palette linked it visually to its U.S. home campus, reinforcing transnational identity and Aggie pride. Walking through the corridors meant walking through a transplanted Texas brandscape, complete with photos of College Station landmarks.

Figures 3a and 3b: HBKU “Blue Thursday” and TAMUQ “Spirit Thursday” posters on Instagram (screenshots taken by authors)

Today, that palette is fading. Blue and white, the colors of HBKU, now dominate new signage, orientation banners, and student activities. Cushions in the front entrance lobby now feature HBKU’s blue and white geometric logo, and the hallways are lined with images of the Minaretein building (meaning two minarets), HBKU’s signature architectural complex that includes both a mosque and academic colleges, replacing many of the Texas-centric visuals that once dominated the space.

The color shift is more than aesthetic. It signals a deliberate rebranding that seeks to reshape not only institutional identity but also the sense of belonging for students, faculty, and visitors.

Signs of state and leadership

The changes are also visible in the presence of Qatar’s leadership. At the building’s entrance, portraits of the Emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, and his father, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, now hang prominently. Such state imagery was absent during the TAMUQ era, when visual emphasis rested on Aggie traditions and the global prestige of Texas A&M. Their presence today highlights HBKU’s identity as QF’s homegrown university and its role in advancing national priorities. The walls themselves remind visitors that HBKU is a Qatari institution, rooted in the state’s vision for education and innovation.

Bilingualism and the Arabic language protection law

Another notable change is that TAMUQ operated under a cross-border partnership agreement with QF and was not required to maintain bilingual signage. As a result, its displays were often inconsistent, with some appearing only in English and others in both English and Arabic. However, HBKU complies more with Qatar’s 2019 Arabic Language Protection Law (Law No. 7 of 2019 on the Protection of the Arabic Language). This law requires Arabic to be the primary language on all public signage.

In practice, this means HBKU’s official signage is almost always bilingual, with Arabic typically placed above or beside the English text. This layout gives prominence to Arabic while reflecting HBKU’s use of English as its official medium of instruction and as a shared language among its diverse student body

Figure 4: Portraits of Qatar’s leadership, including the Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani (left) and the Father Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani (right), now displayed at the building’s entrance (picture taken by authors)

The difference is visible, for example, in faculty office nameplates. At TAMUQ, they appeared only in English, whereas at HBKU they are consistently bilingual, with Arabic displayed first. This small but significant shift reflects how language policy is made material in the everyday visual culture of the university.

Belonging and identity in flux

What does it mean for students, faculty, and staff to inhabit this shifting educationscape? This is a question we are currently exploring in our ongoing research about the transition from TAMUQ to HBKU. For Aggies, watching maroon and Howdy fade from view may bring a sense of sadness, as if traditions and ties to the wider Aggie network are slowly being eroded. For new students entering through HBKU, however, Hayakom and the visible presence of Qatari leadership may foster a sense of national belonging and legitimacy that TAMUQ, as a foreign branch campus, could perhaps not fully provide.

The transition also brings into focus broader debates about language, identity, and higher education in Qatar. For years, international branch campuses have stood as symbols of global mobility and English-medium internationalization. HBKU, by contrast, is an explicitly Qatari project, though still English-medium. Its bilingual signage acknowledges the centrality of Arabic in public life while retaining English as the dominant academic language. In this sense, the visual and linguistic rebranding of the building does more than mark institutional change; it materializes Qatar’s ongoing negotiation between global aspiration and national affirmation.

From global brand to national–international project

The TAMUQ-to-HBKU shift can be read as part of a wider trend. Around the world, branch campuses have been praised for providing global exposure but also critiqued for being costly, unsustainable, or disconnected from local needs (Bollag, 2024; Kim, 2025). By 2028, TAMUQ will join the growing list of international branch campuses that have either closed or been absorbed into national institutions. Yet this trajectory is not universal. In the Gulf and parts of Asia, other branch campuses continue to expand, supported by government funding and demand for global higher education pathways.

Figures 5a and 5b: TAMUQ English-only office nameplate and HBKU bilingual Arabic–English office nameplate (photos taken by authors)

In this case, the closure decision was not driven by Qatar’s plans but rather by political currents in the United States, where heightened scrutiny of foreign funding and a turn toward isolationism have reshaped attitudes toward international partnerships. Although HBKU is QF’s homegrown university, it was intentionally designed to be both nationally grounded and internationally oriented—an English-medium institution that continues to attract global faculty and students while advancing Qatar’s local educational priorities. The move from Howdy to Hayakom thus signals more than a greeting. It marks a broader shift from borrowed traditions to localized yet globally connected narratives of identity and belonging.

Reading the signs

As universities, like cities, are built through language and signs, paying attention to the educationscape reveals the symbolic and material contours of change. At TAMUQ/HBKU, the coexistence of Howdy and Hayakom, maroon and blue, photos of Aggie landmarks and Minaretein, encapsulates a moment of transition.

These signs remind us that institutional change is not only about policy or governance. It is lived and seen in everyday spaces: on banners, cushions, doorways, and Instagram posts. They invite us to consider how language, color, and imagery make and remake belonging in higher education. For now, both greetings echo in the same hallways. Yet with each new sign and slogan, the balance tilts, signaling which voice will carry forward for now.

References

Ahmad, R. (2022, October 11). Mal Lawwal: Linguistic landscapes of Qatar [Blog post]. Language on the Move. Mal Lawwal: Linguistic landscapes of Qatar – Language on the Move
Bollag, B. (2024, December 31). International branch campuses spread in Mideast amid concerns about costs, impact. Al-Fanar Media. https://www.al-fanarmedia.org/2024/12/international-branch-campuses-spread-in-mideast-amid-concerns-about-costs-impact/
Hillman, S., & Ahmad, R. (2025). Combatting Islamophobia: English in the linguistic landscape of FIFA World Cup 2022. In K. Gallagher (Ed.), World Englishes in the Arab Gulf States. Routledge.
Kim, K. (2025, July 4). Branch campuses and the mirage of demand. SRHE Blog. https://srheblog.com/2025/07/04/branch-campuses-and-the-mirage-of-demand/
Krompák, E., Fernández-Mallat, V., & Meyer, S. (2022). The symbolic value of educationscapes—Expanding the intersection between linguistic landscape and education. In E. Krompák, V. Fernández-Mallat, & S. Meyer (Eds.), Linguistic Landscapes and Educational Spaces (pp. 1–27). Multilingual Matters.
Law No. (7) of 2019 on the Protection of the Arabic Language. (2019). Al Meezan, Qatar Legal Portal. https://www.almeezan.qa/EnglishLaws/Law%20No.%20(7)%20of%202019%20on%20Protection%20of%20the%20Arabic%20Language.pdf

Author bios

Dr. Sara Hillman is an Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics and English at Hamad Bin Khalifa University (HBKU). Prior to joining HBKU, she spent nearly a decade at Texas A&M University at Qatar. Her research spans emotions, identity, and (un)belonging in English-medium instruction (EMI) and transnational higher education, World Englishes and sociolinguistics, linguistically and culturally responsive teaching and learning, and language and intercultural communication. Her current research explores the visual signage and symbols of Qatar Foundation’s international branch campuses and the homegrown Hamad Bin Khalifa University and how they project identity, values, and belonging.

Aishwaryaa Kannan is a third-year Electrical and Computer Engineering student at Texas A&M University at Qatar (TAMUQ). Alongside her studies, she has been deeply engaged in student leadership and research, serving as the Founding President of the Management & Marketing Association and as a student research partner on the campus closure study led by Dr. Sara Hillman. Having experienced the TAMUQ-to-HBKU transition firsthand, she connects personally with the paper’s themes of identity and belonging. Her interests span technology, education, and human connection, and she is passionate about how innovation and culture shape everyday experiences on campus.

Tim Billy Tizon is a third year Electrical and Computer Engineering undergraduate student at Texas A&M University at Qatar (TAMUQ). In addition to his studies, he has been actively involved in campus life through student leadership and research. He served as Secretary of the Leadership Experience Club for two years and is currently a member of the Management and Marketing Association. He has also participated in research across several disciplines, including communications and machine learning.

Attending the Humboldt Professorships 2025 Awards Ceremony in Berlin with members of the LiDS-Team (Image credit: Loy Lising)

Editor’s note: The Language-on-the-Move Research Team at Macquarie University and the Literacy-in-Diversity-Settings (LiDS) Research Center at the University of Hamburg have enjoyed deep collaborative ties over many years, marked by joint research, joint PhD supervision, and joint events. At the heart of this collaboration are people-to-people relationships. In this blog post, which was first published on the LiDS news page, Dr Loy Lising (Macquarie University) reflects on her recent sabbatical at the University of Hamburg in an interview conducted by LiDS Coordinator Larissa Cosyns.

***

Dr. Loy Lising, sociolinguist from Macquarie University (Australia), has been an esteemed guest at our research centre LiDS for the past three months. Her research focuses on multilingualism in diasporic and homeland contexts. Inter alia, it sheds light on heritage language maintenance, language barriers, and solutions that enable full social participation for migrants from language backgrounds other than English. In the following interview, she offers insights into her daily life as a visiting scholar, discusses her research interests, and shares details about her exciting new projects.

Larissa: Dear Loy, thank you for taking the time for this interview today. The Faculty Research Centre LiDS is delighted to have you as our guest. Could you please tell us a little bit about your current research?

Loy: Thank you for having me. I am very grateful to Professor Ingrid Gogolin and Distinguished Professor Ingrid Piller for hosting me here for the three months of my six-month study leave. It has been wonderful meeting and engaging with everyone, especially those from the LiDS Research Centre.

Co-teaching a LiDS doctoral workshop (Image credit: Ingrid Piller)

I am a sociolinguist who is interested in multilingualism and social participation. I investigate this intersection with a focus on two strands: language features (micro sociolinguistics) and language use (macro sociolinguistics) of multilinguals in both diasporic and homeland contexts particularly in the domains of family, education, health, and law. Employing both corpus and ethnographic approaches, the three overarching research questions I ask in my research aim to (1) illuminate our understanding of the sociolinguistic factors that encourage/discourage the maintenance of heritage languages; (2) identify the language barriers faced by migrants with languages other than English (LOTE) backgrounds and the solutions to these for their full social participation; and (3) map out the linguistic influences of migrant/minority languages on the dominant language and vice versa.

That second research aim, in particular, has been extensively addressed in our recent book Life in a New Language (Piller et.al., 2024). We have also prominently featured the book in Language on the Move where each of the authors share their experiences about this novel collaborative work. In my podcast interview with Brynn Quick, I unpack how language barriers migrants face continue to be underpinned by a monolingual mindset.

Visiting Leibniz University Hannover for a guest lecture, here with Prof Sandra Issel-Dombert (Image credit: Loy Lising)

At the moment, to further pursue my research aims, I am working on two projects. The first one is a double Special Issue for a Q1 journal focused on multilingualism in the Philippines. Despite the fact that the Philippines is often known for its multilingual ecology, there has not really been a consistent examination into what this multingualism looks like on the ground across different domains as I pointed out in my 2022, 2023, and 2025 papers (all open access). So, I have invited colleagues to do precisely this: empirically investigate what multilingualism looks like across different domains of education, law, politics, online communication, linguistic landscapes, in a rural area, in a major city, in cemeteries, in our attitudes, and in our education practices. To do this, we are employing the concept “multilingual mindset” (Lising, 2024), which I introduced at last year’s AILA conference, as our framework in discussing our empirical data.

The other is my involvement with Professor Peter Siemund’s Convergence on Dominant Language Constellations (CODILAC) global project, based here in Hamburg University, which investigates English in a multilingual ecology. I am the International Partner for the Philippines, one of the seven countries involved in this project, and we start collecting data this year, which is exciting.

Larissa: Can you give us a little insight into your academic work and describe what a typical day looks like for you here in Hamburg?

Loy: There are three kinds of routine that typify what my working day is like here in Hamburg: a LiDS-focused day, a knowledge-sharing day, and a research-writing day.

The LiDS-focused day involves four tasks. First, is usually a meeting with Distinguished Professor Ingrid Piller and Dr Sarah McMonagle to work on our International Research Training Group (IRTG) application. This application is aimed at bringing together colleagues from both Macquarie University and Hamburg University to co-supervise PhD students investigating research problems under the overarching theme of „literacy in diverse settings“. This is usually followed by an online supervision meeting with current postgraduate students who are based at Macquarie University. Third is attending LiDS-organised public talks on multilingualism in society. And this is capped with a social catch-up with LiDS colleagues for dinner, which is a really informal and pleasant way of getting to know colleagues more.

Catching up with colleagues, here with Profs Ingrid Piller and Peter Siemund (Image credit: Loy Lising)

A knowledge-sharing day entails guest-lecturing, sometimes at a nearby university for an invited lecture on my current work. This has mostly been on my recent paper on „multingual mindset“ (mentioned above), and how this can be applied in our research on the intersection of language and migration.

Finally, a research-writing day means working from home and finishing writing tasks I have promised to fulfil during my study leave.

Larissa: How and why did you choose to come to the University of Hamburg?

Loy: I choose the University of Hamburg because of the support and my ongoing research relationship with Distinguished Professor Ingrid Piller who has recently moved here after having been awarded the Alexander von Humboldt Professorship. At the same time, my involvement with the Next Generation Literacies Network and my working relationship with Professor Ingrid Gogolin  whose life’s work is focused on finding solutions to systemic educational disadvantages for multilinguals and findings ways to use the advantages of multilingualism for successful learning – have also motivated my reason for being here.

Macquarie in Hamburg: Ingrid Piller, Victoria Benz, Hanna Torsh, Loy Lising (ltr; Image credit: Larissa Cosyns)

An equally important motivation, of course, is the fact that the University of Hamburg is Macquarie University’s strategic partner and spending my study leave here, I hope, contributes to the strengthening of this relationship..

Larissa: Through your work with the Next Generation Literacies Network, you already had close ties to our research centre LiDS. How would you describe your experiences with the research centre LiDS and its work?

Loy: It has been really wonderful being part of the LiDS Research Centre and its many activities while being here. The fact that my own research interests align with the research centre’s research goal has truly been inspirational and encouraging. To be able to spend three of the six months of my study leave in a research centre dedicated to topics close to my heart has really been such a privilege.

Larissa: Having been in Hamburg since April, how do you reflect on these past two months in the city?

Loy: I arrived in the middle of Spring, which really set the tone for my stay here rather pleasantly: the flowers were starting to bloom; the birds were singing their happy tunes; and the sun was out and happily giving warmth. I often tell my friends I have tropical bones, so you can appreciate how much I appreciated arriving in Hamburg in this season. And because this is only my second time in Germany, and the first time that I can stay at length, it has given me a wonderful opportunity to appreciate the architecture, the culture, and the people in addition to all the research work I can accomplish.

Enjoying the hospitality of the Hamburg University Guesthouse with its amazing multilingual carpet (Image credit: Brynn Quick)

So, overall, my stay here has definitely achieved what a study leave/outside studies program (OSP) is intended to do. It provided me space to focus on my research. It gave me a platform to interact with like-minded scholars, not only for knowledge sharing but also to pursue further research collaboration. It inspired and extended my own thinking through the many (in)formal interactions with colleagues at the LiDS Research Centre and other universities that I have had the privilege to visit. I can only hope, of course, that in these interactions I have represented Macquarie University well.

References

Lising, Loy (2025). Global English in multilingual Philippines. In P. Siemund, G. Stein, and M. Vida-Mannl (Eds.), World Englishes in their local multilingual environments, pp 91-115. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://benjamins.com/catalog/hsld.9.05lis
Lising, Loy (2024). Multilingual Mindset: A necessary concept for fostering inclusive multilingualism in Migrant societies. AILA Review 37(1), pp. 35-53. https://benjamins.com/catalog/aila.23023.lis
Lising, Loy (2023). Multilingualism. In A. Borlongan (Ed.), Philippine English: Development, Structure and Sociology of English in the Philippines, pp 242-256. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429427824
Lising, Loy and Bautista, Maria Lourdes (2022). A tale of language ownership and identity in a multilingual  society: Revisiting functional nativeness. Journal of English and Applied Linguistics 1(1), pp.1-14. https://doi.org/10.59588/2961-3094.1000
Piller, Ingrid, Butorac, Donna, Farrell, Emily,Lising, Loy, Motaghi-Tabari, Shiva, Tetteh, Vera Williams (2024). Life in a new language. New York: Oxford University Press.

“Giant Head” installation at the Gentle Monster store at Sydney Airport

One of the goals of graduate education is to empower students to reach their academic and professional goals by developing their communication skills. For example, one of the learning outcomes of a class I teach in the Master of Applied Linguistics and TESOL at Macquarie University is to enable students to “communicate advanced knowledge and understanding of socially relevant aspects of language and culture contact to diverse audiences.”

To achieve that learning outcome, students undertake a series of writing tasks throughout the semester on a public forum, namely right here on Language on the Move.

Although moderating around a thousand comments per semester is a huge workload, I’ve always enjoyed this task. The series of responses to writing prompts (aka comments on blog posts) allows me to learn more about my students’ backgrounds, interests, and perspectives. It is also rewarding to see that student comments become more sophisticated and engaged over the course of the semester and that their confidence in their academic writing increases.

Has ChatGPT ruined writing practice?

While I used to enjoy supporting students to develop their communication skills in this way, the release of ChatGPT in late 2022 and the rapid adoption of other generative AI platforms since then has changed things.

A not insignificant number of students now submit machine-generated writing tasks, and I’m saddled with the additional task of catching out these cheaters.

Submitting machine-generated text obviously has no learning benefits. Therefore, my task descriptions and syllabi now contain an explicit prohibition against the use generative AI:

Use of generative AI is prohibited
Your response must be your own work, and you are not allowed to post machine-generated text. Use of machine-generated text in this or any other unit tasks defies the point of learning. It is also dishonest and a waste of your time and my time. […] If I suspect you of having used generative AI to complete your writing task, your mark will automatically be 0.

In 2023, this prohibition took care of the problem, but in 2024 it no longer works. This is because machine writing has become virtually indistinguishable from bad human writing.

Machine writing and bad human writing now look the same

Most commentators note that machine-generated text is getting better. This may be true. What has received less attention is the fact that human writing is getting worse as people read less widely. Instead, more and more people seem to model their writing on the bland models of machines.

The feedback loop between reading and writing is breaking down.

The Internet is drowning in an ocean of poor writing, whether created by humans or machines – a phenomenon Matthew Kirschenbaumer has described as the looming “textocalypse:” “a tsunami of text swept into a self-perpetuating cataract of content that makes it functionally impossible to reliably communicate in any digital setting.”

Instead of developing their communication skills through audience-focussed practice, my students’ regular writing practice may now be contributing to this tsunami. If students use generative AI, it certainly no longer meets its stated aim – to practice communicating advanced knowledge and understanding of socially relevant aspects of language and culture contact to diverse audiences.

Where is the line between outsourcing learning to tech and using tech to support learning?

To my mind, the line was clear-cut: to use generative AI is to outsource learning to a machine and therefore pointless. I was not concerned about the use of other language technologies, such as spell checkers, auto-complete, grammar checkers, or auto-translate.

But then I received this student inquiry, which I am reproducing here with the student’s permission:

I am writing to inquire if using the grammar check program for writing tasks is also prohibited.
I’ve been aware that AI generation is prohibited, and I did not use AI for my writing task. I [used all the assigned inputs], and I tried to organize ideas in my first language, then translated them by myself (without using any machine translator).
However, I always use a grammar check program, and sometimes, it suggests better words or expressions that I can adopt by clicking, as I am a paid user of it. I use it because I am unsure if my grammar is okay and understandable. I was wondering if this is also prohibited?

The easy answer to the query is that (automated) translation and grammar checking are allowed because they are not covered by the prohibition.

The more complicated question is whether these practices should be prohibited and, even if not strictly prohibited, whether they are advisable?

Dear reader, I need your input!

Translation as a bridge to English writing?

Let’s start with translation as a form of writing practice. The inputs for the task that triggered this question (Chapter 3 of Life in a New Language, and Language on the Move podcast series about Life in a New Language) were all in English.

After having perused all these inputs in English to then draft the response – a short reflection on the job search experience of one of the participants – in another language is a lot of extra work. You have to process input in English, write in another language, and translate that output.

This extra work may become manageable if it is done by a machine. A generative AI tool could produce a summary of the input in no time. An auto-translate tool could translate the summaries into the other language, again in no time. The student then drafts their response in the other language.

It’s technically the student’s work. Or is it? And, more importantly, is this process developing their English writing and communication?

Grammar checkers, suggested phrasing, and auto-complete

Like the student who posed the question, most of my students are international students, most of whom are still developing their English language skills, at the same time that they are required to learn and perform through the medium of that language.

To avail themselves of all kinds of learning tools is important. I myself use the in-built spell-check, grammar-check, and auto-complete features of MS Word. However, I can evaluate the advice provided by these tools and readily reject it where it’s wrong or inconsistent with my intentions.

Judgement needed: Until recently, the MS Word auto-correct tool incorrectly suggested that the spelling of “in-principle” was “in-principal”

I worry that, for a learner using these tools, these nuances get lost. If the machine is perceived to be always right, language changes from something malleable to form and express our ideas into a right-or-wrong proposition.

Similarly, learning synonyms is important to improve one’s writing. To this day, I regularly look up synonyms when I write with the intent to find the best, the most concise, their clearest expression. However, looking up synonyms for an expression and evaluating the various options is different from receiving automated suggestions and accepting them. One seems like an active, critical form of learning and the other like a passive form of learning. The writer’s sense of ownership and autonomy is different in the two instances.

How best to use language technologies to develop academic literacies and communicative competence?

In sum, most use of language technologies for the kinds of learning tasks I have described here strikes me as counterproductive. Yet, I can also see its uses. Where is the line between using tech to support one’s learning and using tech to avoid doing the hard work of practice, the only way that leads to fluency?

How do you use tech in your university assignments and where do you draw the line? How would you deal with these dilemmas as a teacher?

Master of Applied Linguistics and TESOL students at Macquarie University (Image credit: Jung Ung Hwang)

As pre-pandemic levels of migration have been restored or exceeded, international students are once again in the spotlight.

Canada is planning to cap international student visas and Australia plans to raise English language proficiency requirements for student visas. The stated rationale is to “improve the quality of students’ educational experience and reduce workplace exploitation” and to “support international students to realise their potential.”

I argue that raising the English proficiency requirements for university admission is not a good way to achieve the stated rationale. International students’ educational experience and their successful integration into the workforce can be improved in a different way.

Why are language proficiency tests used for university admission?

A certain level of language proficiency is undoubtedly required to be able to study in a degree program.

However, standardized language proficiency tests that are designed to be used on a large scale, are, in fact, not good predictors of academic success, and are not viewed as such by university teaching staff and other stakeholders. After all, language proficiency is just one aspect of the many facets that contribute to students’ academic achievement.

Furthermore, language testing is administered selectively and not every applicant’s  language proficiency gets tested, entrenching inequality between different student groups from the outset.

Why is language proficiency testing not enough?

Successful communication depends on many factors, including the communication skills and supportiveness of the interlocutor. In standardized English language proficiency test situations, the interlocutors are trained assessors, who focus on language skills, fluency, and accuracy in a controlled test environment. In real life, however, interlocutors are not trained language experts and not necessarily supportive either, as adult language learners experience all too often.

Here’s an example from Yumiko, a Japanese international student featured in the forthcoming book Life in a New Language. In the first few months of her time in Australia, Yumiko only ordered orange juice because hospitality staff could not understand her Japanese accent when she said ‘apple juice’ (probably sounding like “apuru juice”). Not only did she not achieve the desired result but interlocutors often responded to her in an unkind way. This is an example of a social situation that isn’t academic in nature; however, unfortunately, international students do get judged as competent or incompetent in such situations, which of course, has very real consequences for them.

While language proficiency tests give an indication of general language proficiency, it would be unrealistic to expect them to replicate all the potential language use situations in a university student’s life. Therefore, raising the language test score requirements for university study is unlikely to significantly improve students’ educational experience.

How do we improve student experience then?

Instead of having a higher score on a standardized language proficiency test, what truly helps improve the students’ educational experience is language support and experiential learning that enable them to function in their future workplaces. Language support should be provided to all students with a dual purpose: on the one hand, to assist with their studies – as a more immediate need – and on the other, to gain effective communication skills for employability.

Besides the generic university-wide academic language support that most universities provide, discipline-embedded language support can be provided to all students and not just international students. This is to avoid the ‘sink-or-swim’ approach that they experience in higher education.

At the same time, valuing and building on the multilingual repertoires of students can provide a superior learning experience for all. An inclusive environment clearly benefits all. Engaging with languages in their studies and classes opens up new ways of knowledge production for students. For instance, in a recent seminar activity on the topic of wellbeing for language teachers, my class explored two Japanese concepts as part of the seminar activity. This led to an interesting discussion on what other wellbeing concepts there are in other languages and what we can learn from them.

Preparing students for the workplace

Furthermore, students need to be prepared for workplace requirements both linguistically and by building skills and connections through work-integrated learning (WIL). Learning activities that require students to research and engage with professional bodies are a good start to build awareness and language skills. This can then lead to learning activities and assessment practices that require industry project participation. For instance, Applied Linguistics and TESOL students at Macquarie University design language testing activities for English language schools as part of a unit I teach on language assessment.

In conclusion, setting up additional barriers to admission does not support students. What does support students is creating safe spaces with supportive interlocutors where they can simultaneously grow their linguistic repertoires, their disciplinary knowledge, and their workplace skills.

References

Bodis, A. (2017). International students and language: opportunity or threat? Language on the Move. Retrieved from https://languageonthemove.com/international-students-and-language-opportunity-or-threat/
Bodis, A. (2021). The discursive (mis) representation of English language proficiency: International students in the Australian media. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 44(1), 37-64.
Bodis, A. (2021). ‘Double deficit’ and exclusion: Mediated language ideologies and international students’ multilingualism. Multilingua, 40(3), 367-392. doi:doi:10.1515/multi-2019-0106
Bodis, A. (2023). Gatekeeping v. marketing: English language proficiency as a university admission requirement in Australia. Higher Education Research & Development, 1-15. doi:10.1080/07294360.2023.2174082
Bodis, A. (2023). Studying abroad is amazing, or is it? Language on the Move. Retrieved from https://languageonthemove.com/studying-abroad-is-amazing-or-is-it/
Piller, I., & Bodis, A. (2023). English Language Proficiency for Australian University Admission. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUSqSSploSE
Piller, I., & Bodis, A. (2024). Marking and unmarking the (non)native speaker through English language proficiency requirements for university admission. Language in Society, 53(1), 1-23. doi:10.1017/S0047404522000689
Piller, I., Bodis, A., Butorac, D., Cho, J., Cramer, R., Farrell, E., . . . Quick, B. (2023). Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Migration Inquiry into ‘Migration, Pathway to Nation Building’. Canberra: Parliament of Australia. Retrieved from https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=8c0d9316-2281-4594-9c7b-079652683f54&subId=735264

Image from a university website

“An amazing student experience awaits you!” – “a multicultural vibrant experience” in a “stunning landscape” covered by “year-round sunshine.”

These phrases do not come from a tourist brochure, but the websites of Australian universities. They are accompanied by stunning images of urban or natural landscapes and aim to attract international students.

International education is often hailed as a way to keep economies growing as higher education has shifted towards a commercialized model. However, the efforts to increase enrolment numbers are also accompanied by worries that in the haste to attract more students, the admission requirements – in particular that of English language proficiency – are lowered.

Gatekeeping

Countries built on immigration are looking to recover the immigration loss caused by the pandemic years and the ensuing border restrictions. A new proposal to overhaul the Australian visa system has attracted attention as the country is forecast to grow by 715,000 from 2022 to 2024.

International students are affected, of course, as student visas and possible immigration pathways attached to students visas are discussed in the report. In particular, the English language requirements for admission into university courses are recommended to be raised from a “low base” of Band 5.5 on the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) to be able to meet the language demands of the labour market after graduation.

We have addressed this deficit approach to international students before. Recent research by Ingrid Piller and I on university admission requirements found that English language proficiency requirements maintain exclusionary practices of international students by setting up the binary categories of tested and ‘inherent’ English language proficiency (read more about it here).

But how do universities reconcile these two opposing forces of, on the one hand, needing to attract international students for commercial reasons, and on the other, setting up linguistic requirements as a gatekeeping mechanism?

An idealized lifestyle

To answer this question, in my recently published paper at Higher Education Research & Development, I turned to university websites. I wanted to explore what role language plays in the admission process caught between these two opposing forces. And how does it affect the communication of English language proficiency requirements to prospective international applicants. The analysis went beyond looking at content and text and included the multimodal features of the websites: naming and positioning of webpages, the visuals accompanying the texts and, of course, the language use of the English language proficiency requirement webpages.

Image from a university website

I found that the language use, which ranged from highly formal to conversational, references the authority of the law, thus adds objectivity and authority to the requirements. The paper provides an analysis of how the generic features of legal language use are applied to the educational context and interact with marketing discourses.

The visuals on these webpages create a different effect, though.

They serve to depict an idealized student lifestyle to which English language proficiency is a vehicle. The pictures and videos on the websites analysed depict students engaging in various social situations and leisure activities such as shopping, eating out or engaging in activities at the beach. The participants in these activities are depicted in engaging in intercultural situations (indexed by looks of various ethnicities) and enjoying each other’s company, communicating with ease.

In reality, these are activities international students report to struggle with because of social isolation or the difficulty to use English in everyday situations. These visuals of ‘success’ legitimize the English language proficiency requirements, where participants become role models or protagonists in a video footage.

What effect does this representation have on the concept of English language proficiency used as an admission requirement?

A simplified English language proficiency and an accessible student experience

Firstly, English language proficiency gets simplified through the objectivity of simple numerical scores and the authority of legal discourse. After all, if the university policy states that an IELTS Band 6 is  adequate to study in English and the students have this level, they should have no problem with their studies or socialization – a view commonly held.

At the same time, the website visuals communicate a desirable student experience. This is both a misrepresentation of the language proficiency needed for further studies, which in fact all students need to develop, not just internationals, and the realities of the international student experience.

As much as we would appreciate “year-round sunshine”, we need to acknowledge that the weather in Australia is more nuanced than that.

Likewise, university admission requirement communication should indicate that English language proficiency is not a fixed ‘product’ described by the applicant’s IELTS score but rather a process, and acknowledge that discipline-specific language proficiency may need to be developed by all students during their studies.

References

Bodis, A. (2023). Gatekeeping v. marketing: English language proficiency as a university admission requirement in Australia. Higher Education Research & Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2023.2174082
Bodis, A. (2021). The discursive (mis) representation of English language proficiency: International students in the Australian media. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 44(1), 37-64.
Bodis, A. (2021). ‘Double deficit’ and exclusion: Mediated language ideologies and international students’ multilingualism. Multilingua, 40(3), 367-392. doi:doi:10.1515/multi-2019-0106
Piller, I., & Bodis, A. (2022). Marking and unmarking the (non)native speaker through English language proficiency requirements for university admission. Language in Society. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404522000689

Dr Agnes Bodis with her supervisors on graduation day

Congratulations to Dr Agnes Bodis and Dr Liesa Rühlmann, who both recently graduated from their PhDs!

The PhD research by both researchers was significantly impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic, which makes their achievement all the more impressive.

Multilingual students at monolingual universities

Agnes undertook a PhD by publication to investigate language ideological debates about international students in Australia. Her research was supervised by Ingrid Piller and Phil Chappell.

Agnes now works as lecturer in Applied Linguistics and TESOL at Macquarie University.

“Multilingual students at monolingual universities” explores the discursive construction of English language proficiency (ELP) and multilingualism in the context of Australian higher education. The shift to a marketized higher educational model has brought an increased number of international students to Australian universities, resulting in several tensions. Most prominent among these is the ‘English problem’, namely the widely discussed claim that international students’ ELP is too low to cope with their academic workloads and, after graduation, with the professional requirements of their work. Therefore, language ideological debates related to international students constitute a prominent site where interrelated conflicts about academic commodification and national identity play out.

The thesis approaches the research problem through a series of critical multimodal discourse analytic studies of mainstream and social media discussions of international students’ ELP, university ELP admission requirements, and interviews with, and observations of, English language teaching professionals.

Dr Liesa Rühlmann after her thesis defense with her Hamburg supervisor, Prof Drorit Lengyel

Overall, the study finds that ELP is highly simplified in both public discussions and institutional communication. Furthermore, ELP levels are attached to specific student cohorts as a permanent quality. The responsibility for low ELP and its negative consequences is consistently assigned to international students themselves. This casts international students in a perpetual deficit view, particularly as their multilingual skills are either erased altogether or, where they appear, depicted as devious.

The study shows that public discourse and institutional communication are interlinked. This points to the need to ensure more responsible and realistic representations of ELP both in public and institutional communication as well as shifting the focus from language as a deficit view to fostering inclusive practices for a greater appreciation of linguistic diversity.

Race, Language, and Subjectivation

Liesa undertook a joint PhD across Hamburg University and Macquarie University to pursue a raciolinguistic perspective on schooling experiences in Germany. Her research was supervised by Drorit Lengyel and Ingrid Piller.

Liesa now works as a postdoc on a project related to migration and racism at Bielefeld University.

Dr Liesa Rühlmann celebrates after her thesis defense

In her retrospective interview study, Liesa focused on language use as experienced and reflected upon by plurilingual former students who attended school in Germany. In particular, she analyzed subjectivation processes through a raciolinguistic perspective. This conceptualization was informed by a Grounded Theory approach, and the findings show that interviewees re-position schooling experiences and themselves along dominant discourses of racialization and language use.

White speakers reflect on experiences in which they were positioned as the raciolinguistic norm and they re-position themselves as such. Black interviewees and Interviewees of Color discuss experiences in which they were positioned as raciolinguistic Others, whose language use was ignored, devalued, ‘complimented’ or perceived as non-proficient, and they actively engage with these ascriptions.

The interviews show that subject positions powerfully assigned to students concerning plurilingualism shape how they (have to) reflect on experiences in school from a retrospective focus in often re-positioning themselves along assigned positionings.

Overall, the results highlight the necessity of focusing in more detail on how listening positionalities shape language use in society and in schools specifically.

References

Bodis, A. (2021). The discursive (mis) representation of English language proficiency: International students in the Australian media. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 44(1), 37-64.
Bodis, A. (2021). ‘Double deficit’ and exclusion: Mediated language ideologies and international students’ multilingualism. Multilingua, 40(3), 367-392.
Bodis, A. (2023). Gatekeeping v. marketing: English language proficiency as a university admission requirement in Australia. Higher Education Research & Development, 1-15.
Chappell, P., Bodis, A., & Jackson, H. (2015). The impact of teacher cognition and classroom practices on IELTS test preparation courses in the Australian ELICOS sector. IELTS research reports online series (6), 1-61.
Piller, I., & Bodis, A. (2022). Marking and unmarking the (non)native speaker through English language proficiency requirements for university admission. Language in Society, 1-23. [open access] Rühlmann, L., & McMonagle, S. (2019). Germany’s Linguistic ‘Others’ and the Racism Taboo. Anthropological Journal of European Cultures, 28(2), 93-100.

(Image credit: Mana Akbarzadegan via Unsplash)

Have you noticed the persistent divide between domestic and international students at Australian universities? Do you worry how the English-monolingual habitus of our highly linguistically diverse institutions of higher learning affects student learning? Would you like to discuss the recent Language in Society article “Marking and unmarking the (non)native speaker through English language proficiency requirements for university admission” with the authors?

Here’s your chance: The Linguistics Department at Macquarie University will host a free webinar devoted to “Rethinking English Language Proficiency and Academic Achievement in Australian Higher Education” this Friday.

When: Friday, March 31, 2023, 4-5pm AEDT (Sydney time)
Where: via Zoom (Pwd: 798325)
Who: Distinguished Professor Ingrid Piller and Dr Agnes Bodis

Abstract: English language proficiency (ELP) is central to the academic achievement of the 1.5 million students enrolled in Australian universities each year. Yet, students are highly linguistically diverse, with a mix of domestic students from English- and non-English-speaking backgrounds and international students from national contexts where English may be the main language, an official language in a multilingual context, or a foreign language with limited communicative functions.

How do universities manage students’ linguistic diversity through their admission requirements and set students up for success?

In this seminar, we examine ELP requirements for university admission in Go8 universities to answer this question. Our language ideological analysis found two categorically different constructs of ELP: inherent ELP based on citizenship, linguistic heritage, and prior education, and tested ELP. We show how these two different conceptualizations of ELP map onto two dichotomous student groups. One of these is deemed to naturally speak English while the other is constructed as deficient and subject to perpetual scrutiny.

These language ideological constructs frame ELP as a matter of individual responsibility rather part of embedded in learning processes. Conversely, they obscure the need for continuous language development of all students and the need for pedagogical innovation in linguistically diverse educational institutions. We close with implications for policy and practice.

Further reading

Bodis, A. (2023). Gatekeeping v. marketing: English language proficiency as a university admission requirement in Australia. Higher Education Research & Development, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2023.2174082
Piller, I. (2023). How do universities decide whose English needs to be tested for admission? Language on the Move. https://languageonthemove.com/how-do-universities-decide-whose-english-needs-to-be-tested-for-admission/
Piller, I., & Bodis, A. (2022). Marking and unmarking the (non)native speaker through English language proficiency requirements for university admission. Language in Society, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404522000689 [open access] ]]> https://languageonthemove.com/event-multilingual-students-in-monolingual-universities/feed/ 9 24679 https://languageonthemove.com/how-do-universities-decide-whose-english-needs-to-be-tested-for-admission/ https://languageonthemove.com/how-do-universities-decide-whose-english-needs-to-be-tested-for-admission/#comments Thu, 05 Jan 2023 21:25:26 +0000 https://www.languageonthemove.com/?p=24633

(Image credit: Mana Akbarzadegan via Unsplash)

When Muhammad* applied for admission to a postgraduate degree at an Australian university, he was asked to show evidence of his English language proficiency. Acceptable evidence included achieving a specific score on a commercial language test such as IELTS or TOEFL. Muhammad was upset to discover that none of the following counted as acceptable evidence of his English language proficiency: that all his prior education had been through the medium of English, that he was employed as university lecturer in the English department of a university in Bangladesh, and that he had published fictional and non-fictional writing in English.

Marlene* from Germany also applied to a postgraduate degree at an Australian university. She hardly noticed that English language proficiency constituted an admission criterion. The fact that she had studied English as a Foreign Language at higher level for her high school certificate meant that proof of her English language requirement was waived. English had never been the medium of education in her prior education. Outside her English language classroom, she has no experience with public speaking in English, nor with academic writing in English.

By most counts, Muhammad would be considered a more proficient speaker of English than Marlene. Yet the English language proficiency requirements of the university they applied to constructed Muhammad’s English as problematic and Marlene’s English as above board.

How are such decisions made? Why do some applicants need to take a test while others do not?

How do universities decide whose English needs to be tested for admission?

In new research just published in Language in Society, Agnes Bodis and I examine the English language proficiency requirements of Australian universities to answer these questions.

Language testing is often assumed to be only relevant for language learners. But who is a learner and who is not? The stories of Muhammad and Marlene show that this is not a trivial question. What made Muhammad a learner and Marlene a speaker according to university regulations?

Everyone agrees that the old concepts of “native” and “non-native” speakers are no longer valid. Yet, implicitly, a distinction that is very similar to this binary is made every time someone is required to sit a language test.

(Image credit: Nguyen Dang Hoang Nhu via Unsplash)

The language of those who are required to sit a test is subjected to scrutiny. Those who have the requirement waived get a free pass.

Inherent English versus tested English

English language requirements for university admission create a language binary between “inherent English” and “tested English.”

Inherent English is the language of those who are exempt from testing.

Australian universities grant exemptions based on a mélange of criteria related to citizenship, education, and heritage. For example, to be recognized as having an “English-speaking background” and hence not having to sit a test, one policy requires two pieces of evidence from two different sets: one needs to be a citizenship document (“birth certificate, passport, arrival documents to establish residency”) and the other a portfolio of documents providing evidence of schooling, work, and residency. Curiously, the latter may include utility bills, tax notices, and medical records, as well as a letter of reference from “a person with standing in the community.” Examples of such persons include “a school principal or teacher, doctor or pharmacist, a local manager, community leader, social worker or sporting coach who know the person’s family.” (quoted from Piller&Bodis, 2022)

How does any of this establish evidence of English language proficiency you might ask? Well, it doesn’t; but it shows that language proficiency assessments are never about language alone. Language assessments are always also about identity.

The deficient English of those who are required to have their English tested

Inherent English is about having the right citizenship, the right education, or the right heritage. Anyone who falls short on these criteria, is required to sit an English language test.

Whether English language proficiency will need to be evidenced by a score on a language test is determined through a process of elimination. Those who do not meet the specific citizenship, education, and heritage criteria are relegated to the left-over basket of those who need to be tested. This engulfs them in a deficit perspective, expressed in “not”-rules: “if you are not […], then “you will be required to demonstrate English language proficiency in the form of an English test.”

Tested English is completely different from inherent English: it is reduced to the pseudo-objectivity of a numerical score, and even comes with an expiry date.

My TOEFL test scores expired. I can no longer speak, write, or understand English.

— Hamza (@hamza_azhar) July 31, 2020

Binary Englishes map onto binary identities

These two types of English – inherent English and tested English – map onto two different speaker groups.

Inherent English is accorded to most domestic applicants, applicants with passports from some Anglophone countries, applicants with certain educational credentials (mostly IB graduates, but also some specific high school certificates, as in Marlene’s case), and a medley of heritage criteria.

Inherent English maps most closely on the identity of the white native-speaker citizen construct. But not quite: it becomes blurred by the inclusion of citizens from Black majority states in the Caribbean (who, in actual fact, rarely apply to study at Australian universities) or those with certain educational credentials from outside the Anglosphere.

While the identity of those who are deemed to inherently speak English becomes blurred, its Other is cast into clear relief: the Asian non-native speaker non-citizen.

Objective language proficiency without identity?

Language proficiency constructs are always both about language and identity. The field of language assessment has been striving for objectivity by rejecting the identity component and focusing solely on language.

Whose English should be tested before admission? (Image credit: Dom Fou via Unsplash)

University admission requirements share this pretense to objectivity. The objectification of tested language is achieved through a convoluted set of regulations that can be expected to stand up to any legal challenges as long as they are applied consistently. However, this objectification of language proficiency has not made the identity component disappear. On the contrary, identity remains baked into universities’ constructs of English language proficiency through citizenship, education, and heritage criteria.

Implications for inclusion

Universities regularly deplore individuals’ lived experiences of exclusion and divisions within their student body. A major division in Australian universities is between domestic and international students. Yet our research suggests that admission requirements contribute to maintaining the ways of seeing that undergird these exclusions. Universities could contribute to dismantling these binaries, first, by uncoupling citizenship and heritage criteria from the language proficiency construct, and, second, by conceptualizing academic language and communication as a gradient which requires ongoing development for all students.

To succeed after admission both Muhammad and Marlene, as all their peers, will need ongoing support to develop their academic literacies.

*These names are pseudonyms.

Reference

Piller, I., & Bodis, A. (2022). Marking and unmarking the (non)native speaker through English language proficiency requirements for university admission. Language in Society, 1-23. doi:10.1017/S0047404522000689 [open access]

Also relevant

Bodis, A. (2017). International students and language: opportunity or threat? Language on the Move. Retrieved from https://languageonthemove.com/international-students-and-language-opportunity-or-threat/
Bodis, A. (2021). The discursive (mis) representation of English language proficiency: International students in the Australian media. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 44(1), 37-64.
Bodis, A. (2021). ‘Double deficit’ and exclusion: Mediated language ideologies and international students’ multilingualism. Multilingua, 40(3), 367-392. doi:doi:10.1515/multi-2019-0106
Piller, I. (2001). Who, if anyone, is a native speaker? Anglistik: Mitteilungen des Verbandes Deutscher Anglisten, 12(2), 109-121.
Piller, I. (2002). Passing for a native speaker: identity and success in second language learning. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 6(2), 179-206. [full access] ]]> https://languageonthemove.com/how-do-universities-decide-whose-english-needs-to-be-tested-for-admission/feed/ 46 24633 https://languageonthemove.com/international-education-in-rcep-the-worlds-largest-free-trade-zone/ https://languageonthemove.com/international-education-in-rcep-the-worlds-largest-free-trade-zone/#comments Mon, 15 Mar 2021 23:14:00 +0000 https://www.languageonthemove.com/?p=23388

Diversity of international students is celebrated through images that map students onto nations represented by their flags

International education is often touted as a golden road to fluency in another language and the development of a global vision. However, ethnographic research into the language learning and settlement experiences of international students in a variety of national contexts has painted a less rosy picture, as the Language-on-Move archives devoted to international education show.

Such research has found many discontinuities between the promises of international education and students’ actual experiences.

One of the problems in the existing system of international education is the nation-based categorization of seeing international students of diverse backgrounds as a homogeneous group (Piller, 2017).

This categorization is further complicated when international students return to their ancestral homelands for their international education. Such “return migrants” may be positioned in often conflicting ways on the continuum of local and migrant, native and foreigner, as our recent research explores (Li & Han, 2020).

Ethnic Chinese students migrating to China for their international education

As one of the largest diasporas, ethnic Chinese constitute a population of over 50 million. The great majority of them live in Southeast Asia. Ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia have been perceived as a powerful nexus between China and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries, mostly due to their remarkable economic performance and their historical contribution to China’s nationalist movement in the early twentieth century. As China is emerging as one of the largest receiving countries for international education, ethnic Chinese may get the first admission ticket to higher education institutions in China.

However, the prioritization of ethnic Chinese migrating to China for their international education is not without problems. These students are confronted with several linguistic and cultural challenges.

Some of these challenges are similar to what has been reported in previous studies, and others are specific to this group and have to date mostly been overlooked in the existing literature on international education.

One big challenge relates to a conflict between students’ self-perceptions of their identities and the ways in which others perceive them. An ethnic Chinese student from Myanmar, for instance, expressed her shock and confusion since coming to China: “我以为我的根在中国，来中国我发现我没根了！” (“I used to think that my roots are in China. However, coming to China has made me rootless.”)

Like this female student, ethnic Chinese students from Myanmar used to be oriented towards China. Learning Putonghua in Myanmar was a top priority for their transnational empowerment (Li, 2017; Li, 2020; Li, Ai, & Zhang, 2020). However, once they move to China for their studies, their trajectories gradually gear them to identify Myanmar as their true homeland and as their land of opportunity. How is this possible?

Linguistic and cultural essentialism

To find out, we (Li & Han 2020) examined the learning experiences of 14 ethnic Chinese from Myanmar who were enrolled in Putonghua-medium degree programs at a Chinese university. We found that the language ideologies of speaking standard Putonghua and writing simplified Chinese characters challenged these students’ sense of being authentically Chinese. In the process, they were turned from proficient Chinese speakers in Myanmar to deficient Putonghua speakers in China.

Ethnic Chinese students from Myanmar are often made to feel weird for engaging in practices that are considered “Burmese”, such as putting on thanaka, a protective white-paste face mask

National essentialism was another ideological force that challenged their Chinese identity. In their classrooms and everyday interactions, the students found themselves positioned not as ethnic Chinese but as Burmese nationals. This “one nation, one culture, one language” mindset not only erased our participants’ Chinese identity but also reinforced an essentialist view of Myanmar as the country of the Burmese, the dominant ethnic group in that highly diverse country.

Neo-essentialist curriculum

Most research into international education is based in Anglophone countries, where a monolingual mindset prevails and exclusive use of English is promoted while languages other than English are devalued.

This is not the case in China. China’s promotion of Putonghua as an international language follows a reciprocal approach that also values the languages international students bring. Their bilingualism is regarded as an asset. In our case, both Burmese and Putonghua constitute desired linguistic capital to achieve mutual cooperation and promote the regional economy and integration between China and ASEAN.

However, this promotion of bilingualism is not unproblematic, either. Linguistic diversity is not unconditionally valued but rests on its convertibility in an international communication market – between the Chinese and Burmese state in this context.

This orientation to the nation as a market applauds bilingualism in Burmese and Putonghua but marginalizes bilingualism in non-standard Chinese varieties and languages that are not official to a nation.

In short, our research demonstrates that the neoliberal valorization of bilingualism is not in and of itself better than the monolingual mindset: it only reproduces the cultural superiority of essentialized linguistic icons while devaluing and erasing non-privileged cultural forms and identities.

The future of Chinese international education

While the Covid-19 pandemic has revealed the language challenges confronting diverse populations worldwide (Piller, 2020; Piller, Zhang, & Li, 2020), it has also reconfigured the global economic and political order.

Since the outbreak of Covid-19 early last year, China has shifted its global strategy by strengthening its regional connectivity with Asian countries. In 2020, ASEAN replaced the USA and EU to become China’s largest trading partner. A recent trade agreement, Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) has reinforced the regional integration between China and its region. As the largest free trading zone covering 30% of the global populations and 30% of global GDP, RCEP will mark a new era for Asia-Pacific cooperation in various social dimensions.

Will the free movement of goods and people in this vast zone also lead us to a greater valorization of linguistic and cultural diversity? Will it open a space for embracing diversity and bringing greater equity and social justice?

Our research suggests that, as long as the ideological foundations of linguistic and cultural essentialism stay in place, the international education in RCEP may just be old wine in a new bottle.

References

Li, J. (2017). Social Reproduction and Migrant Education: A Critical Sociolinguistic Ethnography of Burmese Students’ Learning Experiences at a Border High School in China. (PhD). Macquarie University.
Li, J. (2020). Transnational migrant students between inclusive discourses and exclusionary practices. Multilingua, 39(2), 193-212. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2019-0125
Li, J., Ai, B., & Zhang, J. (2020). Negotiating language ideologies in learning Putonghua: Myanmar ethnic minority students’ perspectives on multilingual practices in a borderland school. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 41(7), 633-646. doi:10.1080/01434632.2019.1678628
Li, J., & Han, H. (2020). Learning to orient toward Myanmar: ethnic Chinese students from Myanmar at a university in China. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 1-19. doi:10.1080/07908318.2020.1858095
Piller, I. (2017). Intercultural communication. Edinburgh University Press.
Piller, I. (Ed.) (2020). Language-on-the-Move COVID-19 Archives.
Piller, I., Zhang, J., & Li, J. (2020). Linguistic diversity in a time of crisis: Language challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. Multilingua, 39(5), 503-515. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/multi-2020-0136/html

First up is Tazin Abdullah’s inquiry into COVID-19 information aimed at international students in intensive English courses in Australia. Access to timely high-quality information is key during any crisis and it is widely acknowledged that English language learners in Australia have often been left out of timely high-quality information. But is there such a thing as too much information and does quantity compromise quality?

***

(Image credit: Kristina Tripkovic via Unsplash)

“Getting information off the Internet is like taking a drink from a fire hydrant,” says Mitchell Kapor, the founder of Lotus Development Corporation. He may have, originally, addressed this to fellow IT professionals but that image of information gushing out strikes a chord with many. It rings especially true in the context of COVID-19, where the transmission of information has been the modus operandi for almost every institution. Today, none of us can envisage functioning without a steady flow of information but in some situations, does it drown in itself?

ELICOS students in Australia

Take, for example, the case of ELICOS (English Language Intensive Courses for Overseas Students) students. ELICOS courses are offered by Australian universities to enable international students to fulfill English language requirements for university entry. The students have stringent visa conditions regarding attendance and academic progress. They must pass their courses, as failure to pass means they have to repeat that same ELICOS course, while their university entry is delayed.

Formal requirements are only part of the story

While all these formal requirements are outlined in black and white, the everyday challenges facing ELICOS students may not be so apparent. These students face the same challenges that have been identified for international students and language learners in other contexts (Piller, 2016; Barakos & Plöger, 2020; Li, Xie, Ai, & Li, 2020).

During their time in Australia, they are engaged in the process of getting their head around a new language. At the same time, they must read and write academically in that new language and sit examinations that test their language skills in relation to specific subject matters, e.g., accounting or current affairs.

The challenges of being a newcomer

Now, add one more layer to this complexity. They are in a new country, interacting with previously unknown systems, and in unfamiliar socio-cultural contexts. Consequently, ELICOS students must decipher all sorts of important and relevant non-academic information. In a new country, they must find out who to call in an emergency or how to go to a doctor. To do these things effectively, they must not only be able to read information but also to locate it.

Teaching institutes are legally required to provide information

This necessitates legislative frameworks such as the Australian ESOS (Education Services for Overseas Students) Act, under which ELICOS institutions carry the responsibility of making adequate support and welfare information available to students. Students must know where to find emergency, medical, mental health, accommodation, health insurance services, and more. The aim is to ensure that they have access to all kinds of information relating to living and operating in a new country. Given the linguistic difficulties that ELICOS students face, the effective communication of all of this requires great effort, even without COVID-19.

With the onset of the pandemic, this communication challenge took on a whole new dimension.

Providing orientation information online

As institutions moved online, the provision of support information also relied entirely on online mechanisms (Behan, 2020). One of the changes that has taken place is that orientation programmes have become virtual. They take place via the Zoom format of presenters speaking and sharing slides with links, contact details and videos. Students are being sent emails, also full of links and contact details for support services. At the same time, students are receiving voluminous emails regarding academic matters.

To observe the impact of these changes, it is useful to examine online orientations in contrast to pre-COVID-19 face-to-face orientations. Orientations always involve the provision of multiple links and contact details but the face-to-face format allows presenters to address the specific linguistic needs of ELICOS students.

For example, prior to providing contact details for mental health support, there would be an explanation of what mental health is. This will usually involve interactive games or activities that arouse the interest and hold the attention of students. Once an ELICOS student understands what mental health is and can contextualise the language around the subject, contact details for mental health support will mean more than just letters and numbers on a slide.

Face-to-face orientations are also structured to provide a large amount of information at a pace suitable to ELICOS students. In contrast, online orientations are compressed into shorter time frames. This includes all the usual support information plus specific direction regarding COVID-19, but minus the interactive activities that help a student contextualise and understand that information.

Drowning in emails

Then, there are emails. The volume of pandemic-time emails has inundated inboxes, with students feeling like they are drowning in a sea of information. In a survey I conducted at the Macquarie University English Language Centre (see also Abdullah, 2020), students lamented that they find it difficult to look at inboxes and distinguish where each email has come from.

When they open emails, they are confused by the number of email addresses and the variety of links to go to for information. Consequently, students skim to find what they regard as essential, e.g., the how to enrol or pay fees and they overlook information about support services.

Drawing attention to support services

So, how can support and welfare information attract the attention of ELICOS students? Student attention is already scattered over several online platforms and digital multi-tasking can reduce effective reception of information (May & Elder, 2018). As students are digitally multi-tasking at unprecedented levels, students themselves suggested being innovative with online communication tools.

For instance, GIFs and memes can be used to promote support services or provide contact details. Another idea is to use short animated videos that demand less time from viewers and also deal with each aspect of welfare at a time. These videos can be played at different times throughout the length of ELICOS courses, so students can be reminded gently of the support available.

Listen to the target community

This input from students that was provided in the survey is a meaningful reminder of the valuable contribution the target community itself can make (Carlo, 2020). Not only can they assist by highlighting their specific literacy needs but the ‘grassroots’ knowledge they possess will inform the design of communication that is most effective for them (Piller, Jia & Zhang, 2020).

Developing a base of community volunteers (Piller, 2020) who can assist in producing context-appropriate and relevant GIFs, memes or videos will help to develop communication tools and methods that are community-centred and thus, more inclusive.

Centering ELICOS students

It is important for ELICOS students to be seen as a community of their own within the larger international student cohort. They have unique needs when it comes to assistance with navigating any kind of information. Now, more than ever, support and welfare information is pertinent, as they endeavour for success in their university education during the international crisis we are facing.

It is imperative that institutions ensure that the message of support reaches, not overwhelms, ELICOS students.

References

Abdullah, T. (2020, September 18). How can we support you better? Looking after ELICOS students in uncertain times [Presentation Slides]. 2020 English Australia Conference. Australia. https://www.englishaustralia.com.au/documents/item/1072
Barakos, Elisabeth, & Plöger, Simone. (2020, May 25). Recent-arrival migrant students during the Covid-19 school closures. Language on the Move. https://languageonthemove.com/recent-arrival-migrant-students-during-the-covid-19-school-closures/
Behan, T. (2020, September 8). Bringing Back Our International Students: The Future of International Education across Australia and New Zealand [Zoom Webinar]. Monash Migration and Inclusion Centre. https://monash.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_wvxIR2YFTB-no6I9b7Wf5A?fbclid=IwAR3wHidfa7D9zCSOit3HF2XPzoiCTc95G7ju3fZ-SoagFdcPxsB8J5H_NZM
Carlo, P. D. (2020, August 6). Message- vs. community-centered models in risk communication. Language on the Move. https://languageonthemove.com/message-vs-community-centered-models-in-risk-communication/
Li, J., Xie, P., Ai, B., & Li, L. (2020, August 17). Multilingual communication experiences of international students during the COVID-19 Pandemic, Multilingua, 39(5), 529-539, doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2020-0116
May, K. E. & Elder, A. D. (2018). Efficient, helpful, or distracting? A literature review of media multitasking in relation to academic performance. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 15 (1) 1-17.doi: 10.1186/s41239-018-0096-z
Piller, I. (2016). Linguistic diversity and social justice. Oxford University Press. DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199937240.001.0001
Piller, I. (2020, October 12). Crisis communication in multilingual Australia. https://languageonthemove.com/crisis-communication-in-multilingual-australia/
Piller, I. Jia, L. & Zhang, J. (2020, August 28) Linguistic diversity in a time of crisis: Language challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. Multilingua 39(5): 503–515. DOI: https://www.degruyter.com/view/journals/mult/39/5/article-p503.xml

Wei Duan introduces herself to a group of Bangladeshi students at Yunnan University

As a postgraduate student at Yunnan University in Southwest China, I have been conducting a longitudinal ethnography with a group of international students from Bangladesh since their arrival at my university in 2018. While receiving Putonghua-mediated courses, many of my participants complain that they do not see their identities as Chinese language learners depicted in their textbooks. Their exposure to Chinese language textbooks does not expand their intercultural communication capacity but reduces them into reproducing stereotypes.

How is that possible? One of the reasons relates to the representation of interlocutors’ cultural elements in Chinese textbooks, as I found in my research.

The selected data for investigation of Chinese language textbooks are the eight textbooks of the Boya series including four levels: Elementary I/II, Quasi-intermediate I/II, Intermediate I/II, and Advanced I/II. The reasons for selecting this series are that Boya textbooks are the main materials for Bangladeshi students learning Chinese at my university. These textbooks have been published by Peking University Press and were approved by China’s national Eleventh Five-year Plan for general higher education.

Despite their thoroughly Chinese identity, an investigation of the linguistic and cultural representations of the imagined Chinese language learners in these textbooks reveals surprisingly Anglo-centric perspectives on human diversity.

International students with innate English proficiency

One of these Anglo-centric assumptions about Chinese language learners is that they naturally have English language proficiency.

Among eight Boya textbooks, there are 69 units in total and each unit consists of a Chinese reading passage with more than 30 lists of words for explanation. Almost all of the Chinese words listed are matched with English definitions. The frequency of using English as equivalent translation for Chinese words and Chinese grammatical knowledge is quite intense for the elementary level I and II. For example, the phonological knowledge of Chinese language is illustrated with English translation: “汉语的音节由三部分组成：声母、韵母和声调。声调不同，意义就可能不一样” (Among the components of a Chinese syllable, there is tone besides the initial and the final. Syllables with same initials and finals but in different tones usually have different meanings) (Elementary I, p. 1).

Examples such as these are obviously informed by the assumption that international students learning Chinese can refer to English as help if they find Chinese words difficult to understand. However, this assumption is questionable and not borne out by the reality that not all international students are proficient in English.

What further problematizes such English translations is their redundancy and low quality. When international students move to intermediate and advanced levels, they are assumed to be able to understand the basic terms but need additional help in culture-loaded words such as “宝剑” and “内涵”. However, these two words have been mistranslated into “double-edged sword” and “intention” respectively on p. 79 from Intermediate II and p. 45 from Advanced I. In reality, “宝剑” is best translated simply as “sword”. It refers to a traditional hand sword used as a weapon. “内涵” is used to describe someone’s quality or cultural knowledge of a certain practice. It has numerous English translations, including “attribute”, “connotation”, and “inner quality”.

English as panacea in China

Apart from the overwhelming coverage of English translation, English is constructed as a panacea in China: English is presented as the key to solving intercultural communication problems, finding a profitable job, and establishing social status. This is illustrated in the following example, a sample dialogue between a Chinese restaurant owner and international students at a Chinese restaurant in China.

有一天，我们四个刚来中国的老外去饭馆吃饭。点菜的时候碰到了麻烦：我们不认识菜单上那些奇奇怪怪的菜的名字。老板想了不少办法，希望我们能明白这些菜是什么。他一边做着奇怪的动作，一边在桌子上画画。他重复了好几遍，可我们还是猜不出他的意思。这时，一个中国姑娘在旁边说话了：“老板，很多老外不吃鸭头，也不吃猪心、猪肚。”她又用英语解释给我们听。听了她的解释，再想想老板的动作，我们都笑了。我们上了来北京后最有用的一堂课，记住了“心”“肝”“肚”“下水”。

One day, we four newcomers went to a Chinese restaurant. We had some trouble ordering dishes because we didn’t know the odd names on the menu. The owner tried several ways to make us understand what dishes they were. He was drawing pictures on the table while doing weird actions. He repeated several times, but we still couldn’t get his meaning. At this moment, a Chinese girl said to the owner, “many foreigners don’t eat duck heads, pig hearts or stomach.” Then she explained to us in English. Hearing her explanation and recalling the funny actions of the owner, we all laughed. This was the most useful lesson we had when we first arrived in Beijing. We remembered the words for “heart”, “liver”, “belly” and “meatloaf” in Chinese. (Quasi-intermediate I, p. 32, my translation)

The above excerpt seems to convey a delightful tone in understanding Chinese culture. However, a close examination of the excerpt indicates the unequal and hierarchical relation. First of all, the Chinese restaurant owner turns out to be incompetent and powerless in front of a group of newly arrived international students in Beijing, the capital city of China. Instead of using Putonghua, the lingua franca in China or turning to any translation apps, it is the Chinese restaurant owner who has to make all the effort to make himself understood by using “weird” and “funny” actions. Second, the newly arrived international students seem to be the norm-givers in judging what to eat, what is “odd” and “weird”, and how others are supposed to behave when any intercultural communication problems arise. The efforts made by the restaurant owner are not appreciated but considered as laughing stock for fun. Thirdly, it is English that comes to the rescue and helps overcome the supposed embarrassment of the Chinese restaurant owner doing business in China.

The effortless experiences that the Chinese language learners represented in the textbooks have in China is often associated with constructing “laowai” (foreigners) as desirable speaker of English in China,

在大城市，能说英语的人太多。在北京，连出租车司机也能说英语。很多时候你刚说出“你好”，好学的中国人就会马上说起英语来。由于你的汉语不如他们的英语流利，所以常常是他们说，你听。

In big cities, many people can speak English. In Beijing, even taxi drivers can speak English. Many times when you begin to say “Hello” in Chinese, studious Chinese will immediately talk with you in English. As your Chinese is not as fluent as their English, it is you who listen and them who speak. (Quasi-intermediate II, p. 32, my translation)

English is also constructed in Chinese language textbooks as desirable capital for getting a profitable job and upgrading social status.

汽车杂志》诚聘记者2名：汽车专业、中文专业或其他相关专业大学本科以上，英语 6级 425分以上或托福 500 分以上。

“Automobile Magazine” is looking for two journalists with majors in Automotive Studies or Chinese or other related subjects with Bachelor degree or above. The applicants should provide their English certificates either with more than 425 scores in CET 6 or more than 500 in TOFEL. (Quasi-intermediate II, p. 62, my translation)

王大伟的简历：在美国上大学，在英国读研究生，在中国学汉语，在美国 IBM 公司做工程师，香港 IBM 公司经理，上海大学教授，北京大学教授。

Wang Dawei’s CV: undergraduate study in the USA, postgraduate in UK, learning Chinese language in China; an engineer in the American IBM company, a manager in Hong Kong IBM company, professor in Shanghai University and Peking University. (Quasi-intermediate I, p. 206, my translation)

The USA as source of reference

When non-Chinese cultures and identities are referenced in the eight Boya Chinese language textbooks, USA-related cultural practices and figures predominate and they always are presented in a positive light. Statements like “美国人……” (American people are …) or “美国……” (the USA is …) are ubiquitous throughout the textbooks. If the topic is about self-introduction, American people are definitely included in the content. If it is about geography, the USA, or US states and cities such as California or New York are chosen as example for comparison. With other social issues like education, festivals, food or the economy, the USA is the ever-present reference point in the textbooks.

The USA not only predominates quantitatively but is also constructed as a desirable way of living. One of the highly valued qualities is that the USA is constructed as the best destination for learning English. “我想学习英语， 我一定要去美国” (I want to learn English. I must go to the USA) (Elementary I, p. 180). Besides, the USA is reproduced as the most developed and most powerful country. For instance, on p. 105 from textbook Advanced II, the USA is described as “世界最发达国家” (the most developed country in the world); on p. 167 from textbook Intermediate I: “在今天的世界舞台上，美国扮演着非常重要的角色” (The United States plays a very important role throughout the world today). Apart from that, American people are represented as successful, innovative and flexible.

比尔盖茨20岁有了自己的公司，开始做微软老板

Bill Gates had his own company at the age of 20 and has became the boss of Microsoft. (Intermediate I, p. 112, my translation)

Other American figures such as Olympic athletes and the founder of Disney are also positively represented in these Chinese language textbooks, to name only a few.

工作时是医院的大夫还是公司老板，一到球场美国人就会完全变成另一个人。他们会身    穿公牛队服，脚上穿着200美元一双的耐克运动鞋，把自己当作一个篮球运动员，完全       和他们本来的身份不同。

They might be hospital doctors or company owners. As long as American people go to a basketball match, they will wear Bull uniform and Nike shoes worth US$200 and make themselves look like basketball players, totally different from who they are. (Quasi-intermediate I, p. 75, my translation)

Wei Duan celebrates the successful defense of her thesis together with her supervisor Dr Li Jia

Where does the ubiquity of English leave Bangladeshi Chinese language learners?

As one of my Bangladeshi friends complained: “My country has been colonized by Britain for over 200 years. I used to think I could escape from English control when I migrated to China, but you see what I’ve learned here? All about America!”

My friend has good reason to point out the Americanized orientation in China as exemplified in the Boya Chinese language textbooks. They construct a world where English and the USA are on top, Chinese and China are subordinate, and other languages and countries simply don’t exist. As such, these Chinese language textbooks surprisingly replicate English monolingual ways of seeing a multilingual world (Piller, 2016).

This erasure not only frustrates and denies international students of non-English backgrounds but also limits the potential of Chinese language learning as bridging China to the world. It is high time that a more inclusive approach should be adopted in Chinese language textbooks targeting international students of diverse backgrounds.

Reference

Piller, I. (2016). Monolingual ways of seeing multilingualism. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 11(1), 25-33. doi:10.1080/17447143.2015.1102921 [available open access] ]]> https://languageonthemove.com/can-chinese-language-learning-reinforce-english-supremacy/feed/ 25 22517 https://languageonthemove.com/international-students-and-language-opportunity-or-threat/ https://languageonthemove.com/international-students-and-language-opportunity-or-threat/#comments Tue, 30 May 2017 23:29:18 +0000 http://www.languageonthemove.com/?p=20353

Do we see international students as opportunity or threat? (Screenshot from ‘Degrees of Deception’)

With recent news on the number of international students in Australia reaching a new high and the 19.4 billion-dollar revenue student fees generate for the Australian economy, these students’ experience in Australia has become an important issue. Two different points of view can be distinguished: while one perspective sees international students as enriching Australian society through their diversity, another one frames them as problematic Other. Their imputed low English language proficiency is often seen as the root cause of the latter. While there have been attempts at representing international students in the media through the first perspective, I argue below that these attempts can only work if language proficiency is addressed in a constructive way, that goes beyond the monolingual mindset.

In their study, Paltridge, Mayson and Schappler (2014) analysed news articles covering international students from The Australian newspaper published between 2009 and 2011. The researchers found that media discourses result in the dual phenomenon of ‘welcome and exclusion […] by constructing them as “economic units” wanted and welcomed by the nation, as well as unwanted “exploiters of the immigration system” and excluded “victims” of violence and racism’ (p. 108). These media articles obviously frame students as a problematic out-group.

“Degrees of Deception”

The issue of English language proficiency also featured strongly in an episode of an ABC program, 4 Corners, entitled ‘Degrees of deception’ in April 2015, which focused on declining academic standards. According to the introduction, declining academic standards were evident in the rising ‘tide of academic misconduct’ and the pressure for academics to pass weak students (so-called ‘soft marking’). According to the report, these are due to the combined effect of a decline in government funding for universities and the increasing reliance on international student fees. International students, so the show’s claim, are ‘desperate for a degree from an Australian university and the possibility of a job and permanent residency’. Consequently, entry requirements have supposedly been lowered and cheating and plagiarism have become widespread. The episode claims that academics are appalled but are afraid to speak up for fear of their jobs.

After airing the episode, the 4 Corners team stressed on their Facebook and Twitter accounts that the episode was not about ‘international students being worse than other students’. However, a corpus linguistic analysis of the episode transcript reveals that the the most frequent content words on the show – ‘student’ and ‘students’ – usually refer to ‘international students’. This group was referred to 88% of the time when using the word ‘student’; by contrast, local students are referenced in only 7% of occurrences. Moreover, the word ‘student’ most commonly collocates with or appears close to words with negative connotations, like ‘exploited’, ‘weak/weaker’, ‘targeting’, or ‘struggling’.

Secondly, the vast majority of social media comments on Facebook related to the show discussed international students as inadequate on the basis of some form of low English language competence.

Using Van Leeuwen’s (1996) social actor framework, I have also found that international students as social actors are often abstracted behind concepts such as ‘fall in standards’, ‘poor English’, ‘pressure on the system’, ‘plagiarism’ and ‘income’. The analysis shows that the 4 Corners episode did in fact imply that international students are worse than others; their low English language proficiency is constructed as the root cause of this problem.

What is more, the fact that the findings of Paltridge et al. (2014) focusing on a conservative newspaper, The Australian, are echoed in a data set coming from a more liberal media outlet and its supposedly more liberal audience, suggests that this stereotyping of international students is widespread in Australia.

The Othering of international students on the basis of language proficiency needs to be addressed. One way to do so is by reflectively engaging with linguistic diversity through addressing the monolingual mindset prevalent in Australia, which makes it difficult to move beyond defining international students as the perpetual Other in the ‘white Anglo space’ of the Australian university.

Related content

• Grace Chu-Lin Chang, Language learning challenges of international students
• Grace Chu-Lin Chang, What is “Competent English”?
• Grace Chu-Lin Chang, Losing voice in academic writing
• Ingrid Piller, Exclusion on campus
• Ingrid Piller, Sink or swim for international students
• Kimie Takahashi, Disenchanted in Bangkok

Language Lovers Blogging Competition 2017

If you liked this post, don’t forget to vote for Language on the Move in the 2017 Language Lovers blogging competition over at the ba.bla voting page! Voting closes on June 06.

References

Paltridge, T., Mayson, S., & Schapper, J. (2014). Welcome and exclusion: an analysis of The Australian newspaper’s coverage of international students Higher Education, 68 (1), 103-116 DOI: 10.1007/s10734-013-9689-6

Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). The representation of social actors. In C. R. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Couthard (Eds.), Texts and practices: readings in critical discourse analysis. London, New York: Routledge.

“Learn Chinese, Double Your World”: Promotion of Chinese as a global language

Research seminar about the language learning experiences of Burmese high school students in China

Topic: Following the China Dream (中国梦): Burmese students in a Yunnan border high school

Where: Macquarie University, S2.6 (AHH) 1.620 Faculty Tute Rm (16UA),

When: Wednesday, 22 February, 13:00-14:00

Presenter: Li Jia

Host: Professor Ingrid Piller

Abstract: In the current era of globalization desired migration destinations are no longer confined to Anglophone and Western countries. Given the increasing prominence of China’s economy and soft power projection in the world, China has emerged as an increasingly attractive destination for international students. One of the first studies to systematically examine their educational experiences, this seminar shares findings from an ethnographic research project on Burmese students’ language learning experiences at a border high school in Yunnan in China’s south-west. The focus will be on the educational barriers experienced by Burmese migrant students, the educational policies and teaching practices affecting them, the agentive practices of migrant students and their interactions with the educational context in which they find themselves. The presentation will be of interest not only to those with a background in Educational Linguistics and Chinese Studies but to anyone wishing to understand how migrant education produces and reproduces the social order, particularly against the novel promotion of Chinese as a global language.

Li Jia (3rd from left) during field work

About the presenter: LI Jia is Associate Professor of Foreign Languages at Yunnan University. For the past three years, she has been a PhD student in the Linguistics Department at Macquarie University. Under the supervision of Ingrid Piller and as a member of the Language on the Move research group, she has conducted a critical sociolinguistic ethnography of the education experiences of Burmese migrant students in China. Her thesis is currently under examination. Her research interests are in the sociolinguistics of language learning and ASEAN students’ education in her native Yunnan, China.

In February 2011, my husband and I moved from Taiwan to Sydney to pursue our PhD studies. Excited about coming to Australia for the first time, we were keen to try out our English and immerse ourselves in the English language community, even speaking with an Australian accent. However, after a few weeks in Sydney I began to wonder where I could immerse myself in English, let alone English with an Australian accent. For one thing, most of the new people I met seemed to be from mainland China. Once they knew I was from Taiwan, they tended to speak to me in Mandarin. Due to the popularity of Taiwanese TV variety shows in China, some were keen to talk to me about the shows that they had watched, and having these fun conversations in English seemed an unlikely proposition. For another thing, when I walked from my unit to the campus, which took about 30 minutes, along the way I frequently overheard Mandarin, while seeing many Mandarin advertisements for renting and trading goods posted on the electric poles. The Mandarin language was used much more widely in Sydney than I had ever expected.

My husband was in the same situation. He was located in a research office, sharing with three other Chinese PhD students in the department. Instead of speaking English, he was speaking Mandarin most of the time. The only chance for him to speak English was with his supervisor during their one-hour weekly meeting. Another student from Taiwan also told me she was concerned about the slow improvement in her English. She had expected to acquire English quickly and easily, but she had not done so. “I don’t feel like my English is any better than it was before I came,” she confided. “There are no local students in my accounting classes. My classmates are all international students, and about 90 percent are from China.” Similar to us, she came all the way to Australia and to her surprise found herself in classes where most of her peers were Mandarin speakers so that she spoke Chinese every day. Furthermore, she found it hard to make local Australian friends at university, despite the fact that she has a very lively and easy-going personality. Interestingly, she was not the first person I met here who told me that they wished they had local Australian friends and could experience more of Australian culture.

And it is this experience that shaped my PhD research!

This qualitative study explores the contemporary linguistic environment in Australian higher education, which has evolved as a result of globalization to accommodate a large number of incoming international students who are using English as a second language. Among them Chinese international students stand out as the largest group, which, for instance, made up 39.9 percent of all higher education enrolments in 2014. This study explores the new phenomenon of the Mandarin language predominating among languages other than English in Australian higher education. The study shows how the changing linguistic environment shapes Taiwanese international students’ experiences in Australia, as a group who happen to share a common language with Chinese students but do not belong to the same cohort.

Based on ethnographic fieldwork spanning three years, this study follows the trajectories of thirty-five Taiwanese higher education students from ten universities in four different states in Australia. The study investigates in-depth how language learning intersects with their motivation to invest in overseas study, their participation in educational settings as well as in local communities, their sense of identity and belonging, and their overall study experience.

Data include one-on-one interviews, personal communications, field notes, and participants’ academic writing assignments and the feedback they received.

Employing content analysis, the study finds that these Taiwanese international students chose to invest in studying in Australia in order to attain English language proficiency, internationalization, and self-fulfilment. However, when they sojourned in Australia, there was a clash between a monolingual language ideology, where English was the target language, and multilingual language realities, where Mandarin was widely used. The unexpected linguistic environment mediated their use of English despite their strong motivation to enter English-speaking networks. In addition, the Master’s participants often found themselves participating peripherally in classroom and group work. For PhD participants, their candidature was often a lonely experience with little institutional or community support. As regards participants’ experiences with academic writing, the study identifies gaps in institutional language support services. Furthermore, the feedback given to the research participants on their academic writing was oftentimes ineffective and did not facilitate their learning.

Besides university study, the study also presents participants’ language use and settlement experiences outside university, a previously underexplored area. Domains, including church, accommodation, and romance, are examined and successful cases are presented of participants who were lucky to find a bridge to extend their social network as well as improve their language skills.

Overall, the study argues that language is a manifestation of participation, which is a dynamic and constantly changing process. The findings have implications for education providers regarding the (language) learning support required by international students.

2012 workshop on ‘Linguistic Diversity and Social Inclusion in Australia’ at Macquarie University

How does language intersect with social inclusion in contemporary Australia? Do social inclusion policies address linguistic diversity? What do we know about the relationship between linguistic diversity and inclusion in schools, workplaces and higher education? It is questions such as these that a special issue of the  Australian Review of Applied Linguistics devoted to Linguistic diversity and social inclusion in Australia addresses. Guest-edited by Ingrid Piller, the special issue brings together selected presentations from the 2012 Macquarie University workshop devoted to the same topic.

Please find abstracts of the articles in the collection below. All the contributions in the special issue are available for open access through the National Library of Australia.

Linguistic diversity and social inclusion in Australia

Ingrid Piller

This editorial introduction orients the reader to current public debates and the state of research with regard to the intersection of linguistic diversity and social inclusion in contemporary Australia. These are characterised by a persistent lack of attention to the consequences of linguistic diversity for our social organisation. The editorial introduction serves to frame the five original research articles that comprise this special issue and identifies the key challenges that linguistic diversity presents for a fair and just social order. These challenges run as red threads through all the articles in this issue and include the persistent monolingual mindset which results in a pervasive language blindness and an inability to even identify language as an obstacle to inclusion. Furthermore, where language is recognised as an obstacle to inclusion this usually takes the form of assuming that an individual suffers from a lack of English language proficiency. Improving English language proficiency is then prescribed as a panacea for inclusion. However, on close examination that belief in itself can constitute a form of exclusion with detrimental effects both on language learning and equal opportunity.

Language and social inclusion: Unexplored aspects of intercultural communication

Simon Musgrave, Julie Bradshaw

Social inclusion policy in Australia has largely ignored key issues of communication for linguistic minorities, across communities and with the mainstream community. In the (now disbanded) Social Inclusion Board’s reports (e.g., Social Inclusion Unit, 2009), the emphasis is on the economic aspects of inclusion, while little attention has been paid to questions of language and culture. Assimilatory aspects of policy are foregrounded, and language is mainly mentioned in relation to the provision of classes in English as a Second Language. There is some recognition of linguistic diversity but the implications of this for inclusion and intercultural communication are not developed. Australian society can now be characterised as super-diverse, containing numerous ethnic groups each with multiple and different affiliations. We argue that a social inclusion policy that supports such linguistic and cultural diversity needs an evidence-based approach to the role of language and we evaluate existing policy approaches to linguistic and cultural diversity in Australia to assess whether inclusion is construed primarily in terms of enhancing intercultural communication, or of assimilation to the mainstream.

Dodgy data, language invisibility and the implications for social inclusion: A critical analysis of indigenous student language data in Queensland schools

Sally Dixon, Denise Angelo

As part of the ‘Bridging the Language Gap’ project undertaken with 86 State and Catholic schools across Queensland, the language competencies of Indigenous students have been found to be ‘invisible’ in several key and self-reinforcing ways in school system data. A proliferation of inaccurate, illogical and incomplete data exists about students’ home languages and their status as English as an Additional Language/Dialect (EAL/D) learners in schools. This is strongly suggestive of the fact that ‘language’ is not perceived by school systems as a significant operative variable in student performance, not even in the current education climate of data-driven improvement. Moreover, the National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN), the annual standardised testing regime, does not collect relevant information on students’ language repertoires and levels of proficiency in Standard Australian English (SAE). Indigenous students who are over-represented in NAPLAN under-performance data are targeted through ‘Closing the Gap’ for interventions to raise their literacy and numeracy achievements (in SAE). However, Indigenous students who are EAL/D learners cannot be disaggregated by system data from their counterparts already fluent in SAE. Reasons behind such profound language invisibility are discussed, as well as the implications for social inclusion of Indigenous students in education.

‘Like the fish not in water’: How language and race mediate the social and economic inclusion of women migrants to Australia

Donna Butorac

Learning English is an important aspect of post-migration settlement in Australia, and new migrants with beginner to intermediate proficiency are strongly encouraged to attend government-subsidised English language classes. Underpinning the framing and delivery of these classes is a commitment to the discursive construction of Australia as an English-monolingual nation state, in which increased English proficiency will lead to new migrants gaining employment, thereby achieving an important benchmark of successful inclusion in Australian society. The assumption that English language acquisition leads to social and economic inclusion is not challenged within the settlement English program, and the language learner is seen as linguistically deficient in English, rather than as an emerging bi- or multilingual. Moreover, the ways that race, as well as gender, mediate both language learning and social inclusion are never problematised. This paper is based on data from a longitudinal ethnography that examines subjectivity in three interactional domains – family, society and work – in order to explore how language, race and gender impact on the post-migration settlement trajectories and sense of social inclusion of women migrants to Australia.

Working it out: Migrants’ perspectives of social inclusion in the workplace

George Major, Agnes Terraschke, Emily Major, Charlotte Setijadi

This paper explores the concept of social inclusion from the perspective of recent migrants, from language backgrounds other than English, at work in Australia. We adopt an understanding of social inclusion that acknowledges the importance of economic independence, while also considering migrants’ feelings of connectedness at work and their sense of belonging. Based on qualitative interviews with migrants collected two years apart, we explore the ways language and language practices can lead to feelings of inclusion or exclusion at work. The data suggests that migrants who felt included at work often had colleagues and/or bosses who actively supported and encouraged them in learning new skills, and made an effort to connect with them through small talk. In contrast, participants who felt excluded were unable to fully participate in work activities and/or workplace interaction because of limitations they or others placed upon them based on their English proficiency. We suggest that social inclusion, as it relates to employment, can also encompass different things for different people. For some, a sense of belonging is not promoted solely by having work or the ability to connect with colleagues, but also by obtaining employment of a type and level commensurate with their pre-migration status.

Writing feedback as an exclusionary practice in higher education

Grace Chu-Lin Chang

This ethnographic research probes into feedback on academic writing received by Taiwanese students in Australian higher education institutions, and examines whether the feedback received helped students to participate in the written discourse of academic communities. Academic writing dominates the academic life of students in Australia and is the key measure of their academic performance. This can be problematic for international students who speak English as an additional language and who are expected to acquire academic literacies in English ‘by doing’. As a social practice, academic writing depends on participation in dialogue for students to be included in the community of academia. However, the findings show that few participants received any useful feedback. Some assignments were never returned; in other cases, the hand-written feedback was illegible, and often included only overly general comments that puzzled the participants. As a result, the learning process came to an end once the students handed in their assignments; feedback failed to promote further learning related to content, and particularly to academic writing. The article highlights the few instances where participants received helpful feedback that was accessible and constructive, and which can be considered best practice for the promotion of academic literacy.